[Pages S3154-S3174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
A bill to authorize the establishment of a suboffice of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service in Fort Smith, Arkansas; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the ``Fort Smith INS Suboffice Act'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 644

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 ``Fort Smith INS Suboffice
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Immigration and Naturalization Service office in
Fort Smith, Arkansas, is an office within the jurisdiction of
the district office in New Orleans, Louisiana.
(2) During the past 10 years, the foreign national
population has grown substantially in the jurisdictional area
of the Fort Smith office.
(3) According to the 2000 census, Arkansas' Hispanic
population grew by 337 percent over the Hispanic population
in the 1990 census. This rate of growth is believed to be the
fastest in the United States.
(4) Hispanics now comprise 3.2 percent of Arkansas'
population and 5.7 percent of the Third Congressional
District of Arkansas' population.
(5) This dramatic increase in immigration will continue as
the growing industries and excellent quality of life of
Northwest Arkansas are strong attractions.
(6) Interstates 540 and 40 intersect in Fort Smith and air
transportation is readily available there.
(7) In the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001,
Congress directed the Immigration and Naturalization Service
to review the staffing needs of the Fort Smith office.
(8) A preliminary review shows that the Fort Smith office
is indeed understaffed. The office currently needs an
additional adjudication officer, an additional information
officer, a part-time ``jack-of-all-trades'' employee, 2 full-
time clerks, and 1 additional enforcement officer.
(9) A suboffice designation would enable the Fort Smith,
Arkansas, office to obtain additional staff as well as an
Officer-in-Charge who would have the authority to sign
documents and take actions related to cases which now must be
forwarded to the New Orleans District Office for approval.
(10) The additional staff, authority, and autonomy that the
suboffice designation would provide the Fort Smith office
would result in a reduction in backlogs and waiting periods,
a significant improvement in customer service, and a
significant improvement in the enforcement of the immigration
laws of the United States.
(11) The designation of the Fort Smith office as a
suboffice would show that the Immigration and Naturalization
Service is--
(A) committed to facilitating the legal immigration process
for those persons acting in good faith; and
(B) likewise committed to enforcing the immigration laws of
the United States.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each fiscal year to establish and operate an
Immigration and Naturalization Service suboffice in Fort
Smith, Arkansas.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Biden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Grassley, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. 645. A bill to require individuals who lobby the President on
pardon issues to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and
to require the President to report any gifts, pledges, or commitments
of a gift to a trust fund established for purposes of establishing a
Presidential library for that President after his or her term has
expired; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this legislation follows consideration by
the Judiciary Committee of the pardons issued by former President
Clinton on January 20, the last day of his administration, and seeks to
reform and correct a couple of major gaps which are present in existing
procedures in two respects; stated succinctly, to require that
lobbyists, such as Jack Quinn, be required to register and that
contributions to Presidential libraries be subject to public
disclosure.
I offer this legislation on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, Hatch,
Kohl, Biden, Feinstein, Sessions, Grassley, and Clinton.
The public record is filled with the details as to what happened with
the notorious pardon of Marc Rich, who was a fugitive for some 17
years, where a pardon was granted at the very last minute without the
pardon attorney at the Department of Justice being informed of the
situation until 1 a.m. on January 20.
When the pardon attorney called the White House to try to get some
information about Marc Rich and Pincus Green, he was told that they
were ``traveling abroad.''
When the pardon attorney testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing
under my questioning, and testified that they were ``traveling
abroad,'' he about broke up the hearing room, for that characterization
to be made of someone who had been a fugitive for 17 years.
In granting the pardon, former President Clinton notified Ms. Beth
Dozoretz, who was very active in lobbying for the pardon, at 11 o'clock
on January 19, some 2 hours in advance of telling the pardon attorney,
and there had been extensive lobbying by Ms. Denise Rich, the former
wife of Marc Rich.
The legislation we are introducing will require that someone such as
Jack Quinn be registered as a lobbyist.
Without going into the details--and they are set forth in the
Judiciary Committee hearing--there were major efforts made to keep this
activity under the so-called radar screen so that nobody would know
about it.
This legislation would require someone in Jack Quinn's position to
register and be known publicly, and then with the kind of public
pressure which would be brought, I think it highly likely that a pardon
such as that granted to Marc Rich would never have been granted.
The second provision deals with contributions for pledges or
commitments to raise money for Presidential libraries. This legislation
provides that there should be public disclosure of those contributions,
pledges, or commitments to raise money, where those pledges or
commitments are made during the term of office.
A pledge to contribute money to a Presidential library has a great
many of the same characteristics as a campaign contribution. The
question is raised about whether or not there is favoritism or
influence sought from that kind of a monetary contribution. By having
the public disclosure, then it would be within public view.
That is the essence of the legislation.
Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into the
pardons and commutations issued by former President Clinton on January
20, 2001, has disclosed major gaps which can be addressed through
legislation. Today I am introducing a bill to address two of these
subjects.
My bill requires individuals who urge officials in the White House to
grant clemency to register as lobbyists. There is currently no
requirement for them to do so. This bill will also require the
disclosure of donations or pledges of $5,000 or more, or commitments to
raise $5,000 or more for presidential libraries while the President is
still in office. Such donations, pledges or commitments are not
currently subject to disclosure, creating a situation where individuals
could make large contributions to the President's library foundation in
the hope of influencing favorable action by the President.
The Senate investigation of the pardons matter has been forward-
looking from the beginning. The objective of the inquiry was to get the
facts out in the open. Once the facts were known, the question was
whether legislative remedies were appropriate.
This legislation does not deal with the President's power to grant
executive clemency since any changes in that power would require a
constitutional amendment.
Former President Jimmy Carter called the pardon of fugitive
commodities trader Marc Rich ``disgraceful,'' and Democratic
Representative Henry Waxman said that ``the failures in the pardon
process should embarrass every Democrat and every American.'' The
outrage over former President Clinton's last minute pardons is bi-
partisan, and I expect there will be bi-partisan support for this
legislation to fix the problems disclosed by the Senate Judiciary
Committee inquiry.
The pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green have sparked the most
public

[[Page S3155]]

outrage, and rightly so. The actions of Hugh Rodham, who took more than
$400,000 for his limited work on the clemency requests for Almon Glenn
Braswell and Carlos Vignali, Jr., and Roger Clinton, who is reportedly
under investigation for trying to peddle access to the White House in
relation to pardons, are similarly outrageous. There are undoubtedly
others who made money from the pardons process, or at least tried to do
so. But let us at least identify them as what they are--lobbyists. When
you get paid money, in some of these cases, lots of money, to argue for
a pardon because you know the President of the United States, or
someone like a relative who is close to the President, what you are
doing is lobbying. Shining sunlight on the activities of these pardon
lobbyists will further the cause of good government.
In a February 18, 2001 op-ed in the New York Times, former President
Clinton said that he had decided to grant Rich and Green clemency for a
number of legal and foreign policy reasons, but it's hard to see how
the facts of the case add up to a pardon. Rich fled to Switzerland in
1983, shortly before he was indicted on 65 counts of racketeering, tax
evasion, mail fraud, wire fraud, violation of Department of Energy
regulations, and trading with the enemy. Then he tried to renounce his
citizenship. Although he could afford the best lawyers in the business,
Rich refused to return to the United States to plead his case in court.
At the time of his pardon, he was still listed on the Justice
Department's list of top international fugitives. Over the course of
seventeen years and three administrations, Rich repeatedly tried to get
the Justice Department to offer him a deal on favorable terms. When
that failed, he orchestrated a plan last year to get a grant of
executive clemency to wipe out the charges against him so he would
never even have to stand trial. In the end, Mr. Rich got his pardon,
but the way he got it shows the need for requiring pardon lobbyists to
register.
In late 2000, after failing to get the Southern District of New York
to make a deal that didn't involve any jail time for Rich and Green,
the Rich legal team began seriously pursuing a pardon strategy. There
is some disagreement on the timing of the decision to seek a pardon,
but the important point is that, once the decision was made to take the
case to the White House, the Rich legal team wanted to keep their
activities out of public view so the Southern District of New York, or
someone else who would oppose the pardon, wouldn't weigh in and scotch
the deal.

There is some evidence that the Rich legal team was considering
seeking a pardon as early as March, 1999. A log from the law firm of
Arnold and Porter cites a March 12, 1999, memorandum from Carol Fischer
to Robert Fink, one of Mr. Rich's lawyers. The document is titled
``Legal Research re: Pardon Power.'' Clearly there was some
consideration of seeking a pardon, or there wouldn't have been a need
to do research on the pardon power.
On February 10, 2000, Robert Fink wrote an e-mail to Avner Azulay,
who works for Mr. Rich in Israel. Fink told Azulay that the latest
efforts to make a deal with the Southern District of New York had
failed because the Department of Justice would not negotiate unless Mr.
Rich returned to the United States to face the charges. Azulay replied
the same day, saying that ``The present impasse leaves us with only one
other option: the unconventional approach which has not yet been tried
and which I have been proposing all along.''
There is also a March 20, 2000 e-mail from Azulay to Fink. In this e-
mail, Azulay tells Fink that ``We are reverting to the idea discussed
with Abe which is to send DR [Denise Rich] on a ``personal'' mission to
NO1. [undoubtedly President Clinton] with a well prepared script.''
Mr. Quinn has testified that the idea of a pardon did not receive
serious consideration until late in the year, but these e-mails raise
questions about that assertion. Under ordinary circumstances, it would
be of no interest when the Rich team made a decision to seek a pardon,
but it is important in this case because there are other e-mails
showing that they tried very hard to keep their efforts secret. For
example, in a December 26, 2000 e-mail, Fink told Quinn that ``Frankly,
I think we benefit from not having the existence of the petition known,
and do not want to contact people who are unlikely to really make a
difference but who could create press or other exposure.''
Later, in a January 9, 2001, e-mail, Quinn told Fink, ``I think we've
benefitted from being under the press radar. Podesta said as much.''
How did they benefit? They benefitted by not having the U.S. Attorney
from the Southern District of New York weigh in with the White House,
by not having the kind of scrutiny from the press that the case has had
since January. Does anyone seriously believe that former President
Clinton would have granted this pardon if the story had broken, with
all the details out in the open, in early January instead of after the
pardon was already a done deal? Of course not. Jack Quinn counted on
being under the radar, and it worked.
This legislation will make it harder for the Jack Quinn's of the
future to stay under the radar. When pardon lobbyists are required to
register, they won't be able to hide their actions until it is too late
for anyone to act. If Jack Quinn had been required to register as a
lobbyist when he started urging officials at the White House to grant
clemency to Rich and Green, the chances are good that this story would
have had a different ending.
This legislation would also cover the activities of Hugh Rodham, who
made more than $400,000 working to get clemency for Almon Glenn
Braswell and Carlos Vignali, Jr. Mr. Braswell is the subject of an
ongoing investigation related to allegations of tax evasion, and
clearly should not have been granted a pardon. Mr. Vignali was one of
the top members of a drug smuggling organization that shipped more than
800 pounds of cocaine from the Los Angeles area to Minnesota. He was
not a likely candidate to have his sentence commuted, and the Pardon
Attorney reportedly recommended that the request be denied. Several of
the members of the drug ring who had smaller roles that Vignali did are
still sitting in jail.

But Carlos Vignali got a pardon. Hugh Rodham's role should have been
subject to public disclosure since he had close family ties to the
White House, reportedly lived at the White House for the last several
weeks of the Clinton Administration and had documents shipped to
himself there.
Roger Clinton was also reportedly involved in several attempts to get
paid for getting pardons for his friends. This matter, like several
others, is reportedly being investigated by the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York. It remains to be seen what she will
find, but we don't have to wait for the end of her investigation to
know that if an individual trades on his access to the White House to
make money, that's lobbying, and he or she should be required to
register as a lobbyist.
The second part of this bill requires the public disclosure of
donations or pledges of $5,000 or more, or commitments to raise $5,000
or more for presidential libraries while the president is still in
office. There are presently no requirements to make such donations
public, and the Clinton library foundation has resisted efforts to
review it's donor list.
Presidential libraries are a relatively new phenomenon, with only ten
of them in existence. Under current law, presidential libraries are
built with private funds, then turned over to the National Archivist
for operation. Amendments to the Presidential Libraries Act have
mandated the establishment of an endowment to cover some of the costs
of operating the library. These goals are usually met through the
establishment of a charitable organization, a 501(c)(3) corporation.
Former Presidents Carter and Bush did not raise any money for their
libraries while they were in office because they were concentrating on
getting re-elected. Because both of these Presidents lost their re-
election bids, they never faced a situation of having to raise money
for a library while they were still in office.
Former Presidents Reagan and Clinton, as two term Presidents, began
raising money for their libraries during their second terms. Officials
from the Reagan library have said that the library fund received
several large contributions from corporate donors while

[[Page S3156]]

former President Reagan was still in office, but the big corporate
donations tailed off rapidly when the President left office.
It is not necessary to suggest that there was any wrongdoing on the
part of former President Reagan or of former President Clinton to
realize that a donor could make a large donations to a presidential
library in the hope of receiving a favorable action from the President
in exchange for the donation. The fact that these donations can be made
without public disclosure makes them a matter of even greater concern.
The Rich case highlights the need for public disclosure of donations
while the President is still in office. Denise Rich, Marc Rich's former
wife, was deeply involved in trying to get a pardon for Rich. She also
gave at least $450,000 to former President Clinton's library
foundation. Beth Dozoretz, former finance chair of the Democratic
National Committee who pledged to raise $1 million for the Clinton
library, also worked on the Rich pardon.
Ms. Dozoretz's involvement in the Rich case is remarkable in that the
former President spent far more time talking to her about it than he
did talking to the prosecutors in the Southern district of New York.
Ms. Dozoretz had at least three conversations with former President
Clinton about the Rich pardon, including one at 11 p.m. on January 19,
2001, the night before the pardon was actually issued.
Ms. Dozoretz had been scheduled to meet with my staff, but she
changed attorneys and declined to be interviewed. But we found out that
she had called the President on the night of January 19, at about 11
P.M. to thank him for granting the pardon for Marc Rich. If Ms.
Dozoretz knew of the Rich pardon in time to call the President at 11
P.M. on the evening of January 19, she found out about the decision at
least two hours before Pardon Attorney Roger Adams, the official who
was charged with actually writing up the pardon warrant. Mr. Adams
testified that he had not heard that Rich and Green were being
considered for clemency until almost 1 A.M. on the morning of January
20. Mr. Adams was told by the White House counsel's office that there
probably wouldn't be much information available on Rich and Green
because they had been ``living abroad'' for several years. That was a
strange way of saying they were fugitives, but Mr. Adams was later able
to figure that out himself. He had his staff research the Internet to
see what he could learn about these two men, and he learned that they
were on the Justice Department's list of most wanted international
fugitives. When he relayed his concerns to the White House, he was told
to prepare the pardon documents anyway.
Ms. Dozoretz has refused to say from whom she learned that the
President had decided to grant Rich's clemency request, but she
apparently knew before the official who was charged with overseeing the
pardon process. Ms. Dozoretz has asserted her privelege against self-
incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, so we have no way of knowing
exactly how she learned that the decision had already been made on
January 19.
But we do have other relevant information. First, Beth Dozoretz
pledged to raise $1 million for the Clinton library. Former President
Clinton spoke to Ms. Dozoretz on January 10, 2001, when she was with
Ms. Rich in Aspen. According to a January 10, 2001, e-mail from Robert
Fink to Jack Quinn, Ms. Dozoretz received a phone call from POTUS, the
President, on January 10. Mr. Fink went on to quote former President
Clinton as saying ``that he wants to do it and is doing all possible to
turn around the WH counsels.'' Ms. Dozoretz has denied saying that the
President was trying to turn around the WH [White House] counsels, but
she has not offered any explanation for what happened. It has been
asserted that the message was garbled, but that explanation is
inconsistent with the facts. All of former President Clinton's top
advisers in the White House--including his Chief of Staff, John
Podesta; his White House Counsel, Beth Nolan; and Bruce Lindsey, one of
his closest political advisers who held the title of Assistant to the
President--looked at the facts and recommended against a pardon. That
is consistent with the former President having to turn around his White
House counsels.
Former President Clinton was unable to turn around his counsels, but
in the end it didn't matter. He issued the pardons anyway, and created
a firestorm. When a President ignores the advice of his closest
advisors, there isn't much we can do since the power of executive
clemency is in the hands of the President alone. But the Congress can
and should ensure that bad judgement on the part of a President does
not undermine the public's confidence in government. The two provisions
in this legislation will help to restore public confidence in the
pardon process.
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. 645

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

SECTION 1. DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO
PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS.

Section 3(8) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1602(8)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in clause (iv), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) the issuance of a grant of executive clemency in the
form of a pardon, commutation of sentence, reprieve, or
remission of fine.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(xii), by striking ``made to'' and
inserting ``except as provided in subparagraph (A)(v), made
to''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

Section 102(a) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) If the reporting individual is the President and is
currently serving as the President, the identity of the
source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts,
pledges, or commitments of a gift aggregating $5000 or more
for the establishment of a Presidential library for that
President after his or her term has expired received from any
source other than a relative of the President during the
preceding calendar year. Information required to be reported
under this paragraph shall be made publicly available in
accordance with this Act.''.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania to introduce legislation aimed at making our government
more open and accountable to the American people. We are pleased to be
joined by six other members of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch,
Kohl, Biden, Feinstein, Sessions, Grassley, and by the new junior
Senator from New York, Senator Clinton.
Our bill closes two loopholes in the laws governing what government
officials and those who lobby them must disclose. First, it amends the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require the President to report any
gifts or pledges of $5,000 or more to a presidential library during the
President's term in office. Second, it adds to the list of individuals
who must register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 those who
lobby on behalf of a client for a grant of executive clemency.
This legislation builds on a hearing held by the Judiciary Committee
on February 14, 2001, relating to the pardons granted by President
Clinton in his last days in office. I said then that we needed to view
these pardons as a whole and in their historical and constitutional
context, not focus exclusively on one or two controversial cases. In
this way, we could learn valuable lessons for the future.
The legislation that we introduce today is a pragmatic and forward-
looking response to customs and practices that long predate the last
Administration. As I have noted before, the controversies surrounding
President Clinton's pardons are not unique.
Other presidents raised substantial funds for their libraries while
still in office. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation opened its
doors and began fundraising in February 1985, nearly four years before
President Reagan left office. By November 1991, the Foundation had
raised between $45 and $65 million. Much of that amount came in large
lump sums from big corporations, a source of funding that reportedly
dried up when President Reagan returned to private life.
Fund raising for the Bush library also began while the president was
still

[[Page S3157]]

in the White House. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, in an article dated
May 25, 1997, quoted former Bush aide Jim Cicconi as saying that fund
raising for the library remained ``low key'' and ``very discreet''
until the president left office in 1993. Established in 1991, while the
president was campaigning for reelection, the George Bush Presidential
Library Foundation initially consisted of three people, including Mr.
Cicconi and the president's son, George W. Bush.
I should add that the donor lists for the Reagan and Bush libraries
were not and have never been disclosed to the public, a failure of
transparency for which President Clinton, but not his predecessors, has
been roundly criticized.
President Clinton was also not the first Chief Executive to grant
clemency to friends or family members of major contributors. The very
first pardon granted by the elder President Bush went to Armand Hammer,
the late chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, who pleaded
guilty in 1975 to making illegal contributions to Richard Nixon's
reelection campaign. Not long before he received his pardon, Hammer
gave over $100,000 to the Republican party and another $100,000 to the
Bush-Quayle Inaugural Committee. The team of lawyers that won Hammer
his pardon included former Reagan Justice Department official, Theodore
Olson. While Mr. Olson's name is well-known now, he was recently
nominated to be Solicitor General, it was more important at the time
that he was a close friend of C. Boyden Gray, the White House Counsel,
and Richard Thornburgh, the Attorney General.
Let me note one more example from the end of the first Bush
Administration: In January 1993, two days before leaving the White
House, President Bush pardoned Edwin Cox, Jr., the son of a wealthy
Texas oilman. The Cox pardon was lobbied for by Bill Clements, the
former governor of Texas, who contacted James Baker, then White House
Chief of Staff. Not surprisingly, Mr. Baker mentioned the Cox family
largesse in a note to the White House Counsel, referencing Edwin Cox
Sr. as a ``longtime supporter of the president's.'' The Cox family had
in fact contributed nearly $200,000 to the Bush family's political
campaigns and to other Republican campaign committees. Shortly after
the president pardoned his son, Cox Sr. made a generous contribution to
the Bush Presidential Library. His name is now etched in gold on the
exterior of the Library alongside the names of other ``benefactors,''
those contributing between $100,000 and $250,000.
I mention these Bush-era pardons because they demonstrate that
pardons which have become controversial and appear improper given the
confluence of insider lobbying and financial contributions are not
unique to the end of President Clinton's term in office. The bill we
introduce today will bring a greater degree of transparency into the
clemency process and so reduce the appearance of impropriety that may
otherwise attach to a presidential pardon.
I thank Senator Specter for the thoughtful and even-handed manner in
which he conducted the Committee's hearing last month, and commend him
for seeking constructive and bipartisan solutions.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD.
S. 646. A bill to reform the Army Corps of Engineers; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of
Engineers Reform Act of 2001. I am joined today in this effort by my
colleague in the other body, Congressman Ron Kind.
As I introduce this bill, I realize that it is a work in progress.
Reforming the Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress.
It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a federal
agency rocked by recent scandals, and yet an agency that we in
Wisconsin, and many states across the country, have come to rely upon.
From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved
in providing aids to navigation, environmental remediation, water
control and a variety of other services to my state. My office has
strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St.
Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the cloud over
the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to
our environment and our economy.
This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an
amendment last year to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to
create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. My
interest in an independent review amendment was shared by the Minority
Leader, Mr. Daschle, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and a
number of taxpayer and environmental organizations including: the
League of Conservation Voters, American Rivers, Coast Alliance,
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League of America,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Taxpayers for Common
Sense.
In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, Senator Smith and
Senator Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package
which should help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and
Public Works Committee, the additional information it needs to develop
and refine legislation on this issue through a one year study by the
National Academy of Sciences, NAS, on peer review. As part of the
discussions with the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the
Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, over the amendment I intended to
offer, they have agreed that as the NAS conducts its review, they will
hold hearings on the issue of Corps reform and on this bill. It is my
hope that through hearings the NAS study and my bill can dovetail
nicely so that we have a fully vetted bill which can then be fine-tuned
by the NAS recommendations. I feel that this body should pass a serious
reform bill this year.
The bill I introduce today addresses more than the issue of
independent review of Corps Projects. The bill is a comprehensive
revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The aim is to increase transparency and
accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, to balance economic
and environmental interests, and to allow greater stakeholder
involvement.
The National Research Council recently completed a study of the
Corps' analysis of a proposed extension of several locks on the Upper
Mississippi River, Illinois Waterway after approximately $50 million
was spent examining the feasibility of the proposed project. The
National Research Council made several recommendations to revise the
inland waterway and water resources system planning. And, as I
mentioned, a second National Research Council study, required by the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, is now examining whether the
Corps should establish a program of independent review of projects.
This bill builds on the key recommendations of the National Research
Council study:
The Corps should have project review by an interdisciplinary group of
experts outside the Corps of Engineers,
The Corps should include a broader range of stakeholders in the
planning process,
The Corps should revise the water resources project planning
framework in their internal planning documents (known as the Principles
and Guidelines) so that ecological concerns are not considered
secondary to economic benefits.
The bill achieves this by creating both Stakeholder Advisory
Committees and Independent Review Panels. Currently, the Corps goes
through a multi-step process leading to project approval and
construction. In the existing process, the public has limited
involvement and environmental costs can be underestimated.
Stakeholder Advisory Committees--comprised of a balance of local
government, other federal agencies, interest groups reflecting social,
economic, and environmental interests, and interested private
citizens--are authorized to provide input in the planning process. The
Corps is required to form a Committee under the bill upon receipt of a
written request to the Corps by any person to do so. The Committee is
comprised of volunteers, and is allowed to provide input to the Corps
beginning in the early project stages, such as the drafting of a
feasibility study for a project, and conclude at the release of a draft
environmental impact statement when the broader public is

[[Page S3158]]

brought into the project. The Corps is also restricted so that they can
spend no more than on the staffing or operations of $250,000 a
Committee. In addition, Committee meetings must meet the requirements
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA. Any Committee expenses are
to be considered as part of the total costs of the project.
The bill also provides a comprehensive review of water resources
projects by a panel with expertise in biology, engineering and
economics. The projects that will become subject to review include any
projects, or significant modifications to existing projects:

with an estimated cost of over $25 million (approximately
40 percent of the projects funded through the Water Resources
Development Act),
for which the Governor of an affected State requests
independent review,
that are determined to have significant adverse impacts on
fish and wildlife after implementation of proposed mitigation
plans by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, For which the head
of another Federal Agency charged with reviewing the
project determines that the project has a significant
adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other
resources under their jurisdiction, or
Determined by the Corps to be ``controversial'' in its
scope, impact, or cost-benefit analysis.

To address concerns that the Independent Review Panel needs to be
truly independent, the Office of Independent Review is established
within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. This
office, located in the Pentagon, provides the greatest amount of
independence for the review process since the Office of the Assistant
Secretary is separate from and above the Chief of Engineers who runs
the Corps. Independent reviews are required to be completed in 180 days
after they start. They are able to run concurrently with the
Environmental Impact Statement Process under NEPA, and, ideally, will
conform to that time frame.
As with the Stakeholder Committees, the costs of these Panels are
capped at no more than $500,000. Any panel expenses are to be
considered as part of the total costs of the project and a Panel's
product is required to be released to the public and to be submitted to
Congress.
It is my hope that this legislation will increase transparency of the
Corps' decision-making process through greater accessibility by the
public and interested stakeholder groups. While there are heartening
signs of reform in the Corps Civil Works program, Congress should be
working to create an independent process to help affirm when the Corps
gets it right and help to provide a means for identifying problems
before taxpayer funded construction investments are made. Today we
begin that work in earnest.
I feel that this bill is a practical first step down the road to a
reformed Corps of Engineers. Independent review would catch mistakes by
Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to
justify questionable projects, and would provide planners desperately
needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters.
Those boosters, Mr. President, include Congressional interests, which
is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the
perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance.
I wish it were the case, that I could argue that additional oversight
were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for
additional scrutiny. In the Upper Mississippi there is troubling
evidence of abuse. There is troubling evidence from whistleblowers that
senior Corps officials, under pressure from barge interests, ordered
their subordinates to exaggerate demand for barges in order to justify
new Mississippi River locks. This is a matter which is still under
investigation, and I hope that no evidence of wrongdoing will
ultimately be found. Adequate assessment of the environmental impacts
of barges is also very important. I am also concerned that the Corps'
assessment of the environmental impacts of additional barges does not
adequately assess the impacts of barge movements on fish, backwaters
and aquatic plants. We should not gamble with the environmental health
of the river. If we allow more barges on the Mississippi, we must be
sure the environmental impacts of those barges are fully mitigated.
I am raising this issue principally because I believe that Congress
should act to restore trust in the Corps if we are effectively going to
address navigation and environmental needs. The first step in restoring
that trust is restoring the credibility of the Corps' decision-making
process.
Unfortunately, Congress now finds itself having to reset the scales
to make economic benefits and environmental restoration co-equal goals
of project planning. Our rivers serve many masters, barge owners as
well as bass fisherman, and the Corps' planning process should reflect
the diverse demands we place on them. I want to make sure that future
Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop
costing more than the Corps estimated, and do not have unanticipated
environmental impacts. This bill will help us monitor the result of
projects so that we can learn from our mistakes and, when possible,
correct them. As a first step, I have committed myself to making Corps
reform a priority in this Congress with this bill. 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. 646

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Corps of
Engineers Reform Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definition of Secretary.

TITLE I--PROJECT PLANNING REFORM

Sec. 101. Principles and guidelines.
Sec. 102. Stakeholder advisory committees.
Sec. 103. Independent review.
Sec. 104. Public access to information.
Sec. 105. Benefit-cost analysis.
Sec. 106. Project criteria.

TITLE II--MITIGATION

Sec. 201. Full mitigation.
Sec. 202. Concurrent mitigation.
Sec. 203. Mitigation tracking system.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal agency
responsible for developing and managing the harbors,
waterways, shorelines, and water resources of the United
States;
(2) the scarcity of Federal resources requires more
efficient use of Corps of Engineers funding and greater
oversight of Corps of Engineers analyses;
(3) demand for recreation, clean water, and healthy
wildlife habitat must be reflected in the Corps of Engineers
project planning process;
(4) the social and environmental impacts of dams, levees,
shoreline stabilization structures, and other projects must
be adequately considered and fully mitigated; and
(5) affected interests must play a larger role in the
oversight of Corps of Engineers project development.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure that the water resources investments of the
United States are economically justified and enhance the
environment;
(2) to provide independent review of Corps of Engineers
feasibility studies, general reevaluation studies, and
environmental impact statements;
(3) to ensure that mitigation for Corps of Engineers
projects is successful and cost-effective;
(4) to enhance the involvement of affected interests in
Corps of Engineers feasibility studies, general reevaluation
studies, and environmental impact statements;
(5) to revise Corps of Engineers planning principles to
meet the economic and environmental needs of riverside and
coastal communities;
(6) to ensure that environmental analyses are considered to
be co-equal to economic analyses in the assessment of Corps
of Engineers projects, recognizing the need for sound science
in the evaluation of the impacts on the health of aquatic
ecosystems; and
(7) to ensure that the Corps of Engineers is making
appropriate, up-to-date calculations in conducting cost-
benefit analyses of Corps of Engineers projects.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.

TITLE I--PROJECT PLANNING REFORM

SEC. 101. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.

Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962-2) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 209. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.

``(a) In General.--It is the intent of Congress that
economic development and environmental protection and
restoration be co-equal goals of water resources planning and
development.
``(b) Revision of Principles and Guidelines.--Not later
than 1 year after the date

[[Page S3159]]

of enactment of the Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2001,
the Secretary shall revise the principles and guidelines of
the Corps of Engineers for water resources projects--
``(1) to provide for the consideration of ecological
restoration costs under Corps of Engineers economic models;
``(2) to incorporate new techniques in risk and uncertainty
analysis;
``(3) to eliminate biases and disincentives for
nonstructural flood damage reduction projects;
``(4) to incorporate new analytical techniques;
``(5) to encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the
restoration of aquatic ecosystems; and
``(6) to ensure that water resources projects are justified
by benefits that accrue to the public at large and not only
to a limited number of private businesses.
``(c) Update of Guidance.--The Secretary shall update the
Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies (ER
1105-2-100) to comply with this section.''.

SEC. 102. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

(a) In General.--Upon receipt of a written request by any
person or governmental entity, the Secretary shall establish,
for each water resources project that is authorized or
substantially modified after the date of enactment of this
Act, a stakeholder advisory committee to assist the Secretary
in the development of feasibility studies, general
reevaluation studies, and environmental impact statements for
the project.
(b) Duration of Reviews.--A stakeholder advisory committee
established for a project under this section may provide
advice to the Secretary during planning and design of the
project, beginning with the initiation of the draft
feasibility study for the project and ending with the
issuance of the draft environmental impact statement for the
project.
(c) Membership.--
(1) In general.--A stakeholder advisory committee
established for a project under this section shall be
composed of--
(A) representatives of--
(i) State and local agencies;
(ii) tribal organizations;
(iii) public interest groups;
(iv) industry, scientific, and academic organizations; and
(v) Federal agencies; and
(B) other interested citizens.
(2) Balance.--The membership shall represent a balance of
the social, economic, and environmental interests in the
project.
(d) Role.--A stakeholder advisory committee established for
a project under this section shall advise the Secretary but
shall not be required to make a formal recommendation.
(e) Costs.--The costs of a stakeholder advisory committee
established for a project under this section--
(1) shall be a Federal expense;
(2) shall not exceed $250,000; and
(3) shall be considered to be part of the total cost of the
project.
(f) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
a stakeholder advisory committee established under this
section.

SEC. 103. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

(a) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that
feasibility studies, general reevaluation studies, and
environmental impact statements for each water resources
project described in paragraph (2) are subject to review by
an independent panel of experts established under this
section.
(2) Projects subject to review.--A project shall be subject
to review under paragraph (1) if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of an affected State described in
paragraph (4) requests the establishment of an independent
panel of experts for the project;
(C) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on fish or wildlife after
implementation of proposed mitigation plans;
(D) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the
project determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or
other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after
implementation of proposed mitigation plans; or
(E) the Secretary determines that the project is
controversial under paragraph (3).
(3) Controversial projects.--
(A) Determination by the secretary.--Upon receipt of a
written request by an interested party or on the initiative
of the Secretary, the Secretary shall determine whether a
project is controversial for the purposes of paragraph
(2)(E).
(B) Criteria.--The Secretary shall determine that a project
is controversial if the Secretary finds that--
(i) there is a significant public dispute as to the size,
nature, or effects of the project; or
(ii) there is a significant public dispute as to the
economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
(4) Affected state.--An affected State referred to in
paragraph (2)(B) means a State that--
(A) is located at least partially within the drainage basin
in which the project is located; and
(B) would be economically or environmentally affected as a
consequence of the project.
(b) Office of Independent Review.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works an Office
of Independent Review (referred to in this section as the
``Office'').
(2) Director.--
(A) Appointment.--The head of the Office shall be the
Director of the Office of Independent Review (referred to in
this section as the ``Director''), who shall be appointed by
the Secretary for a term of 3 years.
(B) Selection.--
(i) Qualifications.--The Secretary shall select the
Director from among individuals who are distinguished
scholars.
(ii) Consideration of recommendations.--In making the
selection, the Secretary shall consider any recommendations
made by the Inspector General of the Army.
(C) Limitation on appointments.--The Secretary shall not
appoint an individual to serve as the Director if the
individual has a financial or close professional association
with any organization or group with a strong financial or
organizational interest in an ongoing water resources
project.
(D) Terms.--An individual may not serve for more than 1
term as the Director.
(3) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review each project subject to review under
subsection (a).
(c) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the Secretary
selects a preferred alternative for a project subject to
review under subsection (a), the Director shall establish a
panel of experts to review the project.
(2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the
Director for a project shall be composed of not fewer than 5
nor more than 9 independent experts who represent a balance
of areas of expertise, including biology, engineering, and
economics.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall not
appoint an individual to serve on a panel of experts for a
project if the individual has a financial or close
professional association with any organization or group with
a strong financial or organizational interest in the project.
(4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the
National Academy of Sciences in developing lists of
individuals to serve on panels of experts under this section.
(5) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of
pay to be determined by the Secretary.
(6) Travel expenses.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section shall receive travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a
project under this section shall--
(1) review each feasibility study, general reevaluation
study, and environmental impact statement prepared for the
project;
(2) assess the adequacy of the economic models used by the
Secretary in reviewing the project to ensure that--
(A) multiple methods of economic analysis have been used;
and
(B) any regional effects on navigation systems have been
examined;
(3) assess the adequacy of the environmental models and
analyses used by the Secretary in reviewing the project;
(4) receive from the public, and review, written and oral
comments of a technical nature concerning the project; and
(5) submit to the Secretary a report containing the panel's
economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the
project, including the panel's conclusions on the feasibility
studies, general reevaluation studies, and environmental
impact statements for the project, with particular emphasis
on matters of public controversy.
(e) Duration of Project Reviews and Panel.--A panel of
experts shall--
(1) complete review of a project under this section not
later than 180 days after the date of establishment of the
panel; and
(2) terminate upon submission of a report to the Secretary
under subsection (d)(5).
(f) Recommendations of Panel.--
(1) Consideration by secretary.--After receiving a report
on a project from a panel of experts under this section and
before entering a final record of decision for the project,
the Secretary shall--
(A) consider any recommendations contained in the report;
and
(B) prepare a written explanation for any recommendations
that are not adopted.
(2) Public review; submission to congress.--After receiving
a report on a project from a panel of experts under this
section, the Secretary shall--
(A) make a copy of the report and any written explanation
of the Secretary on recommendations contained in the report
available for public review in accordance with section 104;
and
(B) submit to Congress a copy of the report and any such
written explanation.
(g) Costs.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the costs of a
panel of experts established for a project under this
section--
(A) shall be a Federal expense;
(B) shall not exceed $500,000; and

[[Page S3160]]

(C) shall be considered to be part of the total cost of the
project.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the limitation
specified in paragraph (1)(B) in any case in which the
Secretary determines a waiver to be appropriate.
(h) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
a panel of experts established under this section.

SEC. 104. PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), the
Secretary shall ensure that information relating to the
analysis of a water resources project by the Corps of
Engineers, including all supporting data, analytical
documents, and information that the Corps of Engineers has
considered in the analysis, is made available to any
individual upon request and to the public on the Internet.
(b) Types of Information.--Information concerning a project
that shall be made available under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) any information that has been made available to the
non-Federal interests with respect to the project; and
(2) all data used by the Corps of Engineers in the
justification and analysis of the project.
(c) Exception for Trade Secrets.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not make information
available under subsection (a) that the Secretary determines
to be a trade secret of the person that provided the
information to the Corps of Engineers.
(2) Criteria for trade secrets.--The Secretary shall
consider information to be a trade secret only if--
(A) the person that provided the information to the Corps
of Engineers--
(i) has not disclosed the information to any person other
than--

(I) an officer or employee of the United States or a State
or local government;
(II) an employee of the person that provided the
information to the Corps of Engineers; or
(III) a person that is bound by a confidentiality
agreement; and

(ii) has taken reasonable measures to protect the
confidentiality of the information and intends to continue to
take such measures;
(B) the information is not required to be disclosed, or
otherwise made available, to the public under any other
Federal or State law; and
(C) disclosure of the information is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of the person
that provided the information to the Corps of Engineers.

SEC. 105. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.

Section 308(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) any projected benefit attributable to any increase in
the value of privately owned property, increase in the
quantity of privately owned property, or increase in the
value of privately owned services, that arises from the
draining, reduction, or elimination of wetland.''.

SEC. 106. PROJECT CRITERIA.

After the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall not submit to Congress any proposal to authorize or
substantially modify a water resources project unless the
proposal contains a certification by the Secretary that the
project minimizes to the maximum extent practicable adverse
impacts on--
(1) the natural hydrologic patterns of aquatic ecosystems;
and
(2) the value or native diversity of aquatic ecosystems.

TITLE II--MITIGATION

SEC. 201. FULL MITIGATION.

Section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``fully'' before
``mitigate''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Standards for mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--To mitigate losses to fish and wildlife
resulting from a water resources project, the Secretary, at a
minimum, shall acquire and restore 1 acre of habitat to
replace each acre of habitat negatively affected by the
project.
``(B) Monitoring plan.--The mitigation plan for a water
resources project under paragraph (1) shall include a
detailed and specific plan to monitor mitigation
implementation and success.
``(4) Design of mitigation projects.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) design each mitigation project to reflect
contemporary understanding of the importance of spatial
distribution of habitat and the natural hydrology of aquatic
ecosystems; and
``(B) fully mitigate the adverse hydrologic impacts of
water resources projects.
``(5) Recommendation of projects.--The Secretary shall not
recommend a water resources project alternative or choose a
project alternative in any final record of decision,
environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment
completed after the date of enactment of this paragraph
unless the Secretary determines that the mitigation plan for
the alternative has the greatest probability of cost-
effectively and successfully mitigating the adverse impacts
of the project on aquatic resources and fish and wildlife.
``(6) Completion of mitigation before construction of new
projects.--The Secretary shall complete all planned
mitigation in a particular watershed before constructing any
new water resources project in that watershed.''.

SEC. 202. CONCURRENT MITIGATION.

Section 906(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``To ensure concurrent mitigation, the
Secretary shall complete 50 percent of required mitigation
before beginning project construction and shall complete the
remainder of required mitigation as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than the last day of project
construction.''.

SEC. 203. MITIGATION TRACKING SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
recordkeeping system to track--
(1) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat
types affected by the operation and maintenance of each water
resources project carried out by the Secretary;
(2) the quantity and type of mitigation required for
operation and maintenance of each water resources project
carried out by the Secretary;
(3) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been
completed for the operation and maintenance of each water
resources project carried out by the Secretary; and
(4) wetland losses permitted under section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and
required mitigation for such losses.
(b) Required Information and Organization.--The
recordkeeping system shall--
(1) include information on impacts and mitigation described
in subsection (a) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
(2) be organized by watershed, project, permit application,
and zip code.
(c) Availability of Information.--The Secretary shall make
information contained in the recordkeeping system available
to the public on the Internet.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 649. A bill to modify provisions relating to the Gun-Free Schools
Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Dorgan and I are
introducing a bill to make four important changes to the current Gun-
Free Schools Act, GFSA.
I am a proud sponsor of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which was enacted
as part of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act in 1994. The law
requires states receiving federal elementary-secondary education funds
to have a state law requiring local school districts to expel from
school for a period of not less than one year students who bring
weapons to school.
A March report (ED-OIG/S03-A0018) prepared by the Inspector General,
IG, of the U.S. Department of Education, highlights several
improvements needed to clarify the law. This bill makes those important
clarifications.
The IG's report, called a ``perspective paper,'' resulted from an
audit that Senator Dorgan and I requested to examine the enforcement of
the GFSA in seven States.
We live in a society today that is much different than when I grew
up. Our nation is awash in guns and our children live in a culture of
violence, bombarded by horrific images in movies, television, and video
games. Combine these factors with a lack of parental supervision and
this combustible mix has exploded again and again on too many school
campuses.
In just the last few weeks alone, we've seen this mix erupt within
just a few miles of each other in the San Diego area.
On March 5, a troubled young man named Charles ``Andy'' Williams
brought a .22-caliber revolver to school, fired at random, killing two
students and wounding 13 others at Santana High School, in Santee,
California. And on March 22, an eighteen year-old shot five students at
Granite Hill High School in El Cajon, California. Fortunately, in this
case, no one was killed.
The Los Angeles Times summed up this epidemic aptly on March 6 and
called on public officials to act, saying ``Nothing of course, assures
that tragedy can be prevented, but leaders from the classroom to the
White House can clearly take more steps to promote school safety.''
Now I know that gun laws are not the only answer to solving this
problem, but they do represent part of the answer. But the fact is that
even the most simple, rational, and targeted

[[Page S3161]]

measures to deter guns from falling into the hands of our young people
have been cast aside.
The fact is that there are some simple steps we can take to limit the
number of guns from reaching our children. We can close the loophole on
the importation of high capacity ammunition clips. We can include
trigger locks on every gun purchased.
And we need to continue with measures that are working. The Gun Free
Schools Act is a targeted fix that is working. And the bill we are
introducing today refines this law slightly to make it work even
better.
This legislation will close several loopholes in current law under
which allows some students to escape punishment who bring guns to
school.
Because the law effectively imposes a one-year expulsion for students
who have ``brought'' a weapon to school, students who ``have'' or
``possess'' a weapon in school can go ``scot-free.''
Under current law, for example, a student could use a firearm that
was technically ``brought'' to school by another student. The student
could then possess it in his or her backpack or locker and thus
potentially make it available to others and go unpunished because he or
she did not technically ``bring'' it to school.
Another loophole that the bill addresses is the definition of school.
The current prohibition on guns in schools applies to ``a school.''
This could be interpreted to mean literally the school building.
Our bill clarifies that school means ``any setting that is under the
control and supervision of the local education agency'', i.e., the
school district. Without this change, a student could wield a firearm
on the football field, on the school bus or in the parking lot and
possibly evade punishment under this law.
Here are the four changes made by this bill: Under the current law,
states are required to have a law requiring a one-year expulsion of
students who have ``brought a weapon to a school'' in order to receive
federal education funds.
The change our bill proposes is to add to current law, ``or to have
possessed a firearm.'' We are proposing this change because punishing
only people who ``bring'' a weapon to school leaves a glaring loophole
in the law.
Without this change, students who ask friends to bring a weapon to
school or who obtain a weapon from someone who has ``brought'' it to
school, but carry it around or use the weapon, would not be covered
since current law uses the term ``brought.'' Current law could be
interpreted to mean that students can have a gun at school as long as
they do not actually ``bring'' it into the school. I believe this
change is an important clarification.
The IG's report says that without this change, states and school
districts may ``incorrectly implement the Act, resulting in non-
compliance or the submission of erroneous information on disciplinary
actions under the Act.'' This is because current law does not ``specify
expulsion as the consequence for students found in possession of a
firearm.''
Under current law, school districts and states are required to report
expulsions. They are, however, required to report incidents. An example
of this would be when students bring a weapon to or possess weapons in
schools, for which no disciplinary action is taken.
Without reporting all incidents in which students have or possess
weapons in schools, it is impossible to determine if school officials
are in fact enforcing the law, if they are actually expelling students.
The IG's audit cites an example at one Maryland school in which a
student who brought a firearm to school was not expelled. Instead, the
school's administrators allowed the student to withdraw from school and
the school did not inform the school district of the incident. Police
arrested the student. So action was taken, but the incident itself did
not appear in the annual report because technically the student was not
expelled.
Similarly, the IG found that in one California district, school
officials did not expel a student ``involved in a firearm incident''
because the student was arrested and did not return to school.
In these cases, the students did face legal consequences for their
action, but the weapons incidents were not reflected in the school's
report because the law requires reporting only expulsions, not
incidents.
The bill would add several new reporting requirements. School
districts and states would have to report, 1. all firearms incidents;
2. each modification of an expulsion, e.g., when an administrator
shortens an expulsion, which is allowed under current law; and 3. the
level of education in which the incident occurs, elementary, middle,
high school.
Only by thorough reporting can public officials, the Department of
Education, and the Congress know how well the law is working and how
effectively it is being enforced.
These proposed changes should remedy that deficiency.
There are two additional changes we are proposing based on the IG's
work. The Department of Education has incorporated these two changes in
their guidance to states and school districts, but I believe these
changes should be codified in the law so they cannot be changed
administratively.
The prohibition on weapons in ``school'' applies ``to a school,''
which implies that this means the building only. For many years, the
U.S. Department of Education interpreted this to mean the school
buildings only.
Under that approach, therefore, a student could bring a weapon to
school and leave it in an unlocked car, where it would still be readily
available to students throughout the school day.
Interpreted strictly to mean ``school buildings,'' that policy also
allowed guns on athletic fields, in equipment sheds, and in school
yards. As one Virginia legislator put it, ``you could legally come to a
PTA meeting packing a weapon.''
Fortunately, the Department has corrected its guidance to school
districts to clarify that the prohibition on bringing guns to schools
applies to the entire school campus. The guidance states, ``The one-
year expulsion requirement applies to students who bring weapons to any
setting that is under the control and supervision of the local
education agency.''
Under our bill, weapons would be allowed to be kept in cars and
trucks on school property only if the weapons are ``lawfully stored
inside a locked vehicle on school property.'' This provision is an
effort to recognize that in some communities students may go hunting
directly after school.
Under current law, the chief school administrator in a school
district can modify an expulsion on a case-by-case basis.
Our bill would require that all modifications be put in writing. The
IG found inconsistent reporting of modifications. This change should
establish one consistent, clear policy and should provide a record of
expulsions that are modified.
Guns have no place in schools. Congress made this clear in 1994 when
we adopted the Gun-Free Schools Act.
This is a good law that should remain in place. The bill we introduce
today makes some important clarifications in that law and strengthens
it.
The latest Annual Report on School Safety reports that 3,930 students
were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. One student is one too
many, in my view.
The latest incidents in California are but another disturbing
reminder of the ``culture of violence'' that so pervades our society.
All of us must ask why students resort to guns to deal with their
grievances or vent their frustrations. Clearly, we must take strong
steps to address the underlying societal issues and to get guns out of
the hands of youngsters.
This bill is one small, yet important, step to ensure that no more
schoolchildren die from weapons violence. I urge my colleagues to enact
this bill promptly.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Gun-Free Schools Refinement Act--Summary

Amendments to the current Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994.
These changes are based on the March 2001 report of the U.S.
Department of Education's Inspector General (ED-OIG/S03-
A0018).

1. ``Brought a Weapon''

Current law: Requires states to have a law requiring a one-
year expulsion of students who have ``brought a weapon to a
school.''

[[Page S3162]]

Proposed Change: Adds ``or possessed a weapon.''

2. Entire School Campus

Current law: The prohibition on bringing a weapon to school
applies ``to a school.''
Proposed Change: Clarifies that the prohibition on bringing
guns to schools applies to entire school, specifically ``any
setting that is under the control and supervision of the
local education agency,'' unless a gun is lawfully locked in
a vehicle.

3. Report Incidents, Modifications

Current Law: Requires only reporting of expulsions.
Proposed Changes: Requires the reporting of--
1. All weapons incidents;
2. Each modification of an expulsion (e.g., when an
administrator shortens an expulsion); and
3. The level of education in which the incident occurs
(elementary, middle, high school).

4. Modifications in Writing

Current Law: Allows states' laws to allow the chief
administering officer of a school district to modify one-year
expulsions on a case-by-case basis.
Proposed Change: Requires that all modifications of
expulsions be put in writing.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in
introducing the Gun-Free Schools Refinement Act. As my colleagues may
remember, Senator Feinstein and I were the principal authors of the
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, and as a result of this law, more than
13,000 students have been expelled from school between 1996 and 1999
for bringing a gun to school. That is more than 13,000 potential
tragedies that have been avoided because we as a nation adopted a
``zero tolerance'' policy toward bringing a weapon into our school
classrooms and hallways.
Despite the Gun-Free Schools Act, however, school shootings still
occasionally occur, and even one of these incidents is too many. That's
why, nearly two years ago, Senator Feinstein and I asked the Department
of Education Inspector General to conduct a review of the Gun-Free
Schools Act to ensure that states and local school districts are
vigorously enforcing this important law.
The Inspector General completed this review and issued her final
report in February, 2001. Fortunately, the IG found no evidence that
states or school districts were intentionally ignoring instances where
students brought weapons to schools. However, while we were glad to
learn that schools are generally trying to comply with the spirit of
the law, the IG did find some instances where schools and states have
not complied with the letter of the law. This may result in uneven
enforcement of the Gun-Free Schools Act. Therefore, the IG recommended
in March that Congress consider making a number of technical changes to
the Gun-Free Schools Act to clarify areas of the statute where schools
were confused about what was required in the enforcement of their
``zero tolerance'' policies.
The Gun-Free Schools Refinement Act would make four changes to the
1994 law: First, this legislation clarifies that the law applies to
students who ``possess'' a gun in school, not just those who
``brought'' a weapon to school, as the law currently reads. A common-
sense interpretation of the law would compel schools to expel students
who possess firearms in school, even if they were not the ones who
physically brought the guns there. This change merely codifies a
common-sense reading of the law so that it applies to students who
either bring or possess a weapon at school.
Second, this bill clarifies that the Gun-Free Schools Act applies not
just to the school buildings but to the grounds and any other setting
under the jurisdiction of the school. What is meant by a ``school'' is
not currently defined by the statute, but the Department of Education
has already determined in its implementation guidance that a ``school''
means any area under the supervision of the school, such as buses or
off-campus athletic events or field trips. This change codifies the
Department's reasonable definition. I do want to mention, however, that
this change would still allow schools the flexibility to permit rifle
clubs, hunter safety education, or other sanctioned school activities,
as long as these limited purposes provide reasonable safeguards to
ensure student safety and are otherwise consistent with the intent of
the Gun-Free Schools Act.
This bill also requires that schools report all incidents of students
bringing a gun to school, even if a student's expulsion is ultimately
shortened using the case-by-case exception provided for in the Gun-Free
Schools Act. Technically the law requires schools to report only
expulsions, and the IG found that this has led to considerable
confusion among schools about whether they also need to report
shortened expulsions. The Department of Education has already taken a
step in the right direction toward addressing this issue by revising
the reporting form that schools use when reporting firearm incidents.
This will further clarify for states and schools the data they need to
report.
Finally, this legislation requires that modifications to one-year
expulsions, which are made on a case-by-case basis by the chief school
officer, be made in writing. This will simply ensure that school
officials, parents or other appropriate individuals will have access to
a written record explaining why the expulsion was shortened.
In summary, I think these are simple, straightforward, and sensible
changes to the Gun-Free Schools Act. I urge my colleagues to join me
and Senator Feinstein in making these technical changes when the Senate
debates upcoming legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 650. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to prohibit the
exportation of Alaska North Slope crude oil; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this year the spotlight on energy policy
has increased. One issue that is key for this country is our oil
supply. Americans are very dependent on gasoline, and it is imperative
that we address this problem.
First on the demand side of the equation, we should increase the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for SUVs and light trucks so
that it equals the standard for cars. That would save 1 million barrels
of oil per day. By becoming more energy efficient, the amount of our
dependence on oil will decrease.
Second, we also need to focus on the supply side of the picture. For
example, we should protect the American supply by banning the
exportation of crude oil from Alaska's North Slope. And, today, I am
introducing, along with Senator Wyden, legislation to do just that.
For 22 years, from 1973 to 1995, the export of Alaska North Slope oil
was banned. We banned it to reduce our dependence on imported oil and
to keep gasoline prices down.
Unfortunately, at the behest of oil producers, the ban was lifted in
1995. The General Accounting Office has stated that lifting the export
ban resulted in an increase in the price of crude oil by about $1 per
barrel. In fact, some oil companies used their ability to export this
oil to artificially increase the price of gasoline on the West Coast.
With the spotlight on energy policy, President Bush and others have
called for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, (ANWR). It
makes no sense to destroy a beautiful, pristine sanctuary, one of the
most remarkable wildlife habitats in the world, for oil that will only
last six months. And this call to destroy ANWR comes even in the face
of the possible export of American oil that is being drilled in areas
already open to drilling.
For a little under a year now, no North Slope oil has been exported.
But this has been done voluntarily--and in one case mainly to ensure
that a proposed merger was approved by the FTC. Although there are no
exports now, the threat exists and given our current situation, this
ban is necessary to preclude any chance of exporting this oil.
This is oil that is on public lands, and that is transported along a
federal right-of-way. Taxpayers own this product. We need to ensure
that American consumers and industry will remain first. I encourage my
colleagues to support the Oil Supply Improvement Act.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Mikulski, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 651. A bill to provide for the establishment of an assistance
program for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page S3163]]

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished
colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Collins, Mikulski, Wellstone and
Clinton, in introducing bipartisan legislation that we believe can make
a real difference in the lives of health care consumers in this nation.
The Health Care Consumer Assistance Act provides grants to States to
create, or expand upon, health care consumer assistance, or health
ombudsman programs.
In 1997, the President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection
and Quality in the Health Care Industry noted that consumers have the
right to accurate information and assistance in making decisions about
health plans. One model program, the Administration on Aging's Long
Term Care Ombudsman Program, has been highly successful for twenty five
years in promoting quality living and health care for nursing home
residents nationwide.
Now more than ever, people need this kind of assistance to navigate
the health care system. The Health Care Consumer Assistance Act would
create a grant program for states to establish private, non-profit,
independent entities to operate statewide ombudsman programs. Each
state ombudsman program would be a ``one-stop'' source for information,
counseling and referral services for health care consumers.
Last summer, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer
Reports magazine released the results of a survey on consumer
satisfaction with health plans. This survey is part of a larger project
examining ways to improve how consumers resolve problems with their
health insurance plans. The survey found that while most people who
experienced a problem with their plan were able to resolve them, the
majority of those surveyed were confused about where to go for
information and help.
Over the past few years, a growing number of states have taken steps
to give patients new rights in dealing with their health insurance
plans. For example, more than 30 states now have an external review
process for residents to appeal adverse decisions by their health
plans. While the majority of those surveyed thought the ability to
appeal a decision to an independent medical expert would be helpful,
only one percent had actually used the process available in many
states. In fact, most consumers were unaware this option even existed,
much less how to use it.
The legislation we introduce today seeks to remedy this information
gap by providing grants to states that wish to establish health care
consumer assistance programs. These programs are designed to help make
health care consumers more educated and effective as they seek to
understand and exercise their health care choices, rights, and
responsibilities.
I believe that the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act would
compliment a Patient's Bill of Rights that includes a strong appeals
process and access to legal remedies. It may, in fact, actually serve
to ease the ongoing debate about litigation. By empowering health care
consumers with information and effective strategies for making sure
they get the care they have paid for when they need it most, the
chances that a health-related dispute will end up in court are
drastically minimized. When a person is sick and in need of medical
care, the last thing they want is to have a protracted legal battle,
they simply want the care that will make them better.
Under this bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will
provide funds to eligible states to create or contract with an
independent, nonprofit agency, to provide a variety of information and
support services for health care consumers, including the following:
educational materials about strategies for health care consumers to
resolve problems and grievances; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline for
consumer inquiries; coordinate and make referrals to other private and
public health care entities when appropriate; and conduct education and
outreach in the community.
The concept of a health care consumer assistance program has gained
considerable support over the past several years as states have
contemplated the patient protection issue and several states have taken
steps to create these programs. Governors and state legislatures in
many states including, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin
have introduced or enacted health care ombudsman legislation. However,
a Families USA survey of existing programs has found that while some
states have successfully launched their programs, other state
initiatives have faltered due to a lack of sufficient funding.
I believe that Americans deserve access to the information and
assistance they need to be empowered and informed health care
consumers. As the health insurance system becomes more confusing and
complex, it becomes critically important that consumers have a place
where they can go for counseling and assistance. As health plan options
become more complicated, people need a reliable, accessible source of
information. State health care consumer assistance programs have proven
their ability to meet this challenge. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in advancing this important and timely 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. 651

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 ``Health Care Consumers
Assistance Fund Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) All consumers need information and assistance to
understand their health insurance choices and to facilitate
effective and efficient access to needed health services.
Many do not understand their health care coverage despite the
current efforts of both the public and private sectors.
(2) Federally initiated health care consumer assistance and
information programs targeted to consumers of long-term care
and to medicare beneficiaries under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) are effective, as are a
number of State and local consumer assistance initiatives.
(3) The principles, policies, and practices of health plans
for providing safe, effective, and accessible health care can
be enriched by State-based collaborative, independent
education, problem resolution, and feedback programs. Health
care consumer assistance programs have proven their ability
to meet this challenge.
(4) Many states have created health care consumer
assistance programs. The Federal Government can assist the
States in developing and maintaining effective health care
consumer assistance programs.

SEC. 3. GRANTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall
establish a fund, to be known as the ``Health Care Consumer
Assistance Fund'', to be used to award grants to eligible
States to enable such States to carry out consumer assistance
activities (including programs established by States prior to
the enactment of this Act) designed to provide information,
assistance, and referrals to consumers of health insurance
products.
(b) State Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including a State plan that describes--
(1) the manner in which the State will ensure that the
health care consumer assistance office (established under
subsection (d)) will assist health care consumers in
accessing needed care by educating and assisting health
insurance enrollees to be responsible and informed consumers;
(2) the manner in which the State will coordinate and
distinguish the services provided by the health care consumer
assistance office with the services provided by the long-term
care ombudsman authorized by the Older Americans Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the State health insurance
information program authorized under section 4360 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-
4), the protection and advocacy program authorized under the
Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.), and any other programs that
provide information and assistance to health care consumers;
(3) the manner in which the State will coordinate and
distinguish the health care consumer assistance office and
its services from enrollment services provided under the
medicaid and State children's health insurance programs under
titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396
et seq. and 1397aa et seq.), and medicare and medicaid health
care fraud and abuse activities including those authorized by
Federal law under title 11 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), and State health insurance departments
and health plan programs that perform similar functions;

[[Page S3164]]

(4) the manner in which the State will provide services to
underserved and minority populations and populations residing
in rural areas;
(5) the manner in which the State will establish and
implement procedures and protocols, consistent with
applicable Federal and State confidentiality laws, to ensure
the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers
and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers
with the office established under subsection (d)(1) and to
ensure that no such information is used, released or referred
without the express prior permission of the consumer in
accordance with section 4(b), except to the extent that the
office collects or uses aggregate information;
(6) the manner in which the State will oversee the health
care consumer assistance office, its activities and product
materials, and evaluate program effectiveness;
(7) the manner in which the State will provide for the
collection of non-Federal contributions for the operations of
the office in an amount that is not less than 25 percent of
the amount of Federal funds provided under this Act; and
(8) the manner in which the State will ensure that funds
made available under this Act will be used to supplement, and
not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local funds
expended to provide services for programs described under
this Act and those described in paragraphs (3) and (4).
(c) Amount of Grant.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 4
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a
State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts
as the number of individuals within the State covered under a
health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears
to the total number of individuals covered under a health
insurance plan in all States (as determined by the
Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this
section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to
the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this
paragraph.
(2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided
to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year
be less than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year under section 5.
(d) Provision of Funds for Establishment of Office.--
(1) In general.--From amounts provided under a grant under
this section, a State shall, directly or through a contract
with an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated
experience in serving the needs of health care consumers,
provide for the establishment and operation of a State health
care consumer assistance office.
(2) Eligibility of entity.--To be eligible to enter into a
contract under paragraph (1), an entity shall demonstrate
that the entity has the technical, organizational, and
professional capacity to deliver the services described in
section 4 throughout the State to all public and private
health insurance consumers.

SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.

(a) By State.--A State shall use amounts provided under a
grant awarded under this Act to carry out consumer assistance
activities directly or by contract with an independent, non-
profit organization. The State shall ensure the adequate
training of personnel carrying out such activities. Such
activities shall include--
(1) the operation of a toll-free telephone hotline to
respond to consumer requests for assistance;
(2) the dissemination of appropriate educational materials
on how best to access health care and the rights and
responsibilities of health care consumers;
(3) the provision of education to health care consumers on
effective methods to promptly and efficiently resolve their
questions, problems, and grievances;
(4) referrals to appropriate private and public entities to
resolve questions, problems and grievances;
(5) the coordination of educational and outreach efforts
with consumers, health plans, health care providers, payers,
and governmental agencies; and
(6) the provision of information and assistance to
consumers regarding internal, external, or administrative
grievances or appeals procedures in nonlitigative settings to
appeal the denial, termination, or reduction of health care
services, or the refusal to pay for such services, under a
health insurance plan.
(b) Confidentiality and Access to Information.--The health
care consumer assistance office of a State shall establish
and implement procedures and protocols, consistent with
applicable Federal and State confidentiality laws, to ensure
the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers
and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers
with the office and to ensure that no such information is
used, released, or referred to State agencies or outside
entities without the expressed prior permission of the
consumer, except to the extent that the office collects or
uses aggregate information that is not individually
identifiable. Such procedures and protocols shall ensure that
the health care consumer is provided with a description of
the policies and procedures of the office with respect to the
manner in which health information may be used to carry out
consumer assistance activities.
(c) Availability of Services.--The health care consumer
assistance office of a State shall not discriminate in the
provision of information and referrals regardless of the
source of the individual's health insurance coverage or
prospective coverage, including individuals covered under
employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare
or medicaid programs under title XVII or XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any
other Federal or State health care program.
(d) Designation of Responsibilities.--
(1) Within existing state entity.--If the health care
consumer assistance office of a State is located within an
existing State regulatory agency or office of an elected
State official, the State shall ensure that--
(A) there is a separate delineation of the funding,
activities, and responsibilities of the office as compared to
the other funding, activities, and responsibilities of the
agency; and
(B) the office establishes and implements procedures and
protocols to ensure the confidentiality of all information
shared by consumers and their health care providers, health
plans, or insurers with the office and to ensure that no
information is transferred or released to the State agency or
office without the expressed prior permission of the consumer
in accordance with subsection (b).
(2) Contract entity.--In the case of an entity that enters
into a contract with a State under section 3(d), the entity
shall provide assurances that the entity has no real or
perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and
assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that
the entity is independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(e) Subcontracts.--The health care consumer assistance
office of a State may carry out activities and provide
services through contracts entered into with 1 or more
nonprofit entities so long as the office can demonstrate that
all of the requirements of this Act are complied with by the
office.
(f) Term.--A contract entered into under this section shall
be for a term of 3 years.

SEC. 5. FUNDING.

There are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 to
carry out this Act.

SEC. 6. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.

Not later than 1 year after the Secretary first awards
grants under this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report concerning the activities funded under
section 4 and the effectiveness of such activities in
resolving health care-related problems and grievances.
______

By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Wellstone):
S. 652. A bill to promote the development of affordable, quality
rental housing in rural areas for low-income households; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce legislation I
offered last year to promote the development of affordable, quality
rental housing for low-income households in rural areas. I am pleased,
along with Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, and Senator Wellstone, to
introduce the ``Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001.''
There is a pressing and worsening need for quality rental housing for
rural families and senior citizens. As a group, residents of rural
communities are the worst housed of all our citizens. Rural areas
contain approximately 20 percent of the nation's population as compared
to suburbs with 50 percent. Yet, twice as many rural American families
live in bad housing than in the suburbs. An estimated 2,600,000 rural
households live in substandard housing with severe structural damage or
without indoor plumbing, heat, or electricity.
Substandard housing is a particularly grave problem in the rural
areas of my home state of North Carolina. Ten percent or more of the
population in five of North Carolina's rural counties live in
substandard housing. Rural housing units, in fact, comprise 60 percent
of all substandard units in the state.
Even as millions of rural Americans live in wretched rental housing,
millions more are paying an extraordinarily high price for their
housing. One out of every three renters in rural America pays more than
30 percent of his or her income for housing; 20 percent of rural
renters pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing.
Most distressing is when people living in housing that does not have
heat or indoor plumbing pay an extraordinary amount of their income in
rent. More than 90 percent of people living in housing in the worst
conditions pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs.
Unfortunately, our rural communities are not in a position to address
these problems alone. They are disproportionately poor and have fewer

[[Page S3165]]

resources to bring to bear on the issue. Poverty is a crushing,
persistent problem in rural America. One-third of the non-metropolitan
counties in North Carolina have 20 percent or more of their population
living below the poverty line. In contrast, not a single metropolitan
county in North Carolina has 20 percent or more of its population
living below the poverty line. Not surprisingly, the economies of rural
areas are generally less diverse, limiting jobs and economic
opportunity. Rural areas have limited access to many forces driving the
economy, such as technology, lending, and investment, because they are
remote and have low population density. Banks and other investors,
looking for larger projects with lower risk, seek metropolitan areas
for loans and investment. Credit in rural areas is often more expensive
and available at less favorable terms than in metropolitan areas.
Given the magnitude of this problem, it is startling to find that the
federal government is turning its back on the situation. In the face of
this challenge, the federal government's investment in rural rental
housing is at its lowest level in more than 25 years. Federal spending
for rural rental housing has been cut by 73 percent since 1994. Rural
rental housing unit production financed by the federal government has
been reduced by 88 percent since 1990. Moreover, poor rural renters do
not fair as well as poor urban renters in accessing existing programs.
Only 17 percent of very low-income rural renters receive housing
subsidies, compared with 28 percent of urban poor. Rural counties fared
worse with Federal Housing Authority assistance on a per capita basis,
as well, getting only $25 per capita versus $264 in metro areas. Our
veterans in rural areas are no better off: Veterans Affairs housing
dollars are spent disproportionately in metropolitan areas.

To address the scarcity of rural rental housing, I believe that the
federal government must come up with new solutions. We cannot simply
throw money at the problem and expect the situation to improve.
Instead, we must work in partnership with State and local governments,
private financial institutions, private philanthropic institutions, and
the private and nonprofit sectors to make headway. We must leverage our
resources wisely to increase the supply and quality of rural rental
housing for low-income households and the elderly.
Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, Senator Wellstone, and I are
proposing a new solution. Today, we introduce the Rural Rental Housing
Act of 2001 to create a flexible source of financing to allow project
sponsors to build, acquire or rehabilitate rental housing based on
local needs. We demand that the federal dollars to be stretched by
requiring State matching funds and by requiring the sponsor to find
additional sources of funding for the project. We are pleased that more
than 70 housing groups from 26 states have already indicated their
support for this legislation.
Let me briefly describe what the measure would do. We propose a $250
million fund to be administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture, USDA. The funds will be allotted to states based on their
share of rural substandard units and of the rural population living in
poverty, with smaller states guaranteed a minimum of $2 million. We
will leverage federal funding by requiring states or other non-profit
intermediaries to provide a dollar-for-dollar match of project funds.
The funds will be used for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and
construction of low-income rural rental housing.
The USDA will make rental housing available for low-income
populations in rural communities. The population served must earn less
than 80 percent area median income. Housing must be in rural areas with
populations not exceeding 25,000. Priority for assistance will be given
to very low income households, those earning less than 50 percent of
area median income, and in very low-income communities or in
communities with a severe lack of affordable housing. To ensure that
housing continues to serve low-income populations, the legislation
specifies that housing financed under the legislation must have a low-
income use restriction of not less than 30 years.
The Act promotes public-private partnerships to foster flexible,
local solutions. The USDA will make assistance available to public
bodies, Native American tribes, for-profit corporations, and private
nonprofit corporations with a record of accomplishment in housing or
community development. Again, it stretches federal assistance by
limiting most projects from financing more than 50 percent of a project
cost with this funding. The assistance may be made available in the
form of capital grants, direct, subsidized loans, guarantees, and other
forms of financing for rental housing and related facilities.

Finally, the Act will be administered at the state level by
organizations familiar with the unique needs of each state rather than
creating a new federal bureaucracy. The USDA will be encouraged to
identify intermediary organizations based in the state to administer
the funding provided that it complies with the provisions of the Act.
These intermediary organizations can be states or state agencies,
private nonprofit community development corporations, nonprofit housing
corporations, community development loan funds, or community
development credit unions.
This Act is not meant to replace, but to supplement the Section 515
Rural Rental Housing program, which has been the primary source of
federal funding for affordable rental housing in rural America from its
inception in 1963. Section 515, which is administered by the USDA's
Rural Housing Service, makes direct loans to non-profit and for-profit
developers to build rural rental housing for very low income tenants.
Our support for 515 has decreased in recent years--there has been a 73
percent reduction since 1994--which has had two effects. It is
practically impossible to build new rental housing, and our ability to
preserve and maintain the current stock of Section 515 units is
hobbled. Fully three-quarters of the Section 515 portfolio is more than
20 years old.
The time has come for us to take a new look at a critical problem
facing rural America. How can we best work to promote the development
of quality rental housing for low-income people in rural America? My
colleagues and I believe that to answer this question, we must comply
with certain basic principles. We do not want to create yet another
program with a large federal bureaucracy. We want a program that is
flexible, that fosters public-private partnerships, that leverages
federal funding, and that is locally controlled. We believe that the
Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001 satisfies these principles and will
help move us in the direction of ensuring that everyone in America,
including those in rural areas, have access to affordable, quality
housing options.
I request 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. 652

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 ``Rural Rental Housing Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is a pressing and increasing need for rental
housing for rural families and senior citizens, as evidenced
by the fact that--
(A) two-thirds of extremely low-income and very low-income
rural households do not have access to affordable rental
housing units;
(B) more than 900,000 rural rental households (10.4
percent) live in either severely or moderately inadequate
housing; and
(C) substandard housing is a problem for 547,000 rural
renters, and approximately 165,000 rural rental units are
overcrowded.
(2) Many rural United States households live with serious
housing problems, including a lack of basic water and
wastewater services, structural insufficiencies, and
overcrowding, as shown by the fact that--
(A) 28 percent, or 10,400,000, rural households in the
United States live with some kind of serious housing problem;
(B) approximately 1,000,000 rural renters have multiple
housing problems; and
(C) an estimated 2,600,000 rural households live in
substandard housing with severe structural damage or without
indoor plumbing, heat, or electricity.
(3) In rural America--
(A) one-third of all renters pay more than 30 percent of
their income for housing;
(B) 20 percent of rural renters pay more than 50 percent of
their income for housing; and

[[Page S3166]]

(C) 92 percent of all rural renters with significant
housing problems pay more than 50 percent of their income for
housing costs, and 60 percent pay more than 70 percent of
their income for housing.
(4) Rural economies are often less diverse, and therefore,
jobs and economic opportunity are limited because--
(A) factors that exist in rural environments, such as
remoteness and low population density, lead to limited access
to many forces driving the economy, such as technology,
lending, and investment; and
(B) local expertise is often limited in rural areas where
the economies are focused on farming or natural resource-
based industries.
(5) Rural areas have less access to credit than
metropolitan areas since--
(A) banks and other investors that look for larger projects
with lower risk seek metropolitan areas for loans and
investment;
(B) credit that is available is often insufficient, leading
to the need for interim or bridge financing; and
(C) credit in rural areas is often more expensive and
available at less favorable terms than in metropolitan areas.
(6) The Federal Government investment in rural rental
housing has dropped during the last 10 years, as evidenced by
the fact that--
(A) Federal spending for rural rental housing has been cut
by 73 percent since 1994; and
(B) rural rental housing unit production financed by the
Federal Government has been reduced by 88 percent since 1990.
(7) To address the scarcity of rural rental housing, the
Federal Government must work in partnership with State and
local governments, private financial institutions, private
philanthropic institutions, and the private sector, including
nonprofit organizations.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Eligible project.--The term ``eligible project'' means
a project for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or
construction of rental housing and related facilities in an
eligible rural area for occupancy by low-income families.
(2) Eligible rural area.--The term ``eligible rural area''
means a rural area with a population of not more than 25,000,
as determined by the most recent decennial census of the
United States, and that is located outside an urbanized area.
(3) Eligible sponsor.--The term ``eligible sponsor'' means
a public agency, an Indian tribe, a for-profit corporation,
or a private nonprofit corporation--
(A) a purpose of which is planning, developing, or managing
housing or community development projects in rural areas; and
(B) that has a record of accomplishment in housing or
community development and meets other criteria established by
the Secretary by regulation.
(4) Low-income families.--The term ``low-income families''
has the meaning given the term in section 3(b) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)).
(5) Qualified intermediary.--The term ``qualified
intermediary'' means a State, a State agency designated by
the Governor of the State, a public instrumentality of the
State, a private nonprofit community development corporation,
a nonprofit housing corporation, a community development loan
fund, or a community development credit union, that--
(A) has a record of providing technical and financial
assistance for housing and community development activities
in rural areas; and
(B) has a demonstrated technical and financial capacity to
administer assistance made available under this Act.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
the Trust Territories of the Pacific, and any other
possession of the United States.

SEC. 4. RURAL RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may, directly or through 1
or more qualified intermediaries in accordance with section
5, make assistance available to eligible sponsors in the form
of loans, grants, interest subsidies, annuities, and other
forms of financing assistance, to finance the eligible
projects.
(b) Applications.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive assistance under
this section, an eligible sponsor shall submit to the
Secretary, or a qualified intermediary, an application in
such form and containing such information as the Secretary
shall require by regulation.
(2) Affordability restriction.--Each application under this
subsection shall include a certification by the applicant
that the housing to be acquired, rehabilitated, or
constructed with assistance under this section will remain
affordable for low-income families for not less than 30
years.
(c) Priority for Assistance.--In selecting among applicants
for assistance under this section, the Secretary, or a
qualified intermediary, shall give priority to providing
assistance to eligible projects--
(1) for very low-income families (as defined in section
3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437a(b)); and
(2) in low-income communities or in communities with a
severe lack of affordable rental housing, in eligible rural
areas, as determined by the Secretary; or
(3) if the applications are submitted by public agencies,
Indian tribes, private nonprofit corporations or limited
dividend corporations in which the general partner is a non-
profit entity whose principal purposes include planning,
developing and managing low-income housing and community
development projects.
(d) Allocation of Assistance.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall allocate assistance among the States, taking
into account the incidence of rural substandard housing and
rural poverty in each State and the share of that State of
the national total of such incidence.
(2) Small state minimum.--In making an allocation under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide each state an
amount not less than $2,000,000.
(e) Limitations on Amount of Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
assistance made available under this Act may not exceed 50
percent of the total cost of the eligible project.
(2) Exception.--Assistance authorized under this Act shall
not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the eligible
project, if the project is for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or construction of not more than 20 rental
housing units for use by very low-income families.

SEC. 5. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may delegate authority for
distribution of assistance--
(1) to one or more qualified intermediaries in the State;
and
(2) for a period of not more than 3 years, at which time
that delegation of authority shall be subject to renewal, in
the discretion of the Secretary, for 1 or more additional
periods of not more than 3 years.
(b) Solicitation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may, in the discretion of
the Secretary, solicit applications from qualified
intermediaries for a delegation of authority under this
section.
(2) Contents of application.--Each application under this
subsection shall include--
(A) a certification that the applicant will--
(i) provide matching funds from sources other than this Act
in an amount that is not less than the amount of assistance
provided to the applicant under this section; and
(ii) distribute assistance to eligible sponsors in the
State in accordance with section 4; and
(B) a description of--
(i) the State or the area within a State to be served;
(ii) the incidence of poverty and substandard housing in
the State or area to be served;
(iii) the technical and financial qualifications of the
applicant; and
(iv) the assistance sought and a proposed plan for the
distribution of such assistance in accordance with section 4.
(3) Multistate applications.--The Secretary may, in the
discretion of the Secretary, seek application by qualified
intermediaries for more than 1 State.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud, once again, to rise and offer
my support for the Rural Rental Housing Act. This important legislation
will help reaffirm the federal government's commitment to provide
quality affordable housing in rural areas. I joined Senator Edwards in
introducing this bill last year, and look forward to the opportunity to
debate this issue in the 107th Congress.
The need for a new federal program to encourage production,
rehabilitation and acquisition of rural rental housing has never been
more evident than it is today. Families in small towns across the
country find themselves with fewer and fewer options for a safe and
affordable place to live. In my home state of Vermont, like many other
states across the country, housing costs have soared out of reach of
most low-income families and rental vacancy rates have fallen to
alarmingly low levels. For those people fortunate enough to find an
available apartment it is increasingly difficult to afford the rent the
market demands.
Despite this trend, the federal government has continued to scale
back their commitment to rural housing programs over the last decade.
Money for production has dropped nearly 88 percent since 1990, and
funding for subsidized housing has fallen by 73 percent since 1994.
This decline has made it incredibly difficult to maintain the existing
housing stock, little less produce the number of units need to meet
demand. In Vermont four thousand rental units were built with federal
assistance between 1976 and 1985, but during the next ten years this
number fell to under two thousand--nearly half of what was produced the
decade before, despite the rising need. Nationwide it is estimated that
nearly 2.6 million

[[Page S3167]]

households live in substandard conditions, often without proper
plumbing, heat or electricity.
The Rural Rental Housing Act will provide $250 million dollars for a
new matching federal grant program to address this situation. These
funds will complement existing programs run by the Rural Housing
Service at Department of Agriculture and will be used in a variety of
ways to increase the supply, the affordability, and the quality of
housing for the most needy residents, the lowest income families and
our elderly citizens. Most importantly, this program is designed to be
administered at the state and local level and to encourage public-
private partnerships to best address the unique needs of each state.
I think it is time for the Senate to take action to address the needs
of our country's most rural populations. I am proud to be a cosponsor
of this bill and I encourage my colleagues to add their support.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I offer my support for the Rural
Rental Housing Act of 2001. Communities in every state in this country
are suffering from a critical lack of affordable housing. Many rural
areas have been particularly hard hit. This bill takes an important
step toward re-establishing the production and preservation of
affordable housing as a National priority. It assures that the needs of
rural communities are not forgotten. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of
this bill, and urge all of my colleagues similarly to support this
legislation.
The time has come for the federal government to get back in the
business of producing affordable housing. Until we do, we will not get
at the issue underlying the current affordable housing crisis: the
rapid erosion of affordable housing stock. Every year, in fact, every
day, we see the demolition of old affordable housing units without
seeing the creation of an equivalent number of new affordable housing
units. And while there can be no question that some of our existing
affordable housing units should be demolished, we have yet to meet our
responsibility to replace the old units that are lost with new, better,
affordable units. Our current policy simply results in too many
displaced families, families who are forced to sometimes double-up or
even become homeless in worst-case scenarios, overburdening otherwise
already fragile communities.
The housing needs of rural communities are particularly pronounced.
Rural households pay more of their income for housing than do urban
households. They are less likely to receive government-assisted
mortgages; they tend to be poorer than urban households. They have
limited access to mortgage credit, and they are often targeted by
predatory lenders. Rural communities have a disproportionate share of
the nation's substandard housing. They often have an inadequate supply
of affordable housing. Development costs are higher in rural
communities than in urban areas, and rural communities have a limited
secondary mortgage market. Many low-income rural families have only
limited experience with credit and lending institutions, and they often
lack an understanding of what it takes to get a home loan. Compounding
this problem is a lack of pre- and post-purchase counseling for rural
homeowners.
Despite the critical housing needs of rural communities, direct
lending for new or improved rural rental housing is currently at its
lowest funding level in more than 25 years. The Department of
Agriculture, USDA, has oversight of most of the federal rural housing
assistance programs. The primary sources of funding for rural housing
assistance, the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loan Program, which
makes direct loans to developers and cooperatives to build rural rental
housing and the Section 521 Rental Assistance Program (which provides
rent subsidies to low-income rural renters), have seen their funding
levels steadily eroded since the mid-eighties. As a consequence, right
now the rate of housing assistance to non-metro areas is only about
half that to metro areas.
Unfortunately, while funding levels for rural housing assistance
programs have been decreasing, the need for affordable rural housing
has been increasing. According to an analysis of 1995 American Housing
Survey, AHS, data, 10.4 million rural households, 28 percent, have
housing problems. When considering only rural renters, the problem
becomes even more pronounced. Thirty-three percent of all rural renters
are ``cost burdened,'' paying more than 30 percent of their income for
housing costs. Almost one million rural renter households suffer from
multiple housing problems. Of these households, 90 percent are severely
cost burdened, paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent.
Sixty percent pay more than 70 percent of their income for housing.
Nearly 60 percent of tenants in Section 515 housing are elderly,
disabled or handicapped. The average tenant income is less than $8,000
a year, and the average income of tenants who receive Section 521
housing assistance is $7,300 per year. Ninety-eight percent of them are
either low-income, 88 percent, or very-low income, 10 percent, and 75
percent are single female or female-headed households.
The ``Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001'' is intended to promote the
development of affordable, quality rental housing in rural areas for
low income households. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture, directly or through specified intermediaries, to provide
rural rental housing assistance in the form of loans, grants, interest
subsidies, annuities, and other forms of assistance to finance eligible
projects. It would require that no state receives less that $2 million.
It would limit the amount of assistance to 50 percent of the total cost
of eligible projects, unless the project is smaller than 20 units and
is targeted to very-low income tenants, then assistance can total up to
75 percent of the total cost. It would require that properties
acquired, rehabbed, or constructed with these funds remain affordable
for low-income families for at least 30 years, and it would give
priority to low-income families, low-income communities, or communities
lacking affordable rental housing. Finally, it would authorize
$250,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year 2002 through 2006.
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation, and
look forward to working with Senators Edwards, Jeffords, and Leahy to
ensure its passage.
______

By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lugar,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Carper, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Miller, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 653. A bill to amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act
to provide grants to States to encourage media campaigns to promote
responsible fatherhood skills, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Responsible
Fatherhood Act of 2001 with Senator Pete Domenici. Our bill aims to
encourage fathers to take both emotional and financial responsibility
for their children.
Many of America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in their
efforts to make ends meet while raising good, responsible children.
Many dads are too. But an increasing number of men are not doing their
part, or are absent entirely. The decline in the involvement of fathers
in the lives of their children over the last forty years is a troubling
trend that affects us all. Fathers can help teach their children about
respect, honor, duty and so many of the values that make our
communities strong.
The number of children living in households without fathers has
tripled over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to
more than 17 million today. Today, the United States leads the world in
fatherless families, and too many children spend their lives without
any contact with their fathers. The consequences are severe, A study by
the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency found that the best
predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not the rate
of poverty, but the rate of fatherless homes.
When fathers are absent from their lives, children are: 5 times more
likely to live in poverty; twice as likely to commit crimes; more
likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom; twice as likely
to drop out of school; twice as likely to be abused; more likely to
commit suicide; over twice as

[[Page S3168]]

likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and more likely to become pregnant as
teenagers.
I have had the opportunity to work with and visit local fatherhood
programs in Indiana. I have talked to fathers as they work to re-engage
with their children, learn how to be better parents, and gradually
build the trust that allows them to be involved emotionally, as well as
financially, with their children. I visited the Father Resource
Program, run by Dr. Wallace McLaughlin in Indianapolis. This program is
a wonderful example of a local, private/public partnership that
delivers results. It has served more than 500 fathers, primarily young
men between the ages of 15 and 25, by providing father peer support
meetings, pre-marital counseling, family development forums and family
support services, as well as co-parenting, employment, job training,
education, and life skills classes.
The fathers there were eager to tell me about the profound impact
these programs have made in their lives, and the lives of their
children. One said to me, ``After the six week fatherhood training
program, the support doesn't stop . . . I was wild before. The program
taught me self-discipline, parenting skills, and responsibility.''
Another said, ``As fathers, we would like to interact with our kids.
When they grow into something, we want to feel proud and say that we
were a part of that.'' And yet another, ``The program showed me how to
have a better relationship with my child's mother, and a better
relationship with my child. Before those relationships were just
financial.'' While the program's emotional benefits to families are
difficult to measure, we do know it is helping fathers enter the
workforce. Over eighty percent of the men who have graduated from the
program are currently employed.
This type of investment is a fiscally responsible one, it helps get
to the root cause of many of the social problems that cost our society
and our government a great deal of money: The cost to society of drug
and alcohol abuse is more than $110 billion per year. The social and
economic costs of teenage pregnancy, abortion and STDs has been
estimated at over $21 billion per year. The federal government spends
$8 billion a year on dropout prevention programs. Last year, the
federal government spent more than $105 billion on poverty relief
programs for families and children.
All this adds up to a staggering price. My legislation, The
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, does three primary things to help
combat fatherlessness in America. First, it creates a grant program for
state media campaigns to encourage fathers to act responsibly. Second,
it funds community efforts that provide fathers with the tools
necessary to be responsible fathers. Finally, the bill creates a
National Clearinghouse to assist states with their media campaigns and
with the dissemination of materials to promote responsible fatherhood.
Senators Voinovich, Lincoln, Lugar, Johnson, Miller, Landrieu,
Breaux, Graham, Lieberman, Kohl, and Carper also join me in the
introduction of The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001. This
legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by
Congresswoman Julia Carson, and has the endorsement of the
Congressional Black Caucus.
President Bush has included funding for responsible fatherhood in his
budget blueprint and I encourage him to continue to make this
initiative a priority. Collectively, I hope we are able to pass
responsible fatherhood legislation prior to Father's Day this year.
I know that government cannot be the lone answer to this problem. We
cannot legislate parental responsibility. But government can encourage
fathers to behave responsibly, inform the public about the consequences
of father absence, and remove barriers to responsible fatherhood.
I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.
______

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 657. A bill to authorize funding for the National 4-H Program
Centennial Initiative; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation authorizing
funding for the National 4-H Program Centennial Initiative.
In 2002 we will celebrate the centennial of the founding of the 4-H
program. This important youth development program operates in each of
the 50 states and more than 3,000 counties. The program is carried out
through the cooperative efforts of: youth; volunteer leaders; land
grant universities; federal, state and local governments; and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Last year over 6.8 million youth ages 5 to 19 participated in the 4-H
program. Over 600,000 volunteer leaders work directly or indirectly
with youth through the 4-H program.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the important role
of 4-H in youth development. I am pleased that Senator Harkin has
joined with me as a cosponsor.
In celebration of its centennial, the National 4-H Council has
proposed a public-private partnership to develop new strategies for
youth development for the next century. The funding authorized in this
bill will allow the National 4-H Council to convene meetings and hold
discussions at the national, state, and local levels to form strategies
for youth development. From input provided through these sessions, a
final report will be prepared that summarizes the discussions, makes
specific recommendations of strategies for youth development, and
proposes a plan of action for carrying out those strategies.
Because 4-H is an important program for youth in each of our states,
I am hopeful that there will be strong support for this initiative from
my colleagues. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 657

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL 4-H PROGRAM CENTENNIAL INITIATIVE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the 4-H Program is 1 of the largest youth development
organizations operating in each of the 50 States and over
3,000 counties;
(2) the 4-H Program is promoted by the Secretary of
Agriculture through the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service and land-grant colleges and
universities;
(3) the 4-H Program is supported by public and private
resources, including the National 4-H Council; and
(4) in celebration of the centennial of the 4-H Program in
2002, the National 4-H Council has proposed a public-private
partnership to develop new strategies for youth development
for the next century in light of an increasingly global and
technology-oriented economy and ever-changing demands and
challenges facing youth in widely diverse communities.
(c) Grant.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make a
grant to the National 4-H Council to be used to pay the
Federal share of the cost of--
(A) conducting a program of discussions through meetings,
seminars, and listening sessions on the National, State, and
local levels regarding strategies for youth development; and
(B) preparing a report that--
(i) summarizes and analyzes the discussions;
(ii) makes specific recommendations of strategies for youth
development; and
(iii) proposes a plan of action for carrying out those
strategies.
(2) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of the
program under paragraph (1) shall be 50 percent.
(B) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the program under paragraph (1) may be paid in
the form of cash or the provision of services, material, or
other in-kind contributions.
(d) Report.--The National 4-H Council shall submit the
report prepared under subsection (c) to the President, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Committee on Agriculture of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lugar, the
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, to
introduce this legislation to authorize a national effort to strengthen
4-H's youth development program. With the

[[Page S3169]]

4-H program set to observe its centennial year in 2002, this
legislation is a fitting tribute to the tremendous contributions 4-H
has made over the years to youth development in both rural and urban
communities.
The 4-H program is uniquely positioned to continue and expand upon
its record of service to our youth all across America and across our
many diverse communities, from farms to inner cities. 4-H is federally
authorized, carried out through state land-grant universities and
supported with public and private resources, including from the
National 4-H Council. However, the key to 4-H's success is the
multitude of volunteers who make the 4-H program work at the local
community level.
This legislation will authorize a new initiative for developing and
carrying out strategies for strengthening 4-H youth development in its
second century. Working through public-private partnerships, the
National 4-H Council will start at the grassroots level with a program
of discussions around the country involving meetings, seminars and
listening sessions to address the future of 4-H youth development.
Based on the information and ideas gathered, a report will be prepared
that summarizes and analyzes the discussions, makes specific
recommendations of strategies for youth development and proposes a plan
of action for carrying out those strategies.
The objective, of course, is to build on the tradition and success of
4-H to develop new approaches for youth development that are
appropriate and effective in the 21st Century. Youth today face ever-
growing pressures, demands and challenges far different from those of
the past. 4-H has a great deal to offer them, but to be fully
successful 4-H must adapt to the realities of an increasingly complex
and rapidly changing world. 4-H must also be responsive to the widening
diversity of the local communities where its contributions really make
a difference.
In short, 4-H can expand its fine record of service and accomplish
even more in its second century by developing new strategies for youth
development. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to help
achieve. I urge my colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 658. A bill to amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize
units of the National Guard to conduct small arms competitions and
athletic competitions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with Senator
Jeffords to introduce legislation that will allow the National Guard to
participate fully in international sports competitions. Currently,
members of the National Guard are involved in a myriad of athletic and
small arms competitions, but their authority for such activities is
unclear. This legislation will make it easier for the Guard to support
the competitions and allow them to use their funds and facilities for
such events. This is basic but necessary legislation.
The National Guard is already participating in these events. The
Vermont National Guard hosted the 2001 Conseil International du Sport
Militaire, CISM, World Military Ski Championships at the Stowe ski area
this month. This military ski event united military personnel from more
than 30 countries, promoting friendship and mutual understanding
through sports. More than 350 international athletes competed in such
events as the biathlon, giant slalom, cross country, and military
patrol race. They tested their skill and mettle in the beautiful Green
Mountains, where the recent nor'easter added to the already bountiful
snow cover there.
But it takes a lot more than a 3-foot base of powder to carry off
these competitions. It takes clear authorities, regulations, and
resources. This legislation will allows these important events to
continue with full participation of the National Guard. I urge the
Senate to join Senator Jeffords and me in sponsoring this legislation
and moving it quickly through the legislative process.
I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 658

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

SECTION 1. CONDUCT OF SMALL ARMS COMPETITIONS AND ATHLETIC
COMPETITIONS BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.

(a) Preparation and Participation Generally.--Section 504
of title 32, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting:
``(3) prepare for and participate in small arms
competition; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) prepare for and participate in qualifying athletic
competitions.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(c)(1) Units of the National Guard may conduct a small
arms competition or qualifying athletic competition in
conjunction with training required under this chapter if such
activity (treating the activity as of it were a provision of
services) meets the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1),
(3), and (4) of section 508(a) of this title.
``(2) Facilities and equipment of the National Guard,
including military property and vehicles described in section
508(c) of this title, may be used in connection with
activities carried out under paragraph (1).
``(3) Except as otherwise provided in an applicable
provision of an appropriations Act, amounts appropriated for
the National Guard may be used to pay the costs of activities
carried out under this subsection and expenses incurred by
members of the National Guard in engaging in activities under
paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a), including
participation fees, costs of attendance, costs of travel, per
diem, costs of clothing, costs of equipment, and related
expenses.
``(d) In this section, the term `qualifying athletic
competition' means a competition in an athletic event that
necessarily involves demonstrations by the competitors of--
``(1) skills relevant to the performance of military
duties; or
``(2) physical fitness consistent with the standards that
are applicable to members of the National Guard in
evaluations of the physical readiness of members for military
duty in the members' armed force.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 504. National Guard schools; small arms competitions;
athletic competitions''.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of title 32, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``504. National Guard schools; small arms competitions; athletic
competitions.''.
____

Sectional Analysis

Section XXX amends 32 U.S.C. Sec. 504 to allow the National
Guard to use appropriated funds to support certain costs of
members of the National Guard involved with small arms and
other athletic training and competitions to promote morale
and military readiness. Although the Department of Defense
(DOD), Air Force (USAF), and Army (DA) regulations allow use
of appropriated funds to support sports programs, there are
some things under general fiscal law principles for which
appropriated funds can not be used, unless specifically
authorized by law. The Active Components cover these costs
with non-appropriated funds. Unlike the Air Force and the
Army, the National Guard receives no non-appropriated funds
for Morale, Welfare, Recreation (MWR) sports activities and,
therefore, can not cover costs associated with sports
programs with such funds. Section XXX addresses this
inconsistency and provides authority for NGB to spend
appropriated funds on items the Active Components generally
cover with non-appropriated funds.
Departmental, national, and international sports
competition programs are run by the Army and the Air Force.
AR 215-1 and AFI 34-107 outline the requirements for soldier/
airmen athletes to apply to compete at this higher level as
individuals or as part of departmental teams. 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 717 provides specific statutory authority to use
appropriated funds to purchase personal furnishings for
soldier/airmen competitors at this level. This authority,
however, can not be used to support the NG sports program
because implementing regulations require control and approval
at the departmental level. DODD 1330.4, AR 215-1, chap. 8,
AFI 34-107. The NG competitive sports program, as with other
MACOM level and below sports programs within the Active
Components, maintains intramural level sports programs to
support athletes who will train to compete for positions on
the departmental teams authorized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 717.
Section XXX authorizes the NG to use appropriated funds to
support a MACOM level sports program on par with Active
Component MACOMs.
Section XXX places two limits on NGB sports activities to
ensure any training, participation, or holding of sports
events enhances military readiness. First, the amendment
allows preparation for and participation in sports events
that ``require skills relevant to military duties or involve
aspects of physical fitness that are evaluated by the

[[Page S3170]]

armed forces in determining whether a member of the National
Guard is fit for military duty.'' Second, the amendment
requires the National Guard hold only sports events that
``meet the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1), (3), and
(4) of section 508(a)'' of title 32, United States Code. This
limitation allows the National Guard Bureau to hold sporting
events only if: (1) such event ``does not adversely affect
the quality of training or otherwise interfere with the
ability of a member or unit of the National Guard to perform
the military functions of the member or unit; (2) ``National
Guard personnel will enhance their military skills as a
result of'' participation in the sports event; and (3) the
event ``will not result in a significant increase in the cost
of the training.'' 32 U.S.C. 508(a)(1), (3), (4). These
limitations safeguard one of the purposes of competitive
sporting events within DOD, namely to enhance military
readiness.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, It is with great pleasure that Senator
Leahy and I today to introduce the National Guard Competitive Sports
Equity Act.
Passage of this bill will allow the National Guard to utilize
appropriated funds in support of National Guard Sports Programs,
National Guard Bureau sanctioned competitive events and associated
training programs.
The National Guard Competitive Events and Sports program adds value
to the National Guard by enhancing the National Guard's competitive
training programs through participation in military, national and
international sports competitions. The National Guard Competitive
Sports Program trains, coordinates and participates in events such as
the Pan Am Games, World Championships and Olympic Games, Competition
International Sports Militaire, CISM, and manages the World Class
Athlete Program.
The National Guard Sports Office manages four core programs that
include marksmanship, biathlon, parachute competition and marathon
programs.
This legislation is important because it will allow these programs to
continue to flourish and provide the National Guard training resource
equity on par with similar programs available to active duty soldiers.
Under current law, active component services are able to utilize
Morale, Welfare and Recreation, MWR funds for training, allowances,
entry fees, personal clothing and specialized equipment in support of
training and competitive events. The Guard does not receive or have
access to similar funding sources. The Guard is forced to use training
funds potentially earmarked for other events or not participate.
This important legislation will allow this program to continue and
provide the National Guard with the funding flexibility it requires to
maintain this highly successful program.
______

By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Cochran,
Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Helms, Mr. Dayton, and Mr.
Hutchinson):
S. 659. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
adjust the labor costs relating to items and services furnished in a
geographically reclassified hospital for which reimbursement under the
medicare program is provided on a prospective basis; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act of 2001. I am pleased to have the
support of several of my colleagues including Senators Craig, Hagel,
Cochran, Lincoln, Roberts, Helms, Dayton, and Hutchinson. These members
recognize the need for adequate reimbursements for rural health
facilities. I am also grateful to Representative Bart Stupak who will
be introducing this legislation in the House.
The Medicare Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act will amend the Social
Security Act to redirect additional Medicare reimbursements to rural
hospitals. Currently, hospitals throughout the country are losing
Medicare reimbursements, which results in severe implications for
surrounding communities.
As you know, in an attempt to keep Medicare from consuming its
limited reserves, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
BBA, which made sweeping changes in the manner that health care
providers are reimbursed for services rendered to Medicare
beneficiaries. These were the most significant modifications in the
history of the program.
All of the problems with the BBA, whether hospitals, nursing
facilities, home health agencies, or skilled nursing facilities, are
especially acute in rural states, where Medicare payments are a bigger
percentage of hospital revenues and profit margins are generally much
lower. These facilities were already managed at a highly efficient
level and had ``cut the fat out of the system.'' Therefore, the cuts
implemented in the BBA hit the rural communities in Idaho and
throughout the United States in a very significant and serious way.
In the 106th Congress, the Senate did a tremendous job of bringing
forth legislation that adjusted Medicare payments to health care
providers hurt by cuts ordered in the BBA. While this was a meaningful
step, the Senate must continue to address the inequities in the system.
My bill would expand wage-index reclassification by requiring the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to deem a hospital that has been
reclassified for purposes of its inpatient wage-index to also
reclassify for purposes of other services which are provider-based and
for which payments are adjusted using a wage-index. In other words,
this legislation would require the Secretary to use a hospital's
reclassification wage-index to adjust payments for hospital outpatient,
skilled nursing facility, home health, and other services, providing
those entities are provider-based. This change should have been made in
BBA when Congress required that prospective payment systems be
established for these and other services. As such, this change would
address an issue that has been left unaddressed for several years.
It makes sense that, if a hospital has been granted reclassification
by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board for certain
inpatient services, it also be granted wage-index reclassification for
outpatient and other services. It is estimated that this provision
would help approximately 400 hospitals, 90 percent which are rural.
Furthermore, this provision would be budget neutral.
I know my colleagues in the Senate share my commitment of promoting
access to health care services in rural areas. Expanding wage-index
geographic reclassification will allow hospitals to recoup lost funds
and use those funds to address patients' needs in an appropriate,
effective, and meaningful way. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor
the Medicare Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act.
______

By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Nickles, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 661. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the 4.3-cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway
transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
repeal the 4.3-cent federal excise tax on railroad and inland waterway
transportation fuels. This tax was signed into law by President Clinton
in 1993 in order to help reduce the federal budget deficit. Now that
the budget is in surplus, however, the tax is no longer needed.
Railroad and barges should not continue to be the only forms of
transportation that must pay this tax for purposes of deficit
reduction, particularly during this time of high fuel prices. I am
pleased to be joined in my efforts by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr.
Breaux, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, the Senator from
Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, the
Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs.
Lincoln.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 imposed a Federal
excise tax of 4.3 cents per gallon on all transportation fuels. The
revenue raised from the tax was dedicated to deficit reduction, so tax
revenue was deposited in the general fund instead of into any of the
transportation trust funds. Prior to the 1993 act, the gasoline,
aviation and diesel fuel excise taxes had been considered to be ``user
fees.'' The revenue raised from these taxes was deposited into the
transportation trust funds and was dedicated to improving highways,
airports and waterways. There is

[[Page S3171]]

no railroad trust fund. Therefore, the 1993 act was a significant
departure from previous treatment of transportation fuel taxes.
In 1997, Congress redirected the 4.3-cent gasoline excise tax back
into the highway trust fund and the 4.3-cent aviation fuel excise tax
back into the airport and airway trust fund as a part of the surface
transportation reauthorization bill, TEA-21. The 1997 law restored the
gasoline and aviation taxes to their previous status as true user fees.
The revenue collected from these taxes are once again used for the
benefit of our highways and airports. However, the final version of
TEA-21 did not touch the tax on inland waterway barge fuel or railroad
fuel, so that tax revenue is still being deposited in the general fund.
Last Congress, the Senator from Rhode Island, John Chafee, led the
effort to repeal the 4.3-cent excise tax on railroad and barge fuel.
The 106th Congress actually voted to repeal the tax as part of the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. Unfortunately, the bill was
vetoed by President Clinton.
I am pleased to carry on the work of our former colleague by
introducing this bill to repeal the 4.3-cent tax on railroad and barge
fuel effective this year. I believe the time has come to repeal the
4.3-cent tax, since it provides no benefit to the railroad and barge
systems, and it only imposes a burden on these two industries that are
important to my home state of Tennessee. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to repeal this outdated tax.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Santorium, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, and
Mr. Voinovich):
S. 662. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones or markers for
marked graves of, or to otherwise commemorate, certain individuals; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, according to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, today some 1,500 American World War II-era veterans, members
of the so-called Greatest Generation, will pass away. Tomorrow about
the same number will pass away. That daily number will gradually rise
in the weeks, months, and years to come. Most of them were not career
soldiers, but they answered the call to serve our country. Many bravely
confronted our enemies in distant lands, in battles that we regard as
history, but that they remember as their personal stories. Midway
Island, Omaha Beach, and Iwo Jima are just a few of the places hallowed
by their deeds. Through their strength and dedication these veterans
have earned the respect and gratitude of all Americans to follow.
As these veterans pass away, their families are rightfully seeking to
preserve the record of their loved ones' service to our nation. One way
in which they are seeking to record that service is to secure official
burial recognition. But, because of a provision of current law, the
Department of Veterans Affairs is prohibited from providing an official
headstone or grave marker to as many as 20,000 of these families each
year.
The law I am referring to dates back to the Civil War era, when our
nation wanted to ensure that our fallen soldiers were not buried in
unmarked graves. Thus, the law instructs the VA to provide a grave
marker for veterans who would otherwise lie in unmarked graves. Of
course, in this day and age, a grave rarely goes unmarked. Today,
virtually every deceased veteran is buried in a marked grave, or in
some other way duly memorialized by surviving family members. Until
1990, the surviving family members of a deceased veterans could receive
from the VA, after a burial or cremation, a partial reimbursement for
the cost of a private headstone, a VA headstone, or a VA marker. The
choice was solely up to the vet's surviving family members. However,
budgetary belt tightening measures enacted in 1990 eliminated the
reimbursement component and precluded the VA from providing a headstone
or a marker where the family had already done so privately. That
measure has left the VA without any recourse when dealing with veterans
families who have made private burial arrangements, other than denying
their request for official headstones or grave markers.
The inequity created by the current law is not difficult to
understand. A family who is aware of this peculiarity in the law can
simply request the official headstone, or in most cases grave marker,
prior to making private arrangements for a headstone or marker. The VA
will examine the request, find that the veterans grave has not been
marked, and provide the marker, bestowing the appropriate recognition
for service to the Nation. The family is then able to incorporate the
VA marker into its private arrangements as the family deems fit.
However, many, if not most, families do not know about the
peculiarities of the law in this area. Most families are unaware of the
current law and act as any family would in a time of loss and grief:
they make private and appropriate arrangements to commemorate the
deceased. For most, the idea of checking with the VA at this most
difficult time is the farthest thing from their minds, but the effect
of not doing so is absolute and final. When families purchase a private
headstone, as nearly every family does these days, they unknowingly
forfeit the opportunity to receive a government headstone or marker.
The Guzzo family of West Hartford, CT is one of the countless
families who have found out about this law the hard way. Thomas Guzzo
first brought this matter to my attention several years ago. His late
father, Agostino Guzzo, served in the Phillippines and was honorably
discharged from the Army in 1947. Today, Agostino Guzzo is interred in
a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, CT, but the
mausoleum bears no reference to his service because of the current law.
Like so many families, the Guzzo family provided its own marker and
subsequently found that it was not eligible for an official VA marker.
When I was first contacted by the Guzzo family, I attempted to
straighten out what I thought to be a bureaucratic mixup. I was
surprised to realize that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from
some glitch in the system, but rather from the law itself. In the end,
I wrote to the former Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas
Guzzo's very reasonable request. The Secretary responded that his hands
were tied as a result of the obscure law. Furthermore, the Secretary's
response indicated that, even if a grave marker could be provided for
Agostino Guzzo, that marker could not be placed on a cemetery bench or
tree dedicated in his name. The law prevented the Department from
providing a marker for placement anywhere but the grave site and thus
prevents families from recognizing their veteran's service as they
wish.
I rise today to introduce a bill that will appropriately address
these issues and ensure our deceased veterans are treated equitably.
The bill will allow the families of deceased veterans to receive an
official headstone or grave marker in recognition of their veteran's
contribution to our nation, regardless of whether their grave is
privately marked.
What I propose today is a modest means of solving a massive problem.
The VA has described this issue as one of its greatest public affairs
challenges, but the cost of fixing it is relatively small. Last
Congress, the idea was scored by the Congressional Budget Office at
less than $3 million dollars per year, over the first 5 years. This
bill will put at ease countless families who are disillusioned by the
current system. Moreover, it gives those families the appropriate
flexibility, with respect to common cemetery restrictions, to
commemorate deceased veterans by dedicating a tree or bench or other
suitable site in the veteran's honor.
America is different today than it was when we changed the burial
benefits in 1990. Our fiscal house is in order; disciplined spending
has produced budget surpluses for the first time in many years. We know
that the VA is forced to reject as many as 20,000 headstone and grave
marker requests each year under the current law. These are meritorious
requests by deserving applicants whose families unknowingly forfeit
their right to this modest memorial in a time of stress and loss. The
cost of fixing this inequity is minor. It

[[Page S3172]]

is appropriate, I feel, to make sure that all our veterans receive the
recognition they have earned.
The policy is simple. We should provide these markers or headstones
to the families when they request them, and we should allow these
families to recognize their deceased veterans in a manner deemed
fitting by each family.
Time is of the essence. One thousand five hundred veterans pass away
each day, and each day there are 1,500 new families who may be denied a
modest recognition of the service their loved one gave to our Nation.
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. 662

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE HEADSTONES OR MARKERS FOR
MARKED GRAVES OR OTHERWISE COMMEMORATE CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Section 2306 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsections (a) and (e)(1), by striking ``the
unmarked graves of''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) A headstone or marker furnished under subsection (a)
shall be furnished, upon request, for the marked grave or
unmarked grave of the individual or at another area
appropriate for the purpose of commemorating the
individual.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment to subsection (a) of
section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, made by
subsection (a) of this section, and subsection (f) of such
section 2306, as added by subsection (a) of this section,
shall apply with respect to burials occurring on or after
November 1, 1990.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 663. A bill to authorize the President to present a gold medal on
behalf of Congress to Eugene McCarthy in recognition of his service to
the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in recognition of his distinguished
record of service to the United States, I am introducing a bill today
to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Eugene McCarthy.
The Congressional Gold Medal is considered to the most distinguished
recognition that Congress bestows. I believe, and I hope my colleagues
will agree, that the Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting tribute to
the dedicated service Eugene McCarthy has given to our Nation.
Eugene McCarthy graduated from St. Johns University in Minnesota in
1935, and from the University of Minnesota in 1939. He taught economics
and sociology at public and Catholic high schools and colleges in
Minnesota and North Dakota, including at St. Thomas College in St.
Paul, and at his own alma mater, St. Johns University. McCarthy served
in the military intelligence division of the U.S. War Department in
1944. In 1948, he was elected to Congress to represent the State of
Minnesota. For Eugene McCarthy, this was merely a first step, revealing
that his long-time interest in politics would be even more a calling
than it would be a career. He has pursued his political vocation and
mission for more than 40 years. This span covers Eugene McCarthy's
service in the House of Representatives and in the Senate during the
years 1948 to 1971, his anti-war presidential campaign of 1968, his
Independent candidacy of 1976, and the many books, essays and speeches
that always spoke out for reform of the political process and the
limitation of executive power.
Eugene McCarthy exemplified the highest standards of public service
and dedication to Constitutional principles as a member of the House of
Representatives for five terms, from 1948 to 1958, and as a Member of
this body, the Senate, for two terms, from 1959 to 1971. Through his
shaping of legislation on civil rights, tax policy, Social Security and
Medicare, the minimum wage, unemployment compensation, government
reform, foreign policy and Congressional oversight of the Central
Intelligence Agency, McCarthy upheld the finest principles of politics
and policy. As Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Unemployment
Problems in 1959-60, McCarthy held hearings which led to the
Committee's outlining of many of the economic development and social
welfare programs later enacted during the Kennedy and Johnson
administration. On the Ways and Means and Finance Committees of the
House and Senate, respectively, McCarthy pushed for additional benefits
and minimum wage coverage for migrant workers. In the early 1960s, he
led the fight to give Medicare coverage to the mentally ill. He was a
leader throughout the 1960s in efforts to extend unemployment
compensation. Beginning in 1954, and subsequently for more than 15
years in both the House and the Senate, McCarthy called for
Congressional oversight of the CIA.

Eugene McCarthy's principled campaign for the Democratic Presidential
nomination in 1968 and his courageous stand regarding U.S. withdrawal
from the Vietnam War inspired countless young people to believe they
could make a difference in public life. He always emphasized the role
of Congress in foreign policy, and his actions helped hasten the end of
the most controversial war in American history. Eugene McCarthy
deplored cynicism and any tendency to look upon all politicians as
corrupt. He said:

Truth will prove the best antidote to cynicism which is an
especially dangerous attitude when it prevails among young
people . . . Not only does it destroy confidence and hope,
some of the most precious assets of youth, but it also eats
away the will to attack difficult political problems, as it
does problems in other fields.

As a distinguished author, poet and lecturer, Eugene McCarthy has
elevated the language of public dialogue in a way that epitomizes the
deepest and most cherished values of American political life. ``What
the country needs,'' McCarthy said in 1968, ``is a freeing of our moral
energy, a freeing of our resolution, a freeing of our strength.'' He
added that, ``in a free country the potential for leadership must exist
in every man and ever woman.'' McCarthy has authored numerous books on
American politics and institutions, including ``A Liberal Answer to the
Conservative Challenge,'' 1964; ``America Revisited: 150 Years After
Tocqueville,'' 1976; ``the Ultimate Tyranny: The Majority over the
Majority,'' 1980; and ``Up Till Now: A Memoir,'' 1988.
Eugene McCarthy has dedicated much of his life to our Nation. His
leadership and service have extended far beyond his tenure in the
United States Congress. It is an honor for me to ask that we award the
congressional Gold Medal to this deserving scholar and gentleman. This
bill offers us here in the Senate finally to recognize Eugene
McCarthy's extraordinary contributions to the United States and to say:
Eugene McCarthy, we thank you.
______

By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 664. A bill to provide jurisdictional standards for the imposition
of State and local tax obligations on interstate commerce, and for
other puroses; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I introduce with Senator Kohl the New
Economy Tax Fairness Act, or NET FAIR. As we all know, the Internet and
electronic commerce have reshaped our society over the last decade.
Much of the success that our Nation's economy has enjoyed has been a
result of innovative companies making use of Internet technology to
conduct commerce online. E-commerce has created new jobs, increased
productivity, lowered business costs, generated a higher level of
convenience for consumers, and sparked overall growth in the U.S.
economy.
With this in mind, there remain those that would like to tax
interstate commerce over the Internet even while this budding
technology has yet to meet its full potential. The NET FAIR Act
addresses the issue of taxing remote sellers that conduct interstate
commerce electronically.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota that
States cannot force out-of-State retail firms to collect sales taxes.
The Court held that Congress alone has the authority to impose such
requirements under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
NET FAIR builds upon the Quill decision by extending the same approach
that currently governs catalogue sales to the Internet. This
legislation would allow States to require a company to collect sales
and use tax, or to pay business activity taxes, only if their goods or
services

[[Page S3173]]

are sold to individuals living in states where the company has a
substantial physical presence, or ``nexus.''
Today, there are over 7,600 taxing jurisdictions nationwide. NET FAIR
provides clear rules of the road for all parties involved, establishing
sound nexus standards for the 21st Century. This legislation allows the
Internet to continue as an engine of economic growth while respecting
the sovereign right of States to determine their own tax policy for
commerce conducted within their borders. A failure to address this
issue will subject small and large businesses alike to thousands of
different tax standards and rules, making it difficult to ensure
compliance. In fact, it will be the small and medium sized businesses--
using the Internet to remain competitive in the new economy--that will
be hit the hardest, as they lack the resources to comply with the
thousands of jurisdictional tax standards that exist across the
country.
At my urging, the bipartisan Advisory Commission on Electronic
Commerce was established in 1998. The Commission was established to
examine all aspects of the Internet taxation issue. In April 2000, the
Commission issued its report to Congress. With majority support, the
ACEC recommended that the Internet tax moratorium be extended, which I
support, and that Congress clarify nexus rules for e-commerce and
establish clear guidelines for when state and local governments could
levy taxes on vendors of interstate commerce. Our legislation goes to
the very heart of this issue, and establishes clear nexus rules for e-
commerce. Since the ACEC issued its report, it has become apparent that
reform in this area is necessary; however, Congress should not allow a
``tax first, reform later'' approach to prevail. Rather, Congress
should address the nexus issued head on.
NET FAIR provides legal certainty for companies and consumers that
engage in interstate commerce via the Internet, telephone, or mail
order. This bill adheres to our Founding Fathers' tenet of ``no
taxation without representation'' by codifying fair taxation
principles. We cannot stand idly by and allow this new economic avenue
to be hampered with new taxes. This legislation does not preempt a
State's right to tax commerce; however, it does protect businesses and
consumers from unfair taxation on interstate commerce and from what
could be a crippling effect on the growth of the new 21st Century
economy.
Senator Kohl and I firmly believe that the New Economy Tax Fairness
Act accomplishes this task. It is vital that Congress address Internet
taxation and clarify nexus standards so that interstate commerce,
especially online, electronic commerce, can continue to thrive and
positively impact our Nation's overall economic success. I would ask
that our Senate colleagues join us in this effort.
I ask that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 664

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 ``New Economy Tax Fairness Act
or NET FAIR Act''.

SEC. 2. JURISDICTIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF STATE
AND LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY, SALES, AND USE TAX
OBLIGATIONS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Title I of the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the power
of the States to impose net income taxes on income derived
from interstate commerce, and authorizing studies by
congressional committees of matters pertaining thereto'',
approved on September 14, 1959 (15 U.S.C. 381 et seq.), is
amended to read as follows:

``TITLE I--JURISDICTIONAL STANDARDS

``SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF STATE AND LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY,
SALES, AND USE TAX OBLIGATIONS ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.

``(a) In General.--No State shall have power to impose, for
any taxable year ending after the date of enactment of this
title, a business activity tax or a duty to collect and remit
a sales or use tax on the income derived within such State by
any person from interstate commerce, unless such person has a
substantial physical presence in such State. A substantial
physical presence is not established if the only business
activities within such State by or on behalf of such person
during such taxable year are any or all of the following:
``(1) The solicitation of orders or contracts by such
person or such person's representative in such State for
sales of tangible or intangible personal property or
services, which orders or contracts are approved or rejected
outside the State, and, if approved, are fulfilled by
shipment or delivery of such property from a point outside
the State or the performance of such services outside the
State.
``(2) The solicitation of orders or contracts by such
person or such person's representative in such State in the
name of or for the benefit of a prospective customer of such
person, if orders or contracts by such customer to such
person to enable such customer to fill orders or contracts
resulting from such solicitation are orders or contracts
described in paragraph (1).
``(3) The presence or use of intangible personal property
in such State, including patents, copyrights, trademarks,
logos, securities, contracts, money, deposits, loans,
electronic or digital signals, and web pages, whether or not
subject to licenses, franchises, or other agreements.
``(4) The use of the Internet to create or maintain a World
Wide Web site accessible by persons in such State.
``(5) The use of an Internet service provider, on-line
service provider, internetwork communication service
provider, or other Internet access service provider, or World
Wide Web hosting services to maintain or take and process
orders via a web page or site on a computer that is
physically located in such State.
``(6) The use of any service provider for transmission of
communications, whether by cable, satellite, radio,
telecommunications, or other similar system.
``(7) The affiliation with a person located in the State,
unless--
``(A) the person located in the State is the person's agent
under the terms and conditions of subsection (d); and
``(B) the activity of the agent in the State constitutes
substantial physical presence under this subsection.
``(8) The use of an unaffiliated representative or
independent contractor in such State for the purpose of
performing warranty or repair services with respect to
tangible or intangible personal property sold by a person
located outside the State.
``(b) Domestic Corporations; Persons Domiciled in or
Residents of a State.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall
not apply to the imposition of a business activity tax or a
duty to collect and remit a sales or use tax by any State
with respect to--
``(1) any corporation which is incorporated under the laws
of such State; or
``(2) any individual who, under the laws of such State, is
domiciled in, or a resident of, such State.
``(c) Sales or Solicitation of Orders or Contracts for
Sales by Independent Contractors.--For purposes of subsection
(a), a person shall not be considered to have engaged in
business activities within a State during any taxable year
merely by reason of sales of tangible or intangible personal
property or services in such State, or the solicitation of
orders or contracts for such sales in such State, on behalf
of such person by one or more independent contractors, or by
reason of the maintenance of an office in such State by one
or more independent contractors whose activities on behalf of
such person in such State consist solely of making such
sales, or soliciting orders or contracts for such sales.
``(d) Attribution of Activities and Presence.--For purposes
of this section, the substantial physical presence of any
person shall not be attributed to any other person absent the
establishment of an agency relationship between such persons
that--
``(1) results from the consent by both persons that one
person act on behalf and subject to the control of the other;
and
``(2) relates to the activities of the person within the
State.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this title--
``(1) Business activity tax.--The term `business activity
tax' means a tax imposed on, or measured by, net income, a
business license tax, a business and occupation tax, a
franchise tax, a single business tax or a capital stock tax,
or any similar tax or fee imposed by a State.
``(2) Independent contractor.--The term `independent
contractor' means a commission agent, broker, or other
independent contractor who is engaged in selling, or
soliciting orders or contracts for the sale of, tangible or
intangible personal property or services for more than one
principal and who holds himself or herself out as such in the
regular course of his or her business activities.
``(3) Internet.--The term `Internet' means collectively the
myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities,
including equipment and operating software, which comprise
the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ
the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any
predecessor or successor protocols to such Protocol.
``(4) Internet access.--The term `Internet access' means a
service that enables users to access content, information,
electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet,
and may also include access to proprietary content,
information, and other services as a part of a package of
services offered to users.
``(5) Representative.--The term `representative' does not
include an independent contractor.

[[Page S3174]]

``(6) Sales tax.--The term `sales tax' means a tax that
is--
``(A) imposed on or incident to the sale of tangible or
intangible personal property or services as may be defined or
specified under the laws imposing such tax; and
``(B) measured by the amount of the sales price, cost,
charge, or other value of or for such property or services.
``(7) Solicitation of orders or contracts.--The term
`solicitation of orders or contracts' includes activities
normally ancillary to such solicitation.
``(8) State.--The term `State' means any of the several
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or
possession of the United States, or any political subdivision
thereof.
``(9) Use tax.--The term `use tax' means a tax that is--
``(A) imposed on the purchase, storage, consumption,
distribution, or other use of tangible or intangible personal
property or services as may be defined or specified under the
laws imposing such tax; and
``(B) measured by the purchase price of such property or
services.
``(10) World wide web.--The term `World Wide Web' means a
computer server-based file archive accessible, over the
Internet, using a hypertext transfer protocol, file transfer
protocol, or other similar protocols.
``(f) Application of Section.--This section shall not be
construed to limit, in any way, constitutional restrictions
otherwise existing on State taxing authority.

``SEC. 102. ASSESSMENT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY TAXES.

``(a) Limitations.--No State shall have power to assess
after the date of enactment of this title any business
activity tax which was imposed by such State or political
subdivision for any taxable year ending on or before such
date, on the income derived for activities within such State
that affect interstate commerce, if the imposition of such
tax for a taxable year ending after such date is prohibited
by section 101.
``(b) Collections.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall
not be construed--
``(1) to invalidate the collection on or before the date of
enactment of this title of any business activity tax imposed
for a taxable year ending on or before such date; or
``(2) to prohibit the collection after such date of any
business activity tax which was assessed on or before such
date for a taxable year ending on or before such date.

``SEC. 103. TERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL PRESENCE.

``If a State has imposed a business activity tax or a duty
to collect and remit a sales or use tax on a person as
described in section 101, and the person so obligated no
longer has a substantial physical presence in that State, the
obligation to pay a business activity tax or to collect and
remit a sales or use tax on behalf of that State applies only
for the period in which the person has a substantial physical
presence.

``SEC. 104. SEPARABILITY.

``If any provision of this title or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of this title or the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is
held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.''.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce with my good friend from
New Hampshire NET FAIR, the New Economy Fairness Act. This bill is
identical to a bill we introduced last Congress. It would clarify the
tax situation of companies that sell and ship products out of the state
in which they are located.
NET FAIR codifies current legal decisions defining when a business
can be subject to state and local business taxes and be required to
collect State and local sales taxes. Currently, a business falls into a
state or local taxing jurisdiction when it has a ``substantial physical
presence'' or ``nexus'' there.
And that makes sense. If a business is located in a State--uses the
roads there, impacts the environment there, employs local workers there
it should pay taxes and business fees there, and it should collect
sales taxes on products sold there.
But if a business is located out of State, and simply ships products
to consumers there, it is not part of the local economy. It does not
use local services or infrastructure. And it should not be subject to
the taxes and tax collection burdens that support a community not its
own.
That seems simple. But as with anything that happens in tax law, it
is not. Cases have been brought in courts across the country trying to
clarify exactly what is a ``substantial physical presence.'' Is it
maintaining a Web site? Sending employees to training conferences?
Taking orders over the Internet? Our bill codifies the decisions
already established by the courts and restates the principle on which
they are all based: State and local taxing authorities do not have
jurisdiction over businesses that are not physically located in their
borders.
Because this area of the law is as arcane as it is important, it is
important to describe what our bill does not do.
It does not exempt e-businesses or any other mail order businesses
from taxation. The businesses our bill cover pay plenty of taxes--
Federal taxes and State and local taxes and fees in every state in
which they maintain a physical presence.
Our bill does not offer special breaks for e-businesses. Though the
struggling e-economy will certainly benefit from having its tax
situation clarified, nothing we state in this bill goes beyond current
established case law.
Our bill does not take away any revenue States and localities are
currently collecting. Only Congress has the right to regulate the flow
of commerce between the States. State and local tax collectors have
never been able to reach into other States and collect revenues from
businesses outside their borders.
Our bill does not threaten ``main street businesses.'' In fact, it is
just the opposite. The small stores of Main Street are threatened by
malls and mega-stores--not by the Internet or catalogue companies. In
fact, many Main Street speciality stores are staying alive by offering
their products over the Internet.
In Wisconsin, for example, we have many cheese makers who have run
small family businesses for years. A quick search on the World Wide Web
yields 20 Wisconsin cheese makers selling over the Internet. They are
from Wisconsin towns like Plain, Durand, Fennimore, Tribe Lake, Thorp,
and Prairie Ridge. Could these small towns support speciality cheese
makers with walk-in traffic only? Would these small businesses continue
to sell over the Internet if they had to figure and remit sales taxes
and business fees to the over 7000 taxing jurisdictions into which they
might ship? Of course not.
What our bill does do is protect businesses, big and small, and
consumers from facing a plethora of new taxes and tax compliance
burdens. What it does do is keep the life-line of Internet sales
available for countless small businesses and entrepreneurs. What it
does do is clarify the tax law and eliminate the need for State-by-
State litigation--that governs the developing world of e-commerce. What
it does do is provide predictability to the mail order business sector
an industry that employs 300,000 in the State of Wisconsin.
I urge my colleagues to support NETFAIR and protect thousands of
businesses and millions of consumers from new and onerous tax burdens.

____________________