[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Issue]
[Pages 23317-23611]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
107
VOLUME 147--PART 17
November 29, 2001
November 29, 2001
[[Page 23317]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, November 29, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God of history and ever-present, Your call to Abram to leave his
place and to move to a place You would show him is truly a call of
faith.
Lord, You know it is not easy for us to unplug ourselves or for us to
deal with the unknown. There is an inner resistance in all of us to
change. We find security in the familiar. Contentment seems to breathe
an air of blessedness in being where we are, how we are, and who we
are. Yet Your call of faith, O Lord, is a call to change and a constant
conversion of heart until we are completely one in You and with You.
Be with all the Members of the United States House of
Representatives, the President, and all who serve in government.
Help them to be people of faith and true leaders. May they never be
afraid to change themselves or to change the course of history as a
response to Your holy inspiration. Give them courage to act upon what
they believe, to follow their convictions, and lead others in the ways
of faith.
O Lord, in a world of constant change, You alone are reliable now and
forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote
on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 349,
nays 48, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No 459]
YEAS--349
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--48
Aderholt
Baird
Borski
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Costello
Crane
Etheridge
Filner
Gillmor
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MN)
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
LoBiondo
Matheson
McDermott
[[Page 23318]]
McNulty
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Peterson (MN)
Ramstad
Sabo
Scott
Slaughter
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Weller
Wicker
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--34
Bentsen
Boucher
Cannon
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
DeFazio
Engel
Ford
Fossella
Goode
Hall (OH)
Hyde
Johnson (CT)
LaFalce
Meek (FL)
Myrick
Nadler
Quinn
Reyes
Rothman
Sanchez
Schaffer
Souder
Waters
Wexler
Whitfield
Young (AK)
{time} 1023
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. ISSA led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in
which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 1741. An act to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to clarify that Indian women with breast or cervical
cancer who are eligible for health services provided under a
medical care program of the Indian Health Service or of a
tribal organization are included in the optional medicaid
eligibility category of breast or cervical cancer patients
added by the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and
Treatment Act of 2000.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication from
the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 21, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I have the honor to transmit herewith a
facsimile copy of a letter received from Ms. Susan K. Inman,
Director of Elections, indicating that, according to the
unofficial returns of the Special Election held November 20,
2001, the Honorable John Boozman was elected Representative
in Congress for the Third Congressional District, State of
Arkansas.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk.
Attachment.
____
State of Arkansas,
Secretary of State,
Little Rock, AR, November 21, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk, House of Representatives, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Trandahl: This is to advise you that the
unofficial results of the Special Election held on Tuesday,
November 20, 2001, for Representative in Congress from the
Third Congressional District of Arkansas, show that John
Boozman received 52,894 or 55.55% of the total number of
votes cast for that office.
It would appear from these unofficial results that John
Boozman was elected as Representative in Congress from the
Third Congressional District of Arkansas.
To the best of our knowledge and belief at this time, there
is no contest to this election.
As soon as the official results are certified to this
office by all County Boards of Election Commissioners
involved, an official Certification of Election will be
prepared for transmittal as required by law.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Inman,
Director of Elections,
Arkansas Secretary of State.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR SWEARING IN OF MR. JOHN BOOZMAN, OF ARKANSAS, AS A MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. John Boozman) be permitted to take the oath of
office today. His certificate of election has not yet arrived, but
there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his
election.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BOOZMAN, OF ARKANSAS, AS A MEMBER OF
THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER. Will the Representative-elect and the Members of the
Arkansas delegation present themselves in the well. Will the
Representative-elect from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) come forward and raise
his right hand?
Mr. BOOZMAN appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of
office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which you are about to enter. So help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations. You are a Member of the 107th Congress.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOOZMAN
(Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I consider it a distinct honor and privilege
to be here this morning to present the newest member of the Arkansas
delegation to this House. John Boozman has distinguished himself as a
son, a husband, a father and a leader. He has meant a great deal to the
community he comes from in northwest Arkansas.
He follows a long and distinguished group that have served in that
capacity from the Third District of Arkansas, one of those being
present this morning, John Paul Hammersmith, and we are pleased to have
him.
John Boozman and his family worked together to make northwest
Arkansas a better place to live and work and raise a family. He has
distinguished himself in many ways and will continue to serve the Third
District and do a great job for them.
All of the Arkansas delegation is very pleased today to be able to
present to this Congress the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), and
I think he represents a quote from one of my favorite books written by
a fellow named William Alexander Percy.
{time} 1030
In that he talks about a letter that his father who was a United
States Senator from Mississippi wrote to a friend and in it he says,
``I guess our job is to make the world a better place in as much as we
are able, remembering that the results will be infinitesimal and then
attend to our own soul.''
I think those are the values that John Boozman will represent as he
serves in this House and as he serves his district, the Third District
of Arkansas. And so now let me present to you John Boozman.
____________________
EXPRESSING GRATITUDE AND THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
(Mr. BOOZMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here. I wish to thank
the Members for their courtesy and warm welcome. I wish to take a
moment to acknowledge my family, my wife, Cathy, of 29 years; my
daughters Shannon, Kristen, and Lauren; and my mother, Marie Boozman;
and my mother-in-law, Betty Marley. And then also
[[Page 23319]]
all of the wonderful family and friends that have accompanied me to
show support for me today.
I am also fortunate to be joined by two former Members of this
illustrious body, Mr. John Paul Hammerschmidt and the senior Senator
from Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson.
For 26 years, Congressman Hammerschmidt served the Third District of
Arkansas and set a standard of excellence and dedication that the
people of the third district have come to expect from all that have
succeeded him. I share Congressman Hammerschmidt's immense respect for
this institution and for the good people that I have been elected to
serve.
Senator Hutchinson continued the rich tradition of tireless service
to the third district and is doing a wonderful job representing
Arkansas in the United States Senate. I look forward to working with
him and the rest of the delegation on behalf of our home State.
I also would like to take a moment to thank former Congressman Asa
Hutchinson, who recently departed Congress to head the Drug Enforcement
Administration. President Bush recognized Asa's talent and selected him
to lead the Nation's efforts to eradicate illegal drug use. It is by no
means an easy job, but if anyone is up to the task it is Asa
Hutchinson.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to follow in the footsteps of these fine
public servants. I am committed to keeping alive the tradition of
service and conservative values that the people of the third district
have come to expect from their representative in Congress. I look
forward to my service in this body and again express my deep
appreciation for the welcome I have received. Thank you very much.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair will entertain 10
one-minute speeches per side.
____________________
HONORING ANN MILLER AND TED MALIARIS
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two
patriotic Americans from my congressional district today, Ann S. Miller
and Ted Maliaris. They have written and produced ``A Tribute to
America--a 21st Century Anthem.''
Ann Miller's song is delivered with love and compassion by her son
Ted with the help of their publicist Angel Duke. Theirs is an anthem
for all Americans, dedicated to our Armed Forces, to our men and women
in uniform, risking their lives every day and for those who need to
carry on in this time of crisis.
The lyrics are powerful and uplifting: ``Our tears may fall and our
hearts may be shattered, but deep down in our souls we are strong. We
are proud. We are bold. We have the strength. We have the power no
terrorist could withstand. We will not hide. We will not cower. We will
stand up for the rights of our land. We are America. We are America,
America, you are grand.''
Please join me in congratulating Ann S. Miller and Ted Maliaris, two
proud Americans, proud to be serving our country.
____________________
WORLD AIDS DAY
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, since AIDS was first recognized 20 years ago,
58 million people have been affected; and at the current rate of
spread, the total will exceed 100 million by 2001.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, there are currently
over 900,000 people infected and living with HIV and AIDS in the United
States. There are approximately 40,000 Americans infected each year.
Worldwide this year there were 5 million new cases, and of that,
800,000 were under the age of 15.
Worldwide there are over 40 million people currently living with HIV
and AIDS; 18 million are women and 3 million are children.
AIDS kills more than 7,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa each day.
President Bush this year has committed over $200 million to a global
fund to fight HIV and AIDS. I have requested additional money along
with other Members of Congress to pursue this very worthy goal.
Today we should reflect on those lost and use their memories to fuel
our efforts to eradicate this pandemic.
____________________
REMEMBERING WORLD AIDS DAY
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge and
commemorate World AIDS Day, which is Saturday, December 1. Today,
worldwide, AIDS is the fourth largest killer of people. Forty million
people, as has been said, are living with AIDS today. As has been said,
900,000 here in America and 13,000 in my own State of Michigan. Half of
the infected cases are young adults between 13 and 25.
The cost of treating AIDS is astronomical. Our health system is not
able today to carry that cost, and we must invest in our health system
from top to bottom so we can treat those who are infected.
It is important because countries around the world, including Africa,
Eastern Europe, the U.K., Australia and Japan, are seeing increasing
cases of HIV and AIDS. We must educate young people as well as others
how to prevent the scourge of AIDS and carry out that responsibility.
We must also invest resources so our health care system can treat.
____________________
IN APPRECIATION OF U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, since September 11 America has been extra
security conscious. Congress too has been taking extra precautions to
make sure the people who work here are safe and as they do the people's
business. We have extra jersey barriers up and a couple of side streets
are blocked off to traffic. There is one more measure that I think we
need to recognize. The Capitol Police are working overtime, a lot of
overtime.
The dedicated officers of the Capitol Police have been working 12-
hour shifts with only 1 day off a week. They are doing this to keep all
of us safe. They are doing this to protect this building. This building
is the symbol of American democracy. It is the symbol of freedom around
the world.
So thanks to the men and women of the Capitol Police, the rookies and
the veterans alike. Do not think that you are not appreciated. What you
are doing is greatly appreciated by all of us.
____________________
THE BIG BITE
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, as a former athlete, I thought I saw it
all. Great celebrations after grand slams and Hail Marys. But this time
it has gone too far.
News reports say after a game-winning goal at a soccer match in
Spain, a player celebrated his teammate who scored by biting him on the
genitals.
Beam me up.
Now I have heard of high fives, back slaps, butt slaps, but this
takes the family jewels.
The team says the player is doing fine, but I suspect he will speak
from here on in like a soprano. This is going a little too far. I yield
back what has now become known as ``The Big Bite.''
____________________
HONORING CHANCE KRETSCHMER
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1
[[Page 23320]]
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of this great body to
recognize the achievements of Chance Kretschmer, a freshman running
back for the University of Nevada, Reno, Wolf Pack football team.
Chance Kretschmer broke not only every Nevada football rushing record
for number of yards, number of carries and number of touchdowns, but he
is also the lead rusher in the NCAA.
Born and raised in a small rural town, Tonopah, Nevada, the young
football star joined the Wolf Pack football team as an unknown walk-on
freshman. Now, not only are the UNR fans and coaches taking notice, but
all of the college sports community is doing so as well.
In his last game, Chance ran for an amazing 327 yards on 45 carries
and scored an amazing six touchdowns leading the UNR to victory. And as
only a freshman, this Nevada native certainly has an exciting future
ahead of him. Congratulations, Chance Kretschmer, on your athletic
accomplishments. You have made all of Nevada proud.
____________________
SUPPORTING WORLD AIDS DAY
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, communities across the globe
will acknowledge World AIDS Day. The global AIDS pandemic is the
greatest humanitarian crisis of our times.
Three years ago in my district, we declared a state of emergency on
HIV and AIDS in the African American community. Since then the number
of new infections has begun to slowly decrease, but millions of dollars
are needed in our urban and rural communities to tackle this pandemic.
AIDS, like many diseases, knows no borders; nor does it discriminate.
HIV has infected over 57 million people worldwide. AIDS, TB, and
malaria claim over 17,000 lives each day.
We know how to prevent the spread of HIV. We know how to treat AIDS
patients, and we know we must continue our work in vaccine development.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and global AIDS experts
estimate that it will take $7 billion to $10 billion annually to launch
an effective response. The United States should contribute at least $1
billion to this fund as the wealthiest and most powerful country on
Earth. The human family is at stake. We can and we must do more.
____________________
{time} 1045
A SAD ANNIVERSARY
(Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a sad anniversary for a
family in southern New Jersey. On November 25, 1991, 11-year-old Mark
Himebaugh left his Middle Township, New Jersey, home to watch
firefighters respond to a brushfire. He was returning as his mom was
leaving to run an errand. His mother told him that she would be right
back, and Mark replied, ``Okay, Mom.'' Those would be the last words
anyone would hear from Mark. Now, 10 years later, Mark sadly is still
missing.
This heartbreaking story is just one of so many in our Nation where
FBI statistics show that more than 876,000 adults and children were
reported as missing during the year 2000. The Congressional Caucus on
Missing and Exploited Children, of which I am a member, is working to
raise the profile of this issue.
The best way to help find kids like Mark is to look at the
photographs of missing children posted at many venues around the Nation
and call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's toll-
free number at 1-800-THE-LOST. At their Web site, www.missingkids.org,
you can see pictures of Mark. Please do your part to help out.
____________________
DR. GEORGE SIMKINS, JR.
(Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to Dr. George Simkins, Jr., a resident of my congressional district,
who died on November 21 and is being funeralized today in Greensboro,
North Carolina. Dr. Simkins, a former president of the Greensboro NAACP
for 25 years, was a civil rights pioneer who helped integrate the
Greensboro City Council and open public facilities to African
Americans.
Dr. Simkins was a vigilant and constant warrior for equity, equality,
and justice. In this role, he paved the way for many of us to achieve
successes that would otherwise have been unattainable and then stood
shoulder to shoulder with us to continue the fight. Politically, George
was a strong supporter, adviser and mentor. Personally, George was my
tennis buddy and my true friend.
Greensboro, North Carolina, and our Nation have lost a sturdy warrior
whose important work will be remembered for years to come. I offer my
condolences to the family of Dr. George Simkins, Jr.
____________________
TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, leadership is only proven through
action, and throughout its history the United States has proven itself
to be a leader. But as we lead the world in an effort to eradicate
terrorism, we risk abdicating our position of leadership in an area
that is just as vital to America's well-being and that is international
trade.
With more than 130 trade agreements in effect in the world today, it
is shocking that in the U.S. we are a party to only three. National
security and economic security are not mutually exclusive. Exports
strengthen our country by creating jobs and strengthening the economy.
The jobs stay here and the exports go overseas. One in 10 Americans
work in jobs that depend on exports. One in 10. And those jobs pay
between 13 and 18 percent more than the national average.
America must lead in international trade in order to effectively lead
the world. Fortunately, 1 week from today, December 6, Congress has a
chance to pick up the mantle of leadership by passing trade promotion
authority.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting TPA, trade
promotion authority.
____________________
THE ACCESS AND OPENNESS TO SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ACT
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that small
business is the engine of economic growth in our Nation. As a member of
the Committee on Small Business, I have worked with my colleagues in
both parties to ensure that access to capital is there for those who
need it, especially women and minority-owned businesses. I am pleased
to join today the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) in
introducing legislation that will allow us to determine if financial
institutions are responding to the credit needs of minority- and women-
owned businesses. From this data, we will be able to determine what is
working and what needs fixing.
This legislation is supported by the National Women's Business
Council, the Women's Business Development Centers, the National
Community Reinvestment Coalition, and the Hispanic Economic Development
Corporation, to name a few.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Massachusetts and
all my colleagues to achieve passage of this important legislation.
____________________
[[Page 23321]]
URGING ACTION ON A FARM BILL
(Mr. OSBORNE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new here, and I am
surprised at the pace at which legislation moves at times. I am
particularly amazed that legislation critical to the national well-
being is not moving in the other body.
Much has been said about inaction on the economic stimulus package
and the energy bill. I would like to call attention this morning to a
bill that has gone largely unnoticed and that is the farm bill. The
agriculture economy has been in dire straits not for just the past 2 or
3 months, but for the last 5 years. We have been losing thousands of
farmers each year, almost no young people are going into agriculture,
and three-fourths of U.S. farms rely on off-the-farm income. A new farm
bill is critical.
The House farm bill passed this body 3 months ago. A farm bill passed
this year will, number one, save thousands of farmers; and, number two,
will ensure that we have an adequate budget.
The other body needs to act and needs to act now on several pieces of
legislation, but particularly on a farm bill.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Members are reminded to not
urge action or inaction by the other body.
____________________
WORLD AIDS DAY
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, according to UNAIDS, each day 17,000 people
die from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide. While the
world's attention is appropriately focused on September 11 and our new
war on international terrorism, we cannot ignore this ongoing tragedy.
We have a tragedy occurring daily with HIV and AIDS, a tragedy on the
scale of the black plague of the Middle Ages. The United States, as has
been mentioned earlier, should be putting at least $1 billion in the
global fund to fight HIV and AIDS.
In Zimbabwe, for example, AIDS has taken so many lives that
agricultural output has decreased by 50 percent in the past 5 years. By
2005 there will be more than 10 million orphan children in Africa. The
number of AIDS deaths can be expected to grow within the next 10 years
to more than double the number of deaths caused by all other illnesses
that we know.
We can do more. We must do more. It is the right thing to do more.
____________________
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to make the
body aware of what I think is a reprehensible act by the nation of Iran
in using its state-run newspaper, the Tehran Times, to falsely state
what a delegation of Members of Congress accomplished while in the
Middle East. In a delegation that I was proud to lead, we went to the
Middle East, to Syria, to Lebanon, to Egypt, to Israel and into the
Palestine-occupied territories. On that trip, we had occasion to make
an address in Lebanon. That address was covered by the Tehran Times and
by the Associated Press, Reuters and others.
The Tehran Times chose to say that we had said that the Hezbollah was
not a terrorist organization, when nothing could be further from the
truth. It has a long history of terrorism, including its leaders having
murdered American Marines in 1982, having blown up our embassy, and
those leaders are still sought.
To make the record straight, the Associated Press, and I quote, said:
``The delegation's leader Darrell Issa, Republican of California, told
reporters that for the United States to remove Hezbollah from its list
of terrorist organizations, the Lebanese-based group must renounce
terrorism.''
Another title: ``Hezbollah Must Renounce Terrorism, says a U.S.
Congressman.'' That was from a French newspaper.
And from Reuters: ``U.S. Congressmen Ask Lebanon to Rein in
Hezbollah.''
I hope this has set the record straight.
____________________
ON RETIREMENT OF HONORABLE EVA CLAYTON
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning I learned of the pending
retirement from Congress of a great colleague, Eva Clayton from North
Carolina. I just want to note her tremendous service the last decade of
not only in North Carolina but the whole country.
I met Eva when she became president of our freshman class in 1992,
and I think it showed the wisdom of our class in 1992 of having elected
her to that position, because in the later 10 years, she has really
provided great service, always in a very dignified, quiet manner and
very successful for her constituents in North Carolina.
I hope during her next 1-minute where she continues her public
service talking about our need to deal with the AIDS crisis, we will
give her our infinite attention because she has been a great Member for
the last decade. I thank Representative Clayton for her public service.
____________________
WORLD AIDS DAY
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, December 1, communities
around the world will acknowledge World AIDS Day. This year's World
AIDS campaign will address masculine behaviors and attitudes that
contribute to the spread of HIV. The new campaign aims to involve men,
particularly young men, more fully in the effort against AIDS.
June 5, 1981, marked the first reported case of AIDS. Since then, 5.3
million people worldwide continue to be infected, with roughly 3
million AIDS-related deaths annually. HIV/AIDS has caused over 25
million fatalities, and 40 million are living with the disease
worldwide. Eighteen million are women and 3 million are children.
To combat this growing global threat, I along with 62 of my
colleagues have most recently called on President Bush to set aside $1
billion in emergency fiscal year 2002 funding to fight the global AIDS
pandemic, TB, and malaria. This funding is essential so that additional
investments from both public and private sources can be leveraged to
meet the cost of effectively combating the global AIDS pandemic.
Money is unquestionably a key component to our global battle to
eradicate AIDS; however, equally critical is individual behavior. In
spite of the progress we have made in our battle against AIDS, there is
still approximately 40,000 new HIV infections a year in the United
States, the exact number reported 10 years ago. We must encourage men
to adopt positive behaviors and to play a greater role in caring for
their partners and families. We all have a role to play.
____________________
HONORING CLEARFIELD EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding
achievements of the Clearfield, Pennsylvania, Emergency Medical Service
Company. On August 10, 2001, the Pennsylvania Emergency Health Services
Council chose Clearfield EMS from among 1,000 ambulance service
companies statewide to receive the rural ambulance service-of-the-year
award.
Clearfield EMS garnered such an award not only through exemplary
ambulance service but also through their
[[Page 23322]]
involvement in the community. Free flu shots and participation at
county fairs and festivals are just a couple of the many ways that
Clearfield EMS has taken the lead in community education and
involvement.
I congratulate Clearfield EMS on their exceptional accomplishments
and their determination to improve their already stellar service.
Clearfield EMS should serve as an example in excellence for other
ambulance services nationwide.
____________________
{time} 1100
TREATING HIV-AIDS AS A THREAT TO GLOBAL SECURITY
(Ms. WATSON of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, in honor of World AIDS Day, we
must remember that it is estimated that by 2010, one-quarter of South
Africa's population will be infected by HIV-AIDS. Other African nations
are suffering similar rates of infection.
In late August, I traveled to South Africa to examine the HIV-AIDS
pandemic firsthand. While there, I visited KwaZulu-Natal, a region with
the highest HIV infection in the world. In that region, an estimated 1
in 3 adults tests positive for HIV. The time has come for the United
States to treat HIV as the threat to global security that it is.
Let us not forget that Osama bin Laden has exploited the misery of
another state where civil society has collapsed, Afghanistan, to serve
as a base for his terror network. The United States must act to prevent
HIV from destroying an entire generation, not only of Africans, but
those in Afghanistan.
I urge my colleagues to remember this day on the 1st of December and
ask for a renewed effort to fight against HIV-AIDS in Africa.
____________________
TERRORISM RISK PROTECTION ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 297 ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 297
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3210) to ensure the
continued financial capacity of insurers to provide coverage
for risks from terrorism. The bill shall be considered as
read for amendment. In lieu of the amendments recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3357 shall be
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the
bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services; (2) the further amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by Representative LaFalce of New York
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall
be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a fair, modified rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendments
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on
Ways and Means, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of H.R. 3357 shall be considered as adopted.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, as amended, and provides for 1 hour of debate in the House,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services. It also provides for
consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) or his designee.
The bill shall be considered as read and shall be separately
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and opponent. The rule waives all points of order against consideration
of the amendment printed in the reported. Finally, the rule provides
for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the collective memory of Americans was
altered forever. The terrorist attacks resulted in an incalculable
loss, both in terms of life and the destruction of buildings, property
and businesses. In the 2\1/2\ months since the attacks, America has
begun the painful process of recovery and healing.
Today we are here to consider H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act. Exposure to terrorism is not only a threat to our
national security, but is also a threat to the United States and global
economies. The full extent of insured losses from September 11 is not
yet known, but current estimates span from the range of $30 billion to
$70 billion.
There is no doubt that these terrorist attacks have resulted in the
most catastrophic loss in the history of property and casualty
insurance. While the insurance industry has indicated that it will be
able to cover total losses, and should be commended for its resiliency,
we are faced with a new situation that requires an innovative and
creative solution.
As our President, President Bush, declared, this Nation is now faced
with fighting a different kind of war against a new enemy. Just as our
military leaders have had to employ new strategies and tactics to fight
the war abroad, we have had to make adjustments in our own homeland.
Prior to September 11, terrorism insurance coverage was generally
included in most commercial and personal contracts. However, the
prospect of future attacks has set off a dangerous chain reaction.
The reinsurance industry, which insures insurance companies, has
indicated its inability to provide terrorism coverage without a short-
term Federal backstop. Without reinsurance for the risk of terrorism,
insurance companies are forced to specifically exclude it from future
policies. Without this terrorism coverage, lenders are unlikely to
underwrite loans for major projects. This sequence of events could
result in dangerous disruptions to the marketplace and further hurt our
economy.
While a few fully understood intricacies of risk assessment and
premium pricing are apparent, the effects on our marketplace are
already being felt. I would like to highlight just a few of these real
live examples.
There is a small construction contractor in Maryland that recently
found out that his insurance premium might triple to $150,000 a year.
New York's JFK International Airport terminal cannot secure the $1
billion in insurance coverage it needs, which has led the developer to
reconsider shutting the terminal down.
The city of Chicago has received a bill to renew its war on terrorism
insurance for next year at a 5,000 percent increase over its 2001
rates.
These snapshots from around the country form a composite picture of a
dire circumstance that requires action from Congress.
Since September 11, Congress has moved in a timely fashion to address
the needs that have arisen from the bipartisan supplemental
appropriations funding, provided just a few days after the attacks, to
legislation that addresses the need for increased airline security, to
an economic stimulus package. This House has responded to its calling.
[[Page 23323]]
Mr. Speaker, we now must step up again to pass this bill that is
before us today. Reinsurance policies are generally written on a 1-year
basis. Approximately 70 percent of current reinsurance contracts are
set to expire at the end of this year, December 31, 2001.
As the year draws to a close, Congress must act quickly to avert a
national economic disaster. The Terrorism Risk Protection Act provides
a Federal backstop for financial losses in the event of future
terrorism attacks. This crucially needed backstop would create a
temporary risk-spreading program to ensure the continued availability
of commercial property and casualty insurance and reinsurance for
terrorism-related risks. Under the House plan, the Federal Government
provides the necessary backstop without opening the pocketbooks of
taxpayers. Every dollar of Federal assistance will be repaid.
The legislation also contains reasonable legal reforms to ensure that
Federal assistance reaches its intended recipient. The 1993 World Trade
Center bombing which killed 6 people resulted in 500 lawsuits by 700
individuals, businesses and insurance companies.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 years and the cases are only just now
getting to the trial stage, and hundreds of plaintiffs have yet to even
receive 1 cent of compensation. By providing reasonable reforms,
victims of terrorism will more quickly and equitably receive
compensation, while also reducing the substantial uncertainty facing
the insurance industry when pricing terrorism risk.
Finally, the bill provides for studies that examine the effects on
terrorism on various sectors of the insurance industry and ways to
establish reserves, and guards against losses for future acts of
terrorism.
Yesterday, in his testimony before the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) described insurance as ``the glue
which holds our economy together.'' The ranking member, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), also spoke, saying that this bill is not a
bailout for the insurance company, and is of critical importance.
While there may be many competing ideas on the best way to address
this situation, there is one unanimous agreement: that this legislation
is absolutely critical to prevent major disruptions in the marketplace
and further harm to our economy.
As the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) stated when he
testified yesterday, the only intolerable action at this time is to do
nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule,
a fair rule, and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I oppose the hubris it
embodies and the process it represents. In what is becoming standard
procedure, the House is preparing to move forward with an important
bill that is not ready for prime time.
No one doubts the critical nature of this bill. The withdrawal of
terrorism coverage by reinsurers may force primary insurers to
radically increase premiums for policyholders or to withdraw coverage
entirely. The consequences could reverberate throughout the entire
economy. Virtually nothing could happen in the American economy without
insurance, and the vast majority in this body agrees that Congress has
a duty to intervene in the reinsurance marketplace to safeguard against
a cascading economic crisis.
Unfortunately, the leadership in the body has seized upon the crisis
in an attempt to circumvent regular order and move forward with tort
reform, a wholly extraneous matter. Tort reform does not belong in this
bill, nor was it requested by the reinsurance industry representatives
during the many discussions leading up to the legislation.
Even by the standards that are in place here, this is a heavy-handed
attempt to curtail victims' rights. The tort reform provision threatens
to derail the principal objective of the legislation, which is to
revitalize and reestablish a rational and functional reinsurance
market.
Yesterday's Committee on Rules hearing on the bill revealed utter
confusion among the chairmen and ranking members of the two committees
as to what the bill actually contained. The chairmen had not seen the
measure, but had a hunch of what might be in it. The ranking members
were wholly in the dark. Committee on Rules members were given copies
of the comprehensive substitute provisions seconds before the hearing
commenced.
Something else became apparent at the hearing as well. All the
principals involved in the legislation, the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Baker) were firmly convinced of the importance of the
legislation and the need to move it forward, and, indeed, all four
showed a great willingness to work together with each other to reach a
consensus and a good bill which the country sorely needs. They believed
that within an additional 24 hours they could have reached that
agreement and moved a bill that virtually all of us would have
supported.
Now, this is the way a deliberate body should operate, and, indeed,
was operating as this bill moved expeditiously through the legislative
process. But after the Committee on Financial Services carefully
crafted a bipartisan measure, the House leadership seized their work
product in order to move a controversial measure they know would not
survive the scrutiny of the entire Congress.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, this is not leadership; this is petulance. The American
people expect more from their leaders in a time of crisis.
We are also being asked to support a rule that blocks any attempt to
remedy these extraneous provisions. Indeed, some measures in the
committee itself that had passed by a majority vote to improve the bill
were not even included as the bill was written. The gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) both
offered amendments for the rule that simply strike the sections of the
bill that related to tort reform, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Kanjorski) offered a compromise amendment on tort reform to
prohibit the use of Federal assistance to cover punitive damage awards.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) offered an amendment which
would have expanded the legislation to cover not only commercial
policyholders, but personal policyholders, like our Nation's homeowners
who have been grievously hurt in New York City and other parts of the
country. Without this extension, homeowners are going to see their
premiums rise dramatically. But none of these amendments were made in
order.
What is the leadership's aversion to regular order? Why the single-
minded obsession with sabotaging critical legislation unanimously
agreed upon at the committee level? And why the unwillingness to show
their handiwork to the scrutiny of their colleagues before a Committee
on Rules hearing and floor consideration?
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are other critical priorities that
Congress is ignoring. As we take the time to rush through a measure
designed to protect the insurance industry, surely we could utilize
that same energy to address the needs of those who have lost their jobs
and their health insurance in the wake of September 11.
With this in mind, I will be urging defeat of the previous question
so that we can adopt a rule to order an amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). This amendment would provide
relief for unemployed workers in the form of unemployment compensation
and the extension of COBRA benefits and Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services,
to speak to us supporting this rule.
[[Page 23324]]
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), my good friend, for once again helping us craft a very
fair and equitable rule to debate this very difficult issue that faces
us. Just a few short weeks ago, we faced this terrible attack on
America on September 11, and I do not think any one of us could have
foreseen the events that have taken place since that time that have
drawn this Congress towards addressing some of the most critical issues
facing us.
We have done a great job, in my estimation, acting on a bipartisan
basis, dealing with things like giving the President the authority to
wage a military campaign in Afghanistan, providing the funding
necessary to get New York back on its feet and to compensate victims of
this terrible tragedy and, ultimately, I think, passing an economic
stimulus package.
This legislation that we will be taking up shortly is a direct
response to what happened after September 11, and that is almost
immediately. The reinsurance market which, for the most part, is
offshore and not American, indicated very strongly that they would no
longer write reinsurance policies for terrorism. This, of course, had a
resounding effect on the American domestic insurance industry, the
property and casualty companies, because with the inability to
essentially reinsure or to spread the risk through reinsurance, they
faced a real conundrum.
This is not about the losses that took place on September 11, and
this bill is not a bailout for the insurance companies. The insurance
companies stepped up to the plate and are taking care of their
obligations that resulted from the September 11 attack. Indeed, it is
going to be a $40 billion to $50 billion project for them to make these
folks whole.
What it is all about now is what happens next. All of us hope that
our efforts today will not be needed in the future because our bill
only occurs and only triggers when an event actually occurs of a
terrorist nature to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. We
all hope and pray that our efforts today, while beneficial, will not
have to be used. I think all of us share that. But in the event that we
have another terrorist attack, we have to be prepared, and the issue is
how can the domestic insurance companies provide the kind of coverage,
as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said yesterday in the
Committee on Rules, saying that the glue that holds our economy
together truly is insurance.
People have told us, lenders and everybody else, we can no longer
provide the kind of insurance coverage necessary. We do not know how to
price it. This is a case of first impression, and we need a backstop;
not a bailout, but a backstop, so that we can provide some kind of
certainty for the insurance industry and, more importantly, for our
concern. Because make no mistake about it: this legislation that we are
going to be taking up soon is all about keeping our economy strong, not
about bailing out insurers, but to actually provide the kind of
continuity and certainty in the economic field. I have talked to
developers who have development projects literally in the pipeline who
are waiting to see what the Congress can do to provide this backstop.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It provides the opportunity for the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), my good friend and the ranking
member, to offer a substitute of his choosing. It also offers the
minority the opportunity for a motion to recommit, as is the custom.
That basically says that the other side gets two bites of the apple.
That is fine. But I also think, Mr. Speaker, that this bill that we
will be debating should be a bipartisan effort, just like all the other
efforts have been in this House.
Make no mistake about it: this House is going to act. The other body
has some real problems. There is some question as to whether they can
even get their act together; but today, sometime between 3 and 4 this
afternoon, this House will have spoken loudly and clearly that we
understand the problem and that we are ready to address the problem in
a bipartisan way. This rule gets us towards that effort.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and
particularly the newly arriving chairman of the Committee on Rules (Mr.
Dreier), just newly arrived, not newly arrived to Congress obviously,
but newly arrived to the Chamber, for his excellent work in crafting a
rule that all of us can support.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in opposition to this rule, and I would hope that all of my
colleagues would join me in opposition. One of the most important
things for us to do is have a fair rule so that we can debate the
important issues of the day. It is not simply to get things behind us;
it is not simply to create partisan contests. It is to frame important
issues and then have discrete votes on those.
Now, the majority has not permitted that. They have said, oh, look,
lump every single issue imaginable that we are concerned about into one
substitute and put it all together. Well, the problem is, 90-some
percent of the time, the only thing we accomplish there is to get a
partisan vote with Democrats for the most part for, Republicans for the
most part against; and we cannot really focus in on the discrete, but
important, issues unless we have individual amendments, which the
majority has denied. That is unfortunate, because there are individual
issues of great import that do not have partisan considerations that we
should debate separately and vote on separately.
For example, should there or should there not be a deductible? Well,
I believe strongly that there should be a deductible before the Federal
Government comes in, and the bill coming out of the Committee on Rules
does not have a deductible. I personally believe, the administration
believes, that there should be a deductible. It would prefer at least
that portion of our substitute. The administration negotiated with
certain Senators a proposal that included a significant deductible.
That is a separate and distinct issue. Let the insurance industry pay
first; how much is negotiable, but at least $5 billion, before it is
necessary to have a Federal backstop. And they absolutely have the
capacity to do that with no difficulty whatsoever, and yet they are
denying us the right to vote on that discrete issue.
Another discrete issue is, well, should the Federal Government come
in and pay from dollar one? Should the Federal contribution, that is,
90 percent of the damages, come in on the first dollar or should it
come in on the first dollar after a deductible? Under the House
Republican Committee on Rules bill, that 90 percent Federal payment
will come in on dollar one. Ours would come in the first dollar after
$5 billion. That is a very important issue, and we should be allowed a
discrete vote on that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight and a pleasure to yield 7
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. As my colleagues have heard
me detail earlier, he is one of three of the brightest minds in the
Republican Conference, including the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baker) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fourth bright mind of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his compliments, and I rise in
support of the rule and in support of H.R. 3210. I wish to compliment
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his vigorous work on this
difficult issue.
I am particularly supportive of the litigation management provisions
in H.R. 3210 which will benefit all people in all industries that fall
victim to terrorist attacks of a catastrophic nature. Any bill that
fails to limit potentially infinite liability for terrorist-caused
litigation would fail to recognize the obvious. Traditional tort rules
are designed to address slip-and-fall cases
[[Page 23325]]
caused by banana peels, not terrorists; and while banana peels may be
accidents waiting to happen, terrorists are suicidal killers plotting
the deaths of thousands of innocents and the destruction of billions of
dollars of property.
Under this legislation, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines
that one or more acts of terrorism have occurred, an exclusive Federal
cause of action kicks in for lawsuits arising out of, relating to, or
resulting from the acts of terrorism; and the lawsuit must be heard by
a Federal court or courts selected by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. These claims in Federal court are subject to
limits on punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Defendants are only
liable for noneconomic damage in direct proportion to their
responsibility for the harm, and damage awards to plaintiffs must be
offset by any collateral source compensation received by the plaintiff.
By enacting these provisions to cover terrorist-inspired litigation,
individuals and businesses will be protected by Congress from
potentially limited liability and bankrupting litigation. Also under
these provisions, the size of damage awards for which the United States
taxpayer will have to provide up-front sums to cover would be reduced,
just as the Federal Tort Claims Act's limits on punitive damages and
attorneys' fees limit damages and litigation that will result in money
taken from the U.S. Treasury.
{time} 1130
These provisions protect the American taxpayer. Those opposed to them
wish to turn the key to the United States Treasury over to the
plaintiffs' bar.
Existing tort rules do not properly apply when the primary cause of
injury is a suicidal fanatic motivated by a deep hatred of America.
These are not garden variety slip-and-fall or auto accident cases, and
this Congress has already recognized this key distinction in passing
the liability protection provisions governing lawsuits relating to the
September 11 attacks.
As a result of the Aviation Security Act conference report, as well
as the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act,
September 11-related lawsuits against air carriers, air manufacturers,
owners and operators of airports, State port authorities, and persons
with property interests in the World Trade Center must be heard in
Federal court in New York; and the total damages against these
potential defendants, should they be found liable, are capped at the
limits of the insurance coverage they had on September 11.
Let this be clear, that what is proposed in the litigation management
provisions of this bill the House has already approved in both the
Aviation Security Act and in the Air Transportation Safety and Systems
Stabilization Act. So Members have already voted for this once and
twice.
In addition to these provisions, the Airline Security Act that
originally passed the House also limited punitive damages and
attorney's fees, and required that damage awards to plaintiffs be
offset by any collateral source compensation received by the
plaintiffs.
The litigation management provisions of H.R. 3210 would similarly
benefit victims of future terrorist attacks. If these same provisions
are not extended to private businesses which might be attacked in the
future, the mom-and-pop store down the street will have to invest
scarce resources to turn itself from a corner shop into a fortified
bunker designed to withstand foreign attacks to avoid potentially
infinite liability, or pay through the nose in higher insurance
premiums because the risks are higher and their exposure is greater.
Furthermore, without the litigation management provisions in H.R.
3210, no limits would be placed on the fees of attorneys bringing
terrorist-caused cases against Americans and their businesses, and
ultimately against the taxpayers, under this bill.
Reasonable limits on attorney's fees serve the same purpose behind
restrictions on permanent damages and joint and several liability. They
maximize the funds available to large numbers of victims when there are
only limited resources available for compensation. Such protections are
more important than ever in the context of the terrorist attacks
causing large-scale losses. Again, the litigation management provisions
in this bill will spread the wealth out to more victims, rather than
having one or two large awards ending up bankrupting the pot of money
available.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing killed six people, yet resulted
in 500 lawsuits by 700 individuals, businesses, and insurance
companies. Damages claimed amounted to $500 million. Eight years later,
these cases are only now just getting to trial, and hundreds of
plaintiffs have yet to receive a cent in compensation.
By providing reasonable limits on potentially infinite liability and
consolidating all cases in one or a few Federal forums, victims of
terrorism will recover more quickly and more equitably because a few
enormous awards in one court will not bankrupt a responsible party
before another court can consider arguments of others who may have
stronger claims against the same party.
I urge all Members to support these vitally important provisions,
which ensure equitable compensation to victims while protecting the
American economy and the American taxpayer.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a rule I consider
fundamentally unfair. The previous speaker addressed one of the major
issues that I wanted to address in an amendment I had offered and asked
the Committee on Rules to make in order, and that is to have some
limitation on punitive damages and provide for consolidation of
lawsuits, but not to enter into tort revision.
Unfortunately, some of my friends have seen the opportunity to use
this as a locomotive today to go to one of their favorite topics, and
that is, tort revision in the country. I think that is unfortunate
because the history and the process of this legislation was initially
handled by the Committee on Financial Services for the sole purpose of
trying to bring together the entire Congress with a bipartisan effort
to accomplish something that would allow the economy to have terrorist
insurance and to have a reinsurance industry that could be vital, and
could be kept in the private sector until we straighten out the
problems and the new issues created by the terrorist attack on
September 11.
I thought we had moved a great deal along that line during the
committee operations, but since that time the bill has been taken and
fundamentally changed, and made a vehicle to carry everyone else's
desire to change fundamental existing law in the United States.
I recognize the fair right of all individuals to disagree with the
evolution of tort law responsibility in the United States over the last
200 years, and it may be subjected to change. This body is the place
that should consider that issue. It should not consider that issue at
this time when we have a very limited period of time to get a
comprehensive reinsurance bill passed so the economy can be stabilized
for the next year or two, so that American businesses can get the
insurance they need against terrorism, and so that the rate can be
reasonable.
What we have here is a political response: taking a very highly
emotional and disagreeable issue on the two sides of this aisle, and I
may say, Members on both sides in different proportions, and inserting
it in this bill, which will ultimately say this bill cannot be passed
by the Senate, will not be passed by the Senate, and I think puts at
risk the fact that we may have reinsurance legislation in this session,
and as a result, could materially destabilize the economy of the United
States over the next year or two.
That is unfortunate that some of us have given in to our basic
weaknesses and have gone to our ideology, rather than to the interests
of the people of the United States and the economy of the United
States.
[[Page 23326]]
I hope my predictions are wrong. I hope we can get terrorist
reinsurance put through this Congress before we adjourn. But if we do
not, if we do not, it will really be as a result of tort law revision
that has been inserted into this bill that prevents the passage of this
type of legislation in the waning days of this session.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious we disagree on this. But for someone to
stand up in this body and argue that because of what we are going to do
here today, it would encumber the Senate and ultimately would mean that
this bill could not be passed, I simply disagree with that.
The Senate, the other body, has an opportunity to debate this issue,
to bring forth their bill, and then for the conference committee, not
the other body to feel like they have been put upon, but for the
conference committee to be the body to determine what the final outcome
will be. That is what the process should be.
I am proud of what this bill stands for, and I think we are doing the
right thing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
The rule provides for the continued availability of insurance against
terrorism risks, and addresses multiple insurance and liability issues
arising out of the September 11 attacks.
This is a good rule that incorporates changes made by the Committee
on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on the Judiciary to the original bill. I would like to speak
about some of those important provisions that fell within the Committee
on the Judiciary jurisdiction.
First, by working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), we were able to
expand language in the original bill dealing with the use of frozen
terrorist assets to compensate victims of terrorism.
This change to language offered by the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Watt) brings the bill into line with an amendment I offered
earlier, in earlier legislation, that was accepted by the Committee on
the Judiciary this fall. It was also language that was approved by the
House on suspension in the 106th Congress.
The provision in the bill today will allow equal access to the frozen
assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and terrorist sponsor-
states for American victims of international terrorism who obtain
judgments against those terrorist parties.
In addition, the Committee on the Judiciary added important
litigation management provisions to deal with the legal aftermath of a
major terrorist attack. This is a commonsense recognition that major
terrorist attacks are not garden variety tort cases, and that there is
a compelling national interest in setting rules and limits for how
lawsuits arising from such attacks proceed. Exposing American citizens
and insurers to unlimited liability in multiple judicial forums for the
terrible acts of madmen is a recipe for a financial crisis.
This Congress overwhelmingly recognized the same principle when we
limited airline liability for the September 11 attacks and set them
back on a sound financial footing. We need to do the same today for
insurers, and equally important, to the insured.
I would like to thank again the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella), and the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Watt), for all their efforts on these issues.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill today. By
providing partial Federal coverage for acts of terrorism, setting
reasonable limits and procedures for lawsuits arising from such acts,
and allowing victims to go directly after the frozen assets of
terrorists and their sponsors, we can help our Nation and economy move
forward.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the committee.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the reasons
outlined by
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for not
allowing substantive amendments and
for fundamentally changing the work product of the Committee on
Financial Services.
But Mr. Speaker, the issue of terror insurance may affect our
national economy more immediately and more drastically than any tax or
spending bill that Congress considers in the next decade. Without
Federal intervention in the terror insurance market, our economy will
face a sudden, massive credit crunch after the first of the year.
Nowhere will this impact be more serious than in the district I
represent in New York City.
Even if Congress passed a perfect bill, I am sure that insurance
rates are going to go up and availability shortages will be a fact of
life next year, especially in New York.
The New York State insurance commissioner will have to be especially
vigilant next year to make sure that rates remain affordable and
products are available. The restrictions on victim rights in the
majority bill deserve their own vote as an amendment separate from the
substance of this bill. This effort to limit the access to the State
courts and restrict individuals' access to the civil courts is simply
an act of the majority's long-advocated partisan agenda. This bill is
too important to play politics, and these provisions have no place in
this debate.
Insurance coverage is vital to our economy. Without a safety net for
catastrophe, businesses simply will not do business, they will not
employ people, and they will not meet consumer needs.
While the industry should be complimented for quickly moving to cover
the $50 billion to $70 billion in losses from the World Trade Center,
the reinsurance industry, which buys risk from property and casualty
writers, is unable to cover massive future events.
Without reinsurance, we face a domino effect. Property and casualty
insurance will be unwilling to write policies. Without property and
casualty coverage, banks will refuse to lend money for major capital
improvements or real estate projects.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and also
as a former trial attorney, I rise in strong support of the rule and
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in the antiterrorism measures recently passed by
Congress, legal reforms were an integral part of shaping bills that
provide the President with the necessary means to combat evil. Legal
reform is equally important to the measure before us today in this
Chamber, terrorism risk protection.
Mr. Speaker, the existing legal system is simply not designed to
rectify attempts by international terrorists to murder thousands of
innocent Americans or obstruct our economy.
{time} 1145
We need look no further than the 1993 bombing at the World Trade
Center for proof. In that heinous crime 6 Americans were killed, but
500 lawsuits were filed claiming more than $500 million in damages.
These cases are only coming to trial today, over 7 years later, and
many plaintiffs have yet to receive a dime in compensation.
Mr. Speaker, our current legal system is inadequate to deal with this
very present threat against our people. The current legal system pits
victim against victim and encourages overreaching by the colleagues in
my former profession and, even worse,
[[Page 23327]]
could result in putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the deep
pockets of attorneys' fees instead of addressing real losses by
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can understand the urgent need for legal
reform in the matter of risk protection. I applaud the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and his colleagues for their hard work in creating a
pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer solution as read in H.R. 3210, and I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote no on the
previous question so an amendment can be offered to include worker
relief in the base bill. It had been more than 2 months when we passed
the bill to help the airlines, since the Speaker promised to bring up a
bill soon to address the critical issue of worker relief.
It has been now more than 2 months. We have taken up all kinds of
appropriation bills. We have taken up all kinds of other legislation.
We have dealt in two instances with the airline industry, all of which
we needed to do, and I am not opposed to the basic idea of doing
something about insurance and the real estate industry. I understand
the problems that the committees tried to deal with, and I am
sympathetic with trying to do something about it.
I am opposed to some of the matters that got freighted on to this
bill, and so I am going to vote, if this bill survives the process,
because of what has been put in it with regard to civil justice system.
The basic idea of dealing with the insurance industry is a sound
idea. What I am unwilling to do and I think a lot of us are unwilling
to do is to take up one more bill to deal with one more industry
without finally dealing with the most important problem that faces us
as a country today, and that is the thousands of people that have
become unemployed in America who have no income, no health insurance,
and no ability to deal with the problems they now face.
I have thought a lot about it. Why are we constantly dealing with
other matters before we deal with the most important matter in front of
us? I have finally come to the conclusion that it is a result of the
fact that we personally are not facing these problems. We
intellectually know that people out there are hurting, but I guess we
are not hurting. We are all employed. We all have health insurance. We
just do not get it.
I was asked recently how the people in St. Louis, who I represent,
were dealing with the anthrax attacks here in Washington, and I have
talked obviously with my constituents a lot about what was happening
here in Washington with anthrax, and they understood it intellectually,
but they did not understand it the way I understood it. The analogy I
have used is, it is one thing to have your aunt or uncle diagnosed with
cancer. It is another thing when you are diagnosed with cancer. It
takes on a new meaning.
We have thousands of people in this country who have no unemployment
insurance, and they are unemployed. Probably today about 40 percent of
the unemployed do not even qualify for unemployment insurance because
of the changes that have been made in the laws across the country in
the last years. And none of them have the money, even if they get
unemployment insurance at 6- or 7- or $500 a month, or $300 a month,
none of them can afford their COBRA health insurance, none of them.
Just imagine in your own family, if your income had been wiped out,
you were not going to get a check at the end of the month, and you lost
your health insurance, what happens to your kids? What if your kids get
sick? What are you going to do?
That is the bill we ought to have on the floor today, and we are
unwilling to continue taking up bill after bill, as necessary and as
important it may be, until we deal with this single most important
issue that faces the American people.
Vote no on the previous question. Vote against the rule, and let us
come back on this floor today or tomorrow and deal with the most
important problem facing this country. We may not understand it because
it does not affect us, but I can assure my colleagues it affects
thousands of people in districts across this country. Let us come back
and do the right thing.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the other speakers on the other side
said this was a fair rule and a fair process. There ain't nothing fair
about this rule. If my colleagues want to know where the fair process
was, it was in the Committee on Financial Services where, under the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baker), we debated and crafted a very good bill. In fact, I was one of
the original cosponsors, along with the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy) of the underlying bill.
Somewhere from the Committee on Financial Services to the House
floor, as often happens around this place, the bill changed greatly in
scope.
What I am concerned about is we had a chance to do something that we
really need to do the easy way, get a bill passed in a very temporary
nature where the government intervenes in the markets and basically
gets into the reinsurance business; and instead we have decided to pick
the hard way and add what is called legal reform.
This bill is not about reform. This bill is about avoiding defaults
on virtually every major development loan that is out in the country
today. It is about stopping, or not having new projects being stopped.
And here is what is going to happen, because I do have a little
experience in this, and I do not think all the Members do. All the
lawyers do.
We are worried about the trial lawyers. We have need to be worried
about the bank lawyers out there, because what they are going to do
when we do not pass this bill, when the other body kills it because we
are getting down off a rabbit trail on this thing, is the reinsurance
companies are not going to write any new policies. So the bank lawyers
are going to go pull down the documents for all the deals for all the
buildings that are going to be done. And they are going to go down to
the section on insurance and the covenants that are there, and they are
going to say, okay, you are in technical default, ACME Development
Corp. And ACME Bank is going to call ACME Development Corp. and say,
you have 45 days to cure this default and if you do not cure this
default, then we are going to put the deal in default and we are either
going to call your loan or you will have to renegotiate your loan.
If we go read the Wall Street Journal today, we will read about Enron
Corp. which is based in my home city. They have huge loans out with
some of the big money center banks. They are probably not going to get
repaid. We have a credit crunch going on in the economy right now, and
now we want to have an insurance crunch occur. That is the hard way to
do things.
We fixed the problem in the committee. We passed, in a bipartisan
vote, the Bentsen amendment that made sure that the taxpayer would not
be on the hook for punitive or noneconomic damages. But what we also
said was the defendant, the building owner, the airline owner, if they
had liability, if they had negligence, even in a terrorist attack, if
they had locked the exit door, if they had not had proper exits and
there was liability, that they would have that liability if there was
negligence; but the taxpayers would not have that liability.
We solved the problem in a temporary nature in what is otherwise I
think is a very good bill. But for some reason, as is always the case
around here, we decide to do it the hard way rather than the easy way.
And someday we will do it the easy way. But what I am worried about is
it is going to be January when we are doing it the easy way, and we
have caused all this problem by trying to put ideological changes in a
bill that has nothing to do with that.
I hope we defeat the previous question, defeat the rule, and let us
get a
[[Page 23328]]
good bill like we started with in a very bipartisan fashion.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon, (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Earlier this week,
the National Bureau of Economic Research announced the U.S. economy had
been in recession since last March. This is not really shocking news
for Oregon. Over the last year our economy has been battered, and right
now we have the highest unemployment rate of any State outside of
Alaska.
Yesterday the Feds announced economic growth across the United States
is continuing to lag despite our best efforts of slashing taxes and
cutting interest rates. Well, in about 7 weeks, about 70 percent of
reinsurance contracts will expire. The unavailability of terrorism
coverage for commercial businesses could have devastating results for
businesses and consumers.
For the past several weeks the Committee on Financial Services worked
to bring a bill to the floor that actually stood a chance of passing.
In normal times it would take years, if not decades, to find a workable
solution to this problem. Yet we were able to negotiate, we were able
to pass a bill by voice vote, a bipartisan bill, to get us where we
needed to be.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a familiar place, a place that
mocks our legislative process. Out of the clear blue sky, a half hour
before the Committee on Rules met yesterday, a new bill was introduced.
No committee hearings, no work sessions, no markups. A new bill. Not
only did it shred the bill which came out of the Committee on Financial
Services, it comes to the floor of the House loaded with legal reform,
something that has no bearing whatsoever on the health of our economy.
Someone once again decided that politics were more important than the
good of business, the good of consumers and the good of the Nation.
This is no laughing matter and this should not be business as usual.
Even as I speak, primary insurance companies have started filing
petitions with State regulators, seeking to exclude terrorism from
commercial and personal policies. Do we really expect banks to loan
cash to businesses who are not insured against acts of terror?
Mr. Speaker, I stand here able and willing to reach across a
political divide to bring a bill to the floor which makes sense, which
will have a positive effect on our economy. But until then, I have no
other choice than to oppose the rule, the underlying bill, and urge my
colleagues to support the LaFalce-Kanjorski substitute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the Committee on Financial
Services leadership, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the subcommittee chairman, as
well as the ranking members, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). This committee has
done a very serious effort at trying to address an urgent problem.
We must act. We simply must act. Those are the words of the gentleman
from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) to the Committee on Rules yesterday in
describing the urgency of moving this legislation.
Well, what a shame, what an incredible shame that majority leadership
would then stomp all over the work product brought out of the Committee
on Financial Services to address this issue by drafting onto the bill
an unrelated, partisan, highly ideological agenda.
Sometimes we just need to put our partisan roles aside and deal in a
bipartisan way to address the concerns of this Nation, especially the
urgent needs of this Nation. There was no need to make a political
issue out of this. Both sides recognize the need to act, both sides can
find an agreement in terms of how to get this terrorism coverage out
there through this Federal legislation.
Instead, the majority leadership dramatically complicates this whole
effort to address and get enacted legislation in the few remaining
weeks.
My friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) has described
this as a fair and equitable rule. What is fair and equitable about a
rule that prohibits us from offering an amendment that would restore
his own work product, the Committee on Financial Services' work
product, in place of the new language dropped on the bill by majority
leadership? We wanted to get this and get it right.
I used to be an insurance commissioner. I can tell you, this is a
very technically demanding, tricky piece of work we are attempting to
do here, and to sidetrack the whole discussion by slapping the red
herring of tort reform unnecessarily onto this legislation detracts
considerably from our efforts and our ability to get this right.
{time} 1200
This was a time when the House could have provided leadership to the
Senate by passing a bill setting the framework for how this tort reform
could have been established. We could improve this today significantly
if the rule would allow us to put on the bill the committee's own work
products.
Reject this rule. We need to do a better job.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill has become an attempt to
rewrite the rules of our civil justice system. And I think it is
important to note that statements by Members in the majority on the
Committee on the Judiciary would suggest, and I know it was not their
intention, but would suggest that the Committee on the Judiciary had
hearings on this particular bill. Well, I think it is important that
everyone in this Chamber and the American people should clearly
understand that there were no hearings on this bill before the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Now, no one objects to responsible measures that help ensure the
availability of insurance against future acts of terrorism. Indeed,
given the collapse of the reinsurance market for terrorism coverage, it
is incumbent upon us to respond. But the manager's amendment that we
are considering today is not a responsible measure. It transfers to the
taxpayers the risk of losses, which the insurance industry has said it
is willing and able to absorb; and it asks the public to assume this
huge contingent liability without imposing any obligation on insurers
to provide affordable coverage to those who need it.
But the worst feature of the legislation is one which has nothing
whatsoever to do with stabilizing the insurance market. Section 15 of
the bill would limit relief of the victims of terrorist attack by
immunizing wrongdoers in advance from the consequences of their own
wanton and reckless acts. This sweeping provision would prohibit the
courts from awarding punitive damages; it would eliminate joint and
several liability for economic damages; require courts to reduce damage
awards by the amounts received from life insurance or other collateral
sources; and waive prejudgment interests, even in those egregious
cases, for example, where private airport security contractors who
wantonly, recklessly, or maliciously hire convicted felons, who fail to
perform required background checks, or who fail to check for weapons.
Now, nobody wants to hold parties responsible if they bear no blame.
But this bill lets them off the hook even if they knowingly engage in
conduct that puts Americans at risk.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the bill would also
place a cap on attorneys' fees, making it harder for victims to pursue
meritorious claims in a court. But the caps apply just to plaintiffs'
attorneys. Corporate defendants remain free to hire the most expensive
lawyers they can find.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to see these provisions as anything other
than a
[[Page 23329]]
tax-free gift for corporations and an attempt to rewrite the rules of
our civil justice system. I urge defeat of the previous question and
the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining. How much
time do I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that we would have a bill today that we
could support, because I think the committee, on the underlying bill on
insurance protection for the real estate industry and for the insurance
companies and others, is on the right track. Yet we find this bill is
substantially now loaded down with a whole series of tort reforms,
without hearings, as many of my colleagues have alluded to here, and
now threatens to delay, if not make impossible, the passage of this
legislation.
I also, though, want to raise some questions with respect to the
legislation as we continue the consideration. I would refer Members of
the House to the Wall Street Journal of November 15, an article on the
insurance companies that points out that the market has taken a
somewhat different picture of the insurance industry than the insurance
industry is presenting to the Congress of the United States. The title
of the article is, ``Insurance Companies Benefit From September 11,
Still Seek Federal Aid.''
The article talks about raising premiums 100 percent, or 400 percent
in some instances. It also makes it very clear that the insurance
companies see this as an opportunity. A number of memos sent back and
forth in Marsh & McLennan and other large insurance companies have made
it clear the time is now to fully exploit the opportunity that was
presented by September 11 in terms of creating new companies, creating
new entities, and going after new capital.
In an effort to raise a billion dollars in new capital within a few
days after September 11, in an insurance industry that is seriously in
trouble supposedly, what they are telling us in Washington, they were
so oversubscribed they had to turn people away. Other entities then
came in, and they raised about $4 billion in new capital. Many of the
companies have sold additional stock that have been subscribed to by
very, very reputable investors that have decided that this is a good
take.
On the date of that article the insurance company stocks were up
about 7 percent. What is going on here? They are running in and
frightening the banks and frightening the real estate industry,
everybody else, raising their premiums; and they know on the other end
they are going to get Federal protection. As the article points out,
they know they have an ability now to raise premiums up to 400 percent,
to limit their liability; and the payouts will be taken on the other
end.
That is why I think this committee is on the right track with the
suggestion that we are prepared to help them out, but we also think
there ought to be some payback. Because, again, the article makes it
very clear, and the financing of this industry makes it very clear that
even with the huge payouts they will experience from September 11 their
reserves are sufficient. Over time, and hope to God we do not have
other terrorist activities, those reserves will be built up. The
premiums will be raised.
We may have a catastrophic event, we may have to step in, but the
nature of the industry is they have the ability to pay the taxpayer
back. There are others who want to suggest that $10 billion and the
industry is off the hook, or that we pick up all of the cost. I think
we have to be very careful about how we approach this and we recognize
the real financial capacity of this industry.
They are running around telling people they are not going to rewrite
the insurance. That is not what they are telling other people where
they know they can extract the dollars. There may be some people that
cannot afford this coverage. That is a different issue. But, clearly,
this industry is rapidly rebuilding its reserves, rapidly rebuilding
its premium base, rapidly rebuilding its revenues and its capital.
That is what is going on on Wall Street, that is what is going on in
the American marketplace, and they are running around Washington with a
tin cup suggesting, in many instances, that we should pick up all this
liability as a result of a terrorist attack.
I think the committee is on the right track. Unfortunately, this bill
now has been saddled with a whole series of issues that threaten to
bring down its consideration by both bodies.
I would also raise the point raised by the minority leader that, once
again, here we are bailing out an industry that obviously is exuding a
great market force at this very time; and yet we have hundreds of
thousands of families that have lost their livelihood, that have no
market force, have no ability to make their mortgage payments; and this
Congress is about to leave town, about to adjourn.
In spite of the representations of the President of the United States
that he was going to have money, that money was taken away last night
for unemployment insurance. That money was taken away from the States
that could help pay people's health insurance. That was a Presidential
program that was destroyed last night. The Speaker said he was going to
work with the minority leader to help people put out of work in the
airline industry and elsewhere because of September 11. Nothing has
happened on that front.
So what we find here is that the majority party is keeping from us
any consideration of help for those people who, as a result of
September 11, lost their employment, or those people who lost their
employment before September 11 but now see their opportunities greatly
diminished. We are going to do nothing for those people. Yet we are
here, after the airline industry, and now with the insurance industry.
Clearly, this Congress can see its way to help the most unfortunate
people in our society and not make them further victims of the attack
on September 11.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the full newspaper article I
referred to earlier.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 15, 2001]
Insurance Companies Benefit From Sept. 11, Still Seek Federal Aid
(By Christopher Oster)
For Marsh & McLennan Cos., the Sept. 11 attacks have meant
two very different things.
One is personal loss. The world's largest insurance
brokerage lost 295 employees who worked at the World Trade
Center. ``It was very painful for us, agonizing for loved
ones and close friends,'' Jeffrey W. Greenberg, Marsh's
chairman and chief executive, told employees at a memorial
service in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York on Sept. 28.
But in the days after the attacks, even as the company was
sorting out who was safe and who had perished, it quickly
became clear that Sept. 11 presented a tremendous business
opportunity for Marsh and other strong players in the
industry.
Within days of the twin towers' destruction, Mr. Greenberg
and top lieutenants began planning to form a new subsidiary
to sell insurance to corporate customers at sharply higher
rates than were common before Sept. 11. Marsh also
accelerated plans to launch a new consulting unit to
capitalize on heightened corporate fears of terrorism. Vice
Chairman Charles A. Davis says the company is merely meeting
new marketplace demands. ``There is a financial reward for
doing that,'' he says.
Unlike airlines, which are reeling as travelers hesitate to
fly, insurers have seen improved financial prospects since
Sept. 11. Insurers expect to have to pay out $40 billion to
$70 billion in claims related to the attacks. That sounds
daunting, but in fact, it is manageable for an industry that
collectively has $300 billion in capital.
Moreover, in response to Sept. 11, insurers are already
raising prices by 100% or more on some lines of commercial
and industrial insurance. Nearly all such lines are seeing
rate increases of more than 20%. For much of the 1990s,
carriers had engaged in a price war, keeping premiums
relatively low. The prospect of large payouts related to the
attacks gave the industry grounds for demanding substantial
increases.
Sept. 11 payouts will hurt insurers' balance sheets for a
number of quarters. The higher
[[Page 23330]]
rats they are introducing are expected to last for years.
Insurance stocks have jumped 7% since the attacks,
outpacing the broader market, and the atmosphere in the
industry is one of eager anticipation. Marsh set out to raise
about $1 billion in outside money to capitalize its new
company. Investors volunteered six times that much, and
dozens had to be turned away.
Amid these signs of robust health, however, the industry is
stressing potential disaster as it pressures Congress for
emergency aid. By the end of December, lawmakers are expected
to approve legislation under which the government could have
to pick up billions of dollars in claims related to future
terror assaults in the U.S.
This federal backing would have tremendous financial value
to insurers in the event of another disaster. And it would
have an immediate impact, too, emboldening the industry to
sell new terrorism coverage, for which it will charge higher
premiums. Carriers collect their money now, while the
government would help pay any claims later.
Even consumer advocates say newly recognized dangers
warrant some sort of broader government role in insurance.
But these advocates say the changed terror calculus doesn't
justify a wave of steep rate increases for policies unrelated
to terrorism--especially since the government is taking on
the additional risk. ``It's very opportunistic'' of the
industry, says Robert Hunter, insurance director for Consumer
Federation of America, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group.
In the weeks after Sept. 11, newspapers carried numerous
advertisements touting insurers' intent to pay disaster
claims promptly. Less well known is how these companies plan
to recoup much of the money they will be sending to
policyholders.
The decade-long premium price war had been ending before
the attacks, as weaker insurers collapsed or retrenched and
stronger ones began gradually to charge more. Now, faced with
payouts related to Sept. 11, the healthier companies are
demanding that their customers share the pain by paying
bigger premiums. Some insurance companies are so confident in
this strategy that they are expanding operations. Since Sept.
11, at least seven insurers have sold additional shares of
stock. An additional six, including Marsh, have formed new
companies.
Among the new units is a Bermuda-based carrier put together
by American International Group Inc. Chubb Corp, and
investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. State Farm Mutual
Automoible Insurance Co. and RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. are
creating another one. Since Sept. 11, insurers have raised a
total of about $4 billion in new capital, to which they are
adding a modest amount of their own money. Deals valued at
another $14 billion are expected to be completed in coming
months, according to industry analysis.
Since the attacks, aviation underwriters have raised
premiums for airlines by 200% to 400%, according to insurance
brokers. At the same time, the underwriters are cancelling
parts of airlines' coverage for liability to third parties
other than passengers in future terrorist acts.
U.S. airlines don't have to worry about these increases
immediately. The airline-bailout bill Congress approved after
Sept. 11 included provisions under which the federal
government for six months will pay any increases in
commercial insurance and cover airlines' potential third-
party liability for terrorism. In the not-too-distant future,
though, the airlines could collectively face billions of
dollars in additional annual premiums.
new surcharge
Led by giant AIG, insurers have offered airlines a new,
more-expensive package to replace the rescinded terrorism
coverage. The new price includes a $3.10-per-passenger
surcharge. Lacking the backing of the U.S. government,
numerous foreign airlines are buying the new coverage, which
is expected to boost insurers' revenue by a total of hundreds
of millions of dollars a year.
Owners of New York trophy properties are seeing giant rate
increases. Douglas Durst, a developer with large holdings in
midtown Manhattan, including the 50-story Conde Nast
building, says his insurance broker has told him that he will
be lucky if his premiums increase by only 20% at renewal time
in April. ``There are [real estate] people who are seeing
their rates double,'' Mr. Durst says.
Brookfield Properties Inc., which owns most of the World
Financial Center complex adjacent to the World Trade Center,
has said that insurers are cutting back on its terrorism
coverage. Brookfield said its insurers agreed to cover its
liability risk associated with future terrorist attacks but
are refusing to reimburse it for property damage or the costs
of business interruption. (The Wall Street Journal has
offices in Brookfield's World Financial Center property.)
Medium-sized and small corporate policyholders are also
seeing premiums jump. One week after the attacks, Industrial
Risk Insurers, a unit of General Electric Co.'s Employers
Reinsurance unit, told textile manufacturer Johnston
Industries Inc. that it wouldn't renew Johnston's property-
insurance policies, which expired Oct. 31, Bill Henry, a vice
president at the Columbus, Ga., company, says it wound up
paying $1 million more to a European carrier for a year's
coverage, ending in October 2002--a 150% increase. The limit
of the new policy is only $350 million, or half of what
Johnston previously received from the GE insurance unit. For
a company with annual revenue of about $240 million, ``it's a
major blow,'' says Mr. Henry.
Dean Davison, a spokesman for the GE unit, confirms that it
has discontinued many of its policies. But he adds that Sept.
11 merely hastened actions that had already been planned for
later this year.
government aid
While aggressively raising premiums, the insurance industry
has been busy seeking relief in Washington. Ten days after
the attacks, a delegation of chief executives, including
AIG's Maurice R. Greenberg, the father of Marsh's Jeffrey
Greenberg, descended on the capital to lobby President Bush
and lawmakers.
The industry leaders sounded an alarm that reinsurance
companies--which spread corporate risk by selling insurance
policies to the insurance industry--were moving to cancel
terrorism-related reinsurance coverage. The big primary
carriers told the politicians they would eliminate almost all
terrorism coverage unless the government stepped into the
role of the reinsurers.
Without this coverage, many lenders would hesitate to
finance everything from factories to new real estate
development, the insurance executives warned their Washington
hosts. Large areas of the economy could grind to a halt.
The pitch worked. Congress is now expected to approve a
mechanism that will guarantee that if there are huge future
terrorism liabilities, taxpayers will help pay them. A plan
under consideration in the Senate would require the industry
to pay the first $10 billion in claims, with the government
picking up 90% of any remaining amount. The House Financial
Services Committee favors government loans to insurers to
help pay future terrorism claims.
``This is not a bailout,'' says Democratic Sen. Christopher
Dodd of Connecticut, home to several large carriers. Rather,
the government is proposing to serve as a ``backstop'' to
encourage underwriters to provide terrorism coverage, he
says.
The legislation also gives carriers the confidence to sell
some terrorism policies, for which they are charging much
higher premiums. ``In the absence of future terrorist
attacks, such an approach could create `windfall' profits for
insurers, to the detriment of policyholders,'' says Fitch
Inc., which provides investors with financial analysis of the
insurance industry.
Marsh & McLennan sees vast opportunity in this fast-
changing environment. The company is primarily an insurance
broker, not an underwriter. As a result, it has limited
exposure to Sept. 11 property and liability claims. It took a
$173 million charge for the third quarter, which ended Sept.
30, to cover costs related to the attacks. A big piece of
that was for payments to families of its own injured and dead
employees.
Marsh's Mr. Greenberg knows well the dangers of appearing
opportunistic in the wake of catastrophe. He gained this
experience after Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in 1992, which
until Sept. 11 was the industry's costliest disaster. Then a
vice president at his father's AIG, the younger Mr. Greenberg
wrote an internal memo saying that Andrew was ``an
opportunity to get price increases now.'' After the memo was
leaked to the media, Florida regulators imposed a moratorium
on premium-rate increases.
This embarrassment didn't stop Jeffrey Greenberg, now 50
years old, and his subordinates at Marsh from swiftly
scouring the post-Sept. 11 business landscape for new
opportunities.
The World Trade Center attacks were a devastating blow to
the company, which has its headquarters in midtown Manhattan.
About 1,900 Marsh employees worked in the twin towers. Within
an hour of the attacks, the company had set up a phone bank
to assemble information about the missing. Counseling
sessions and memorial services were held daily for weeks.
modest disruption
From a business perspective, the disaster caused only
modest disruption for Marsh, which has 57,000 employees
world-wide. On the evening of Sept. 11, Mr. Davis, Marsh's
vice chairman and chief of its MMC Capital arm, sent a fax to
Mr. Greenberg's home that accounted for the unit's
employees--they were all safe--and suggested the formation of
a new subsidiary that would underwrite corporate policies.
``We were absolutely thinking about the impact [of the
attacks] and what the opportunities were in front of us,''
says Mr. Davis, who came to Marsh from Goldman Sachs three
years ago.
At a Sept. 18 meeting, 20 executives from Marsh's operating
companies discussed the new terrain in their industry.
Participants noted the premium increases already being
announced and cancellations of terrorism coverage. Policy-
holder demands was as strong as ever, meaning prices could
only rise.
There was strong support for Mr. Davis's idea for a new
company. It wouldn't be the
[[Page 23331]]
first time Marsh gave birth to an underwriter. In the mid-
1980s, it launched Ace Ltd. and Exel Capital, now known as
XL. Those moves came in response to some established insurers
ceasing to write liability coverage in the wake of huge jury
awards for asbestos-related illnesses and big judgments
against corporate directors and officers. Both Ace and XL
went on to become publicly traded. Marsh retains small stakes
in them.
Marsh raised its initial fundraising plan for the new
carrier by 50%, to $1.5 billion. But that still wasn't enough
to accommodate all of the investors lining up for a piece of
the action. GE's GE Asset Management unit and TIAA-CREF, the
national teachers' pension-fund manager, were among those
allowed to buy stakes. Many others were turned away.
As the investor list was being winnowed, Mr. Greenberg was
stirring another pot. He called L. Paul Bremer, a former U.S.
ambassador at large for counterterrorism, who had joined
Marsh a year earlier. ``Funny you should ask'' Mr. Bremer
says he responded to Mr. Greenberg's query about new business
opportunities.
Mr. Bremer had been working on a plan for a crisis-
consulting practice for several months. ``It was clear to
both of us that he should accelerate the introduction of that
practice,'' Mr. Greenberg says.
On Oct. 11, Marsh announced the formation of a new
consulting unit, with Mr. Bremer at its head. Two weeks
later, Marsh unveiled a partnership between its new unit and
Versar Inc., a counterterrorism-service provider. The
partnership will assess chemical and bioterrorism risks for
corporate clients.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Baker), chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets,
Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, one of two gentlemen
who have worked diligently to see to it that this is a good bill, the
other being the chairman of the full Committee on Financial Services,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy and
generosity with the time.
I wish to extend my appreciation and commend the chairman of the
Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),
for his perspicacious leadership on this matter; to the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), for his visionary legal acumen; and to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kanjorski) for their critical suggestions at important steps along the
way to craft a proposal which, in essence, solves, to a great extent,
the potential exposure for further liability as a result of future
terrorist attacks.
I cannot, however, today stand without responding to the remarks of
the minority leader who said, ``We don't get it.'' I am appalled that
in this instance, when faced with legislation of such magnitude, he
would suggest that Members of Congress do not know people who are
without medical insurance. I have a family member this morning in the
hospital without private medical insurance. To suggest that there are
those of us in Congress who do not know people who are unemployed, that
we do not get it because we do not know the unemployed, I would just
advise that in my extended family there have been people on
unemployment through no fault of their own.
We are here today to respond to a crisis, a national crisis of
proportion this Nation has never seen. The vision of the morning of
September 11 will never vanish from our minds, and what are we to do in
response to this? To say we should postpone, delay, or otherwise
obfuscate the ability to respond to this crisis when it is so clear, I
cannot conceive that any Member of this Congress, despite their
objections to the elements contained in this legislation, would say no
to this process. This is a process. We all know there will be a very
difficult conference committee at which all of these issues will be
visited at length.
And let us speak to the one point of contention which brings us to
this difficult moment, that is of liability reform. This House has
adopted the provisions contained in the proposal before us today not
once but twice. This House. I would point to the fact that the Price-
Anderson Act was renewed by this Congress by a voice vote last week,
which contains similar provisions.
Some have said we should not buy this pig in a poke because we do not
know what is in it. I would point out this Congress has adopted the
Swine Flu Act, which has the same liability provisions that this act
contains.
There is no legitimate platform from which a Member can stand on this
floor and say we should not act. Member after Member has said the base
elements of this legislation are, indeed, acceptable to respond to the
crisis we potentially face. But if we do not act, the concerns
expressed for those unemployed and uninsured will only be aggravated,
to a great extent, because there will be more unemployed and uninsured
as economic opportunity is snatched away from the American economy by
our failure to act.
Let us make this clear: this is not an insurance bailout. I do not
care if an insurance company makes a profit or not. That is not my job.
I do not care whether a trial lawyer gets his 30 percent cut off an
unfortunate victim as a result of loss. That is not my problem. What I
care about is how American taxpayer resources are used to meet a crisis
of this magnitude, and to ensure that every penny extended in times of
crisis are repaid to the American taxpayer.
That is what this bill does. It is an extraordinary first step. It is
to say we will respond timely and appropriately. But when an insurance
company is making a $10 or $20 or $30 billion annual profit, they are
going to pay us back. Now, what is wrong with that? And my colleagues
are going to tell me today that they do not want to act to preclude the
possibility of economic calamity because we have a dispute whether the
trial lawyers get 20 percent or a third or half?
We will hash that out in conference committee. We will, in all
likelihood, have a bill my colleagues can support with enthusiasm. But
to say no today is to walk away from our responsibility as a Member of
the United States Congress to respond to terrorist assaults on the
United States sovereign Nation.
Did the firefighters, responding to the call on September 11, check
their employment forms or see what possibility there might be for some
liability provision? Did they think about what wage they were going to
get paid? No. They responded. They acted. There was a crisis, and they
put their lives on the line. We are not even close to considering such
a heroic act. We are simply being asked to be stewards of the American
taxpayers' resources and to provide for a method of response should,
should, some untoward heinous act occur in the future.
{time} 1215
To fail to take this modest step would be a serious disappointment to
the American taxpayer. I hope this House can rise above that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call a vote on the previous question and
ask for its defeat; and if it is defeated, I am going to offer an
amendment to the rule.
My amendment will make in order an amendment by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee which would provide health and
unemployment compensation relief to workers who have lost their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 months have passed since the tragic events of
September 11, and since that time thousands and thousands of workers
have lost their jobs, and they need relief. Their unemployment benefits
will run out, and they have no health care. We passed an airline
bailout the week after the terrorist attacks, and promises were made at
that time by the Republican leadership that a worker relief package
would follow the following the week. Today, weeks later, we are passing
legislation that would provide relief to the insurance industry, still
leaving no help for the workers. They desperately need our help, they
need it now, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
[[Page 23332]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a vigorous debate today about this issue.
We have heard a good number of speakers say that we did it the hard
way. They would have done it the easy way. I think they are right; we
did do it the hard way. But I would like to be accused of doing it the
right way, doing what is in the best interest of not only the taxpayer,
but also in the best interest of people who have needs and who need to
make sure that their insurance coverage is done right.
Mr. Speaker, Members have heard the debate on this side from some of
our best and our brightest. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) talk about a very difficult
issue, and they have delivered on that issue. They have worked with the
White House and President Bush; and President Bush is proud of the work
that they have done.
So whether it was done the hard way or the easy way, it did not
matter to me and did not matter to us. We have done it the right way.
Mr. Speaker, I can proudly ask my colleagues to support not only this
fair rule, but one which has the underlying legislation which is good
for all of America and will ensure that the confidence and the
stability of this country is held together. I am very proud of what we
have done.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank Mr. Sessions,
Chairman Dreier and all the members of the Rules Committee for
responding to the need to act swiftly on the Terrorism Risk Protection
Act by crafting a fair rule that paves the way for our consideration of
the Bill on the House floor today. I also wish to thank Chairman Oxley
for his leadership on this issue and to recognize the efforts of
Ranking Members LaFalce and Kanjorski.
The attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11,
2001, resulted in a large number of deaths and injuries, the
destruction and damage to buildings, and the interruption of business
operations. These consequences of the attacks were not only a human
tragedy, they were also a financial disaster. The attacks inflicted
possibly the largest losses ever incurred by insurers and reinsurers in
a single day. Estimates of losses start at about $40 billion and vary
significantly upward from there. Fortunately, the insurance and
reinsurance industry have the capital capacity to cover such losses and
have committed to pay the losses due to the attacks.
However, with the events of September 11, 2001, there is great
uncertainty from an underwriter's perspective. Commercial property and
casualty insurance companies have little to no experience in
underwriting for the types of terrorist attacks that we experienced in
New York City and Washington, D.C. The attacks set a new and very high
level for potential severity. Additionally, there is an inability for
underwriters to forecast the frequency or nature of future attacks. As
a result of this uncertainty, many commercial property and casualty
insurers and reinsurers have begun excluding terrorism risk coverage
from their policies or providing very limited coverage at high costs.
The potential unavailability of terrorism risk coverage for
businesses comes at precisely the time when there is the greatest
demand for the insurance. Moreover, insurance coverage is almost
universally a requirement of any commercial lending contract. Lenders
will simply not provide financing for new or existing construction or
other operations without certainty that the properties and businesses
that they are funding have adequate insurance to protect the lenders'
investment. Thus, the lack of available insurance for terrorism risk
has adverse consequences that would spread throughout the entire
economy and stifle if not halt its growth.
That is why I come before you today in strong support of H.R. 3210,
the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. The temporary risk spreading program
established by this Act is a bridge to allow the private market to
develop the mechanisms to provide terrorism risk coverage at reasonable
cost and sufficient levels, while guaranteeing that any federal
assistance from the U.S. taxpayer in the interim is paid back by the
insurance industry and those that benefit from the program.
I urge my fellow colleagues to support this rule and to vote yes on
the bill to prevent any further slowdown of our dynamic national
economy.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 3210, Terrorism Risk Insurance Act
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order following disposition of the further amendment
printed in the report to accompany the resolution to consider
the further amendment printed in Section 3 of this resolution
if offered by Representative Rangel or his designee. The
amendment shall be considered as read; shall be debatable for
one hour, equally divided between a proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
amendment.
Sec. 3. The text of the amendment is as follows;
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RANGEL
Insert at the end the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal
Stimulus and Worker Relief Act of 2001''.
TITLE II--WORKER RELIEF
Subtitle A--Temporary Unemployment Compensation
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Federal-State agreements.
Sec. 203. Temporary Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Account.
Sec. 204. Payments to States having agreements under this subtitle.
Sec. 205. Financing provisions.
Sec. 206. Fraud and overpayments.
Sec. 207. Definitions.
Sec. 208. Applicability.
Subtitle B--Premium Assistance for COBRA Continuation Coverage
Sec. 211. Premium assistance for COBRA continuation coverage.
Subtitle C--Additional Assistance for Temporary Health Insurance
Coverage
Sec. 221. Optional temporary medicaid coverage for certain uninsured
employees.
Sec. 222. Optional temporary coverage for unsubsidized portion of COBRA
continuation premiums.
TITLE II--WORKER RELIEF
Subtitle A--Temporary Unemployment Compensation
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Temporary Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2001''.
SEC. 202. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter
into and participate in an agreement under this subtitle with
the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this subtitle referred
to as the ``Secretary''). Any State which is a party to an
agreement under this subtitle may, upon providing 30 days'
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Any agreement under subsection (a) shall
provide that the State agency of the State will make--
(A) payments of regular compensation to individuals in
amounts and to the extent that they would be determined if
the State law were applied with the modifications described
in paragraph (2), and
(B) payments of temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation to individuals who--
(i) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
the State law,
(ii) do not, with respect to a week, have any rights to
compensation (excluding compensation) under the State law of
any other State (whether one that has entered into an
agreement under this subtitle or otherwise) nor compensation
under any other Federal law (other than under the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970), and
are not paid or entitled to be paid any additional
compensation under any State or Federal law, and
(iii) are not receiving compensation with respect to such
week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.
(2) Modifications described.--The modifications described
in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) An individual shall be eligible for regular
compensation if the individual would be so eligible,
determined by applying--
(i) the base period that would otherwise apply under the
State law if this subtitle had not been enacted, or
(ii) a base period ending at the close of the calendar
quarter most recently completed
[[Page 23333]]
before the date of the individual's application for benefits.
whichever results in the greater amount.
(B) An individual shall not be denied regular compensation
under the State law's provisions relating to availability for
work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work,
solely by virtue of the fact that such individual is seeking,
or available for, only part-time (and not full-time) work.
(C)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the amount of regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable for
any week shall be equal to the amount determined under the
State law (before the application of this subparagraph), plus
an additional--
(I) 25 percent, or
(II) $65,
whichever is greater.
(ii) In no event may the total amount determined under
clause (i) with respect to any individual exceed the average
weekly insured wages of that individual in that calendar
quarter of the base period in which such individual's insured
wages were the highest (or one such quarter if his wages were
the same for more than one such quarter).
(c) Nonreduction Rule.--Under the agreement, subsection
(b)(2)(C) shall not apply (or shall cease to apply) with
respect to a State upon a determination by the Secretary that
the method governing the computation or regular compensation
under the State law of that State has been modified in a way
such that--
(1) the average weekly amount of regular compensation which
will be payable during the period of the agreement
(determined disregarding the modifications described in
subsection (b)(2)) will be less than
(2) the average weekly amount of regular compensation which
would otherwise have been payable during such period under
the State law, as in effect on September 11, 2001.
(d) Coordination Rules.--
(1) Regular compensation payable under a federal law.--The
modifications described in subsection (b)(2) shall also apply
in determining the amount of benefits payable under any
Federal law to the extent that those benefits are determined
by reference to regular compensation payable under the State
law of the State involved.
(2) TSUC to serve as second-tier benefits.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, extended benefits shall not be
payable to any individual for any week for which temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation is payable to such
individual.
(e) Exhaustion of Benefits.--For purposes of subsection
(b)(1)(B)(i), an individual shall be considered to have
exhausted such individual's rights to regular compensation
under a State law when--
(1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under
such law because such individual has received all regular
compensation available to such individual based on employment
or wages during such individual's base period, or
(2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been
terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year
with respect to which such rights existed.
(f) Weekly Benefit Amount, Terms and Conditions, Etc.
Relating to TSUC.--For purposes of any agreement under this
subtitle--
(1) the amount of temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation which shall be payable to an individual for any
week of total unemployment shall be equal to the amount of
regular compensation (including dependents' allowances)
payable to such individual under the State law for a week for
total unemployment during such individual's benefit year,
(2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply
to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
shall apply to claims for temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation and the payment thereof, except where
inconsistent with the provisions of this subtitle or with the
regulations or operating instructions of the Secretary
promulgated to carry out this subtitle, and
(3) the maximum amount of temporary supplemental
unemployment compensation payable to any individual for whom
a temporary supplemental unemployment compensation account is
established under section 203 shall not exceed the amount
established in such account for such individual.
SEC. 203. TEMPORARY SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Any agreement under this subtitle shall
provide that the State will establish, for each eligible
individual who files an application for temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation, a temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation account.
(b) Amount in Account.--
(1) In general.--The amount established in an account under
subsection (a) shall be equal to the product obtained by
multiplying an individual's weekly benefit amount by the
applicable factor under paragraph (3).
(2) Weekley benefit amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, an individual's weekly benefit amount for any
week is the amount of regular compensation (including
dependents' allowances) under the State law payable to such
individual for a week of total unemployment in such
individual's benefit year.
(3) Applicable factor.--
(A) General rule.--The applicable factor under this
paragraph is 13, unless the individual's benefit year begins
or ends during a period of high unemployment within such
individual's State, in which case the applicable factor is
26.
(B) Period of high unemployment.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a period of high unemployment within a State shall
begin and end, if at all, in a way (to be set forth in the
State's agreement under this subtitle) similar to the way in
which an extended benefit period would under section 203 of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970, subject to the following:
(a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter
into and participate in an agreement under this subtitle with
the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this subtitle referred
to as the ``Secretary''). Any State which is a party to an
agreement under this subtitle may, upon providing 30 days'
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Any agreement under subsection (a) shall
provide that the State agency of the State will make--
(A) payments of regular compensation to individuals in
amounts and to the extent that they would be determined if
the State law were applied with the modifications described
in paragraph (2), and
(B) payments of temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation to individuals who--
(i) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
the State law,
(ii) do not, with respect to a week, have any rights to
compensation (excluding extended compensation) under the
State law of any other State (whether one that has entered
into an agreement under this subtitle or otherwise) nor
compensation under any other Federal law (other than under
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970), and are not paid or entitled to be paid any additional
compensation under any State or Federal law, and
(iii) are not receiving compensation with respect to such
week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.
(2) Modifications described.--The modifications described
in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) An individual shall be eligible for regular
compensation if the individual would be so eligible,
determined by applying--
(i) the base period that would otherwise apply under the
State law if this subtitle had not been enacted, or
(ii) a base period ending at the close of the calendar
quarter most recently completed before the date of the
individual's application for benefits,
whichever results in the greater amount.
(B) An individual shall not be denied regular compensation
under the State law's provisions relating to availability for
work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work,
solely by virtue of the fact that such individual is seeking,
or available for, only part-time (and not full-time) work.
(C)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the amount of regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable for
any week shall be equal to the amount determined under the
State law (before the application of this subparagraph), plus
an additional--
(I) 25 percent, or
(II) $65,
whichever is greater.
(ii) In no event may the total amount determined under
clause (i) with respect to any individual exceed the average
weekly insured wages of that individual in that calendar
quarter of the base period in which such individual's insured
wages were the highest (or one such quarter if his wages were
the same for more than one such quarter).
(c) Nonreduction Rule.--Under the agreement, subsection
(b)(2)(C) shall not apply (or shall cease to apply) with
respect to a State upon a determination by the Secretary that
the method governing the computation of regular compensation
under the State law of that State has been modified in a way
such that--
(1) the average weekly amount of regular compensation which
will be payable during the period of the agreement
(determined disregarding the modifications described in
subsection (b)(2)) will be less than
(2) the average weekly amount of regular compensation which
would otherwise have been payable during such period under
the State law, as in effect on September 11, 2001.
(d) Coordination Rules.--
(1) Regular compensation payable under a federal law.--The
modifications described in subsection (b)(2) shall also apply
in determining the amount of benefits payable under any
Federal law to the extent that those benefits are determined
by reference to regular compensation payable under the State
law of the State involved.
(2) TSUC to serve as second-tier benefits.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, extended benefits shall not be
payable to any individual for any week for which temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation is payable to such
individual.
[[Page 23334]]
(e) Exhaustion of Benefits.--For purposes of subsection
(b)(1)(B)(i), an individual shall be considered to have
exhausted such individual's rights to regular compensation
under a State law when--
(1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under
such law because such individual has received all regular
compensation available to such individual based on employment
or wages during such individual's base period, or
(2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been
terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year
with respect to which such rights existed.
(f) Weekly Benefit Amount, Terms and Conditions, Etc,
Relating to TSUC.--For purposes of any agreement under this
subtitle--
(1) the amount of temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation which shall be payable to an individual for any
week of total unemployment shall be equal to the amount of
regular compensation (including dependents' allowances)
payable to such individual under the State law for a week for
total unemployment during such individual's benefit year,
(2) the term and conditions of the State law which apply to
claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
shall apply to claims for temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation and the payment thereof, except where
inconsistent with the provisions of this subtitle or with the
regulations or operating instructions of the Secretary
promulgated to carry out this subtitle, and
(3) the maximum amount of temporary supplemental
unemployment compensation payable to any individual for whom
a temporary supplemental unemployment compensation account is
established under section 203 shall not exceed the amount
established in such account for such individual.
SEC. 203. TEMPORARY SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Any agreement under this subtitle shall
provide that the State will establish, for each eligible
individual who files an application for temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation, a temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation account.
(b) Amount in Account.--
(1) In general.--The amount established in an account under
subsection (a) shall be equal to the product obtained by
multiplying an individual's weekly benefit amount by the
applicable factor under paragraph (3).
(2) Weekly benefit amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, an individual's weekly benefit amount for any
week is the amount of regular compensation (including
dependents' allowances) under the State law payable to such
individual for a week of total unemployment in such
individual's benefit year.
(3) Applicable factors.--
(A) General rule.--The applicable factor under this
paragraph is 13, unless the individual's benefit year begins
or ends during a period of high unemployment within such
individual's State, in which case the applicable factor is
26.
(B) Period of high unemployment.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a period of high unemployment within a State shall
begin and end, if at all, in a way (to be set forth in the
State's agreement under this subtitle) similar to the way in
which an extended benefit period would under section 203 of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970, subject to the following:
(i) To determine if there is a State ``on'' or ``off''
indicator, apply section 203(f) of such Act, but--
(I) substitute ``5 percent'' for ``6.5 percent'' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof, and
(II) disregard paragraph (a)(A)(ii) thereof and the last
sentence of paragraph (1) thereof.
(ii) To determine the beginning and ending dates of a
period of high unemployment within a State, apply section
203(a) and (b) of such Act, except that--
(I) in applying such section 203(a), deem paragraphs (1)
and (2) thereof to be amended by striking ``the third week
after'', and
(II) in applying such section 203(b), deem paragraph (1)(A)
thereof amended by striking ``thirteen'' and inserting
``twenty-six'' and paragraph (1)(B) thereof amended by
striking ``fourteenth'' and inserting ``twenty-seventh''.
(4) Rule of construction.--For purposes of any computation
under paragraph (1) (and any determination of amount under
section 202(f)(1)), the modification described in section
202(b)(2)(C) (relating to increased benefits) shall be deemed
to have been in effect with respect to the entirety of the
benefit year involved.
(c) Eligibility Period.--An individual whose applicable
factor under subsection (b)(3) is 26 shall be eligible for
temporary supplemental unemployment compensation for each
week of total unemployment in his benefit year which begins
in the State's period of high unemployment and, if his
benefit year ends within such period, any such weeks
thereafter which begin in such period of high unemployment,
not to exceed a total of 26 weeks.
SEC. 204. PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS UNDER THIS
SUBTITLE.
(a) General Rule.--There shall be paid to each State which
has entered into an agreement under this subtitle an amount
equal to--
(1) 100 percent of any regular compensation made payable to
individuals by such State by virtue of the modifications
which are described in section 202(b)(2) and deemed to be in
effect with respect to such State pursuant to section
202(b)(1)(A),
(2) 100 percent of any regular compensation--
(A) which is paid to individuals by such State by reason of
the fact that its State law contains provisions comparable to
the modifications described in section 202(b)(2)(A)-(B), but
only
(B) to the extent that those amounts would, if such amounts
were instead payable by virtue of the State law's being
deemed to be so modified pursuant to section 202(b)(1)(A),
have been reimbursable under paragraph (1), and
(3) 100 percent of the temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation paid to individuals by the State pursuant to
such agreement.
(b) Determination of Amount.--Sums under subsection (a)
payable to any State by reason of such State having an
agreement under this subtitle shall be payable, either in
advance or by way of reimbursement (as may be determined by
the Secretary), in such amounts as the Secretary estimates
the State will be entitled to receive under this subtitle for
each calendar month, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any amount by which the Secretary finds that the
Secretary's estimates for any prior calendar month were
greater or less than the amounts which should have been paid
to the State. Such estimates may be made on the basis of such
statistical, sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon
by the Secretary and the State agency of the State involved.
(c) Administrative Expenses, Etc.--There is hereby
appropriated out of the employment security administration
account of the Unemployment Trust Fund (as established by
section 901(a) of the Social Security Act) $500,000,000 to
reimburse States for the costs of the administration of
agreements under this subtitle (including any improvements in
technology in connection therewith) and to provide
reemployment services to unemployment compensation claimants
in States having agreements under this subtitle. Each State's
share of the amount appropriated by the preceding sentence
shall be determined by the Secretary according to the factors
described in section 302(a) of the Social Security Act and
certified by the Secretary to the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 205. FINANCING PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment
compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the
Social Security Act), and the Federal unemployment account
(as established by section 904(g) of the Social Security
Act), of the Unemployment Trust Fund shall be used, in
accordance with subsection (b), for the making of payments
(described in section 204(a)) to States having agreements
entered into under this subtitle.
(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums described in section 204(a) which are payable
to such State under this subtitle. The Secretary of the
Treasury, prior to audit or settlement by the General
Accounting Office, shall make payments to the State in
accordance with such certification by transfers from the
extended unemployment compensation account (or, to the extent
that there are insufficient funds in that account, from the
Federal unemployment account) to the account of such State in
the Unemployment Trust Fund.
SEC. 206. FRAUD AND OVERPAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or
caused to be made by another, a false statement or
representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed,
or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and
as a result of such false statement or representation or of
such nondisclosure such individual has received any regular
compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation under this subtitle to which he was not
entitled, such individual--
(1) shall be ineligible for any further benefits under this
subtitle in accordance with the provisions of the applicable
State unemployment compensation law relating to fraud in
connection with a claim for unemployment compensation, and
(2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of
title 18, United States Code.
(b) Repayment.--In the case of individuals who have
received any regular compensation or temporary supplemental
unemployment compensation under this subtitle to which they
were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals
to repay those benefits to the State agency, except that the
State agency may waive such repayment if it determines that--
(1) the payment of such benefits was without fault on the
part of any such individual, and
[[Page 23335]]
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good
conscience.
(c) Recovery by State Agency.--
(1) In general.--The State agency may recover the amount to
be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any
regular compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation payable to such individual under this subtitle
or from any unemployment compensation payable to such
individual under any Federal unemployment compensation law
administered by the State agency or under any other Federal
law administered by the State agency which provides for the
payment of any assistance or allowance with respect to any
week of unemployment, during the 3-year period after the date
such individuals received the payment of the regular
compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation to which they were not entitled, except that no
single deduction may exceed 50 percent of the weekly benefit
amount from which such deduction is made.
(2) Opportunity for hearing.--No repayment shall be
required, and no deduction shall be made, until a
determination has been made, notice thereof and an
opportunity for a fair hearing has been given to the
individual, and the determination has become final.
(d) Review.--Any determination by a State agency under this
section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to
the same extent as determinations under the State
unemployment compensation law, and only in that manner and to
that extent.
SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) In general.--The terms ``compensation'', ``regular
compensation'', ``extended compensation'', ``additional
compensation'', ``benefit year'', ``base period'', ``State'',
``State agency'', ``State law'', and ``week'' have the
respective meanings given such terms under section 205 of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970,
subject to paragraph (2).
(2) State law and regular compensation.--In the case of a
State entering into an agreement under this subtitle--
(A) ``State law'' shall be considered to refer to the State
law of such State, applied in conformance with the
modifications described in section 202(b)(2), subject to
section 202(c), and
(B) ``regular compensation'' shall be considered to refer
to such compensation, determined under its State law (applied
in the manner described in subparagraph (A)),
except as otherwise provided or where the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--An agreement entered into under this
subtitle shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into, and
(2) ending before January 1, 2003.
(b) Specific Rules.--Under such an agreement--
(1) the modification described in section 202(b)(2)(A)
(relating to alternative base periods) shall not apply except
in the case of initial claims filed after September 11, 2001,
(2) the modifications described in section 202(b)(2) (B)-
(C) (relating to part-time employment and increased benefits,
respectively) shall apply to weeks of unemployment (described
in subsection (a)), irrespective of the date on which an
individual's claim for benefits is filed, and
(3) the payments described in section 202(b)(1)(B)
(relating to temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation) shall not apply except in the case of
individuals exhausting their rights to regular compensation
(as described in clause (i) thereof) after September 11,
2001.
Subtitle B--Premium Assistance for COBRA Continuation Coverage
SEC. 211. PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall establish a
program under which premium assistance for COBRA continuation
coverage shall be provided for qualified individuals under
this section.
(b) Determination of Amount.--Sums under subsection (a)
payable to any State by reason of such State having an
agreement under this subtitle shall be payable, either in
advance or by way of reimbursement (as may be determined by
the Secretary), in such amounts as the Secretary estimates
the State will be entitled to receive under this subtitle for
each calendar month, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any amount by which the Secretary finds that the
Secretary's estimates for any prior calendar month were
greater or less than the amounts which should have been paid
to the State. Such estimates may be made on the basis of such
statistical, sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon
by the Secretary and the State agency of the State involved.
(c) Administrative Expenses, Etc.--There is hereby
appropriated out of the employment security administration
account of the Unemployment Trust Fund (as established by
section 901(a) of the Social Security Act) $500,000,000 to
reimburse States for the costs of the administration of
agreements under this subtitle (including any improvements in
technology in connection therewith) and to provide
reemployment services to unemployment compensation claimants
in States having agreements under this subtitle. Each State's
share of the amount appropriated by the proceeding sentence
shall be determined by the Secretary according to the factors
described in section 302(a) of the Social Security Act and
certified by the Secretary to the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 205. FINANCING PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment
compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the
Social Security Act), and the Federal unemployment account
(as established by section 904(g) of the Social Security
Act), of the Unemployment Trust Fund shall be used, in
accordance with subsection (b), for the making of payments
(described in section 204(a)) to States having agreements
entered into under this subtitle.
(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums described in section 204(a) which are payable
to such State under this subtitle. The Secretary of the
Treasury, prior to audit or settlement by the General
Accounting Office, shall make payments to the State in
accordance with such certification by transfers from the
extended unemployment compensation account (or, to the extent
that there are insufficient funds in that account, from the
Federal unemployment account) to the account of such State in
the Unemployment Trust Fund.
SEC. 206. FRAUD AND OVERPAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or
caused to be made by another, a false statement or
representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed,
or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and
as a result of such false statement or representation or of
such nondisclosure such individual has received any regular
compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation under this subtitle to which he was not
entitled, such individual--
(1) shall be ineligible for any further benefits under this
subtitle in accordance with the provisions of the applicable
State unemployment compensation law relating to fraud in
connection with a claim for unemployment compensation, and
(2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of
title 18, United States Code.
(b) Repayment.--In the case of individuals who have
received any regular compensation or temporary8 supplemental
unemployment compensation under this subtitle to which they
were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals
to repay those benefits to the State agency, except that the
State agency may waive such repayment if it determines that--
(1) the payment of such benefits was without fault on the
part of any such individual, and
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good
conscience.
(c) Recovery by State Agency.--
(1) In general.--The State agency may recover the amount to
be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any
regular compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation payable to such individual under this subtitle
or from any unemployment compensation payable to such
individual under any Federal unemployment compensation law
administered by the State agency or under any Federal law
administered by the State agency which provides for the
payment of any assistance or allowance with respect to any
week of unemployment, during the 3-year period after the date
such individual received the payment of the regular
compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation to which they were not entitled, except that no
single deduction may exceed 50 percent of the weekly benefit
from which such deduction is made.
(4) Opportunity for hearing.--No repayment shall be
required, and no deduction shall be made, until a
determination has been made, notice thereof and an
opportunity for a fair hearing has been given to the
individual, and the determination has become final.
(d) Review.--Any determination by a State agency under this
section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to
the same extent as determinations under the State
unemployment compensation law, and only in that manner and to
that extent.
SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) In general.--The terms ``compensation'', ``regular
compensation'', extended compensation'', ``additional
compensation'', benefit year'', base period'', ``State''
``State agency'', State law'', and ``week'' have the
respective meanings given such terms under section 205 of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970,
subject to paragraph (2).
(2) State law and regular compensation.--In the case of a
State entering into an agreement under this subtitle--
(A) ``State law'' shall be considered to refer to the State
law of such State, applied in conformance with the
modifications described in section 202(b)(b), subject to
section 202(c), and
[[Page 23336]]
(B) ``regular compensation'' shall be considered to refer
such compensation, determined under its State law (applied in
a manner described in subparagraph (A)),
except as otherwise provided or where the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--An agreement entered into under this
subtitle shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into, and
(2) ending before January 1, 2003.
(b) Specified Rules.--Under such an agreement--
(1) the modifications described in section 202(b)(2)(A)
(relating to alternative base periods) shall not apply except
in the case of initial claims filed after September 11, 2001.
(2) the modifications described in section 202(b)(2)(B)-(C)
(relating to part-time employment and increased benefits,
respectively) shall apply to weeks of unemployment (described
in subsection (a)), irrespective of the date on which an
individual's claim for benefits is filed, and
(3) the payments described in section 202(b)(1)(B)
(relating to temporary supplemental unemployment compensation
) shall not apply except in the case of individuals
exhausting their rights to regular compensation (as described
in clause (i) thereof) after September 11, 2001.
Subtitle B--Premium Assistance for COBRA Continuation Coverage
SEC. 211. PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall establish a
program under which premium assistance for COBRA continuation
coverage shall be provided for qualified individuals under
this section.
(2) Qualified individuals.--For purposes of this section, a
qualified individual is an individual who--
(A) establishes that the individual--
(i) on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of the 1-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, became entitled to elect COBRA continuation coverage;
and
(ii) has elected such coverage; and
(B) enrolls in the premium assistance program under this
section by not later than the end of such 1-year period.
(b) Limitation of Period of Premium Assistance.--Premium
assistance provided under this subsection shall end with
respect to an individual on the earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer covered under
COBRA continuation coverage; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
enrolled in the premium assistance program established under
this section.
(c) Payment, and Crediting of Assistance.--
(1) Amount of assistance.--Premium assistance provided
under this section shall be equal to 75 percent of the amount
of the premium required for the COBRA continuation coverage.
(2) Provision of assistance.--Premium assistance provided
under this section shall be provided through the
establishment of direct payment arrangements with the
administrator of the group health plan (or other entity) that
provides or administers the COBRA continuation coverage. It
shall be a fiduciary duty of such administrator (or other
entity) to enter into such arrangements under this section.
(3) Premiums payable by qualified individual reduced by
amount of assistance.--Premium assistance provided under this
section shall be credited by such administrator (or other
entity) against the premium otherwise owed by the individual
involved for such coverage.
(d) Change in COBRA Notice.--
(1) General notice.--
(A) In general.--In the case of notices provided under
section 4980B(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with
respect to individuals who, on or after July 1, 2001, and
before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, become entitled to elect COBRA
continuation coverage, such notices shall include an
additional notification to the recipient of the availability
of premium assistance for such coverage under this section.
(B) Alternative notice.--In the case of COBRA continuation
coverage to which the notice provision under section
4980B(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 does not
apply, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in coordination
with administrators of the group health plans (or other
entities) that provide or administer the COBRA continuation
coverage involved, assure provision of such notice.
(C) Form.--The requirement of the additional notification
under this paragraph may be met by amendment of existing
notice forms or by inclusion of a separate document with the
notice otherwise required.
(2) Specific requirements.--Each additional notification
under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the forms necessary for establishing eligibility under
subsection (a)(2)(A) and enrollment under subsection
(a)(2)(B) in connection with the coverage with respect to
each covered employee or other qualified beneficiary;
(B) the name, address, and telephone number necessary to
contact the plan administrator and any other person
maintaining relevant information in connection with the
premium assistance; and
(C) the following statement displayed in a prominent
manner:
``You may be eligible to receive assistance with payment of
75 percent of your COBRA continuation coverage premiums for a
duration of not to exceed 12 months.''.
(3) Notice relating to retroactive coverage.--In the case
of such notices previously transmitted before the date of the
enactment of this Act in the case of an individual described
in paragraph (1) who has elected (or is still eligible to
elect) COBRA continuation coverage as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, the administrator of the group health
plan (or other entity) involved or the Secretary of the
Treasury (in the case described in the paragraph (1)(B))
shall provide (within 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act) for the additional notification required to be
provided under paragraph (1).
(4) Model notices.--The Secretary shall prescribe models
for the additional notification required under this
subsection.
(f) Obligation of Funds.--This section constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents
the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the
payment of premium assistance under this section.
(g) Prompt Issuance of Guidance.--The Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall
issue guidance under this section not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(l) Administrator.--The term ``administrator'' has the
meaning given such term in section 3(16) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
(2) COBRA continuation coverage.--The term ``COBRA
continuation coverage'' means continuation coverage provided
pursuant to title XXII of the Public Health Service Act,
section 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other
than subsection (f)(1) of such section insofar as it relates
to pediatric vaccines), part 6 of subtitle B of title I of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (other
than under section 609), section 8905a of title 5, United
States Code, or under a State program that provides
continuation coverage comparable to such continuation
coverage.
(3) Group health plan.--The term ``group health plan'' has
the meaning given such term in section 9832(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Subtitle C--Additional Assistance for Temporary Health Insurance
Coverage
SEC. 221. OPTIONAL TEMPORARY MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN
UNINSURED EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to any month before the ending month, a
State may elect to provide, under its medicaid program under
title XIX of the Social Security Act, medical assistance in
the case of an individual--
(1)(A) who has become totally or partially separated from
employment on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of
such ending month; or
(B) whose hours of employment have been reduced on or after
July 1, 2001, and before the end of such ending month;
(2) who is not eligible for COBRA continuation coverage;
and
(3) who is uninsured.
(b) Limitation of Period of Coverage.--Assistance under
this section shall end with respect to an individual on the
earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer uninsured; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
determined to be eligible for medical assistance under this
section.
(c) Special Rules.--In the case of medical assistance
provided under this section--
(1) the Federal medical assistance percentage under section
1905(b) of the Social Security Act shall be the enhanced FMAP
(as defined in section 2105(b) of such Act);
(2) a State may elect to apply alternative income, asset,
and resource limitations and the provisions of section
1916(g) of such Act, except that in no case shall a State
cover individuals with higher family income without covering
individuals with a lower family income;
(3) such medical assistance shall not be provided for
periods before the date the individual becomes uninsured;
(4) a State may elect to make eligible for such assistance
a spouse or children of an individual eligible for medical
assistance under paragraph (1), if such spouse or children
are uninsured;
(5) individuals eligible for medical assistance under this
section shall be deemed to be described in the list of
individuals described in the matter preceding paragraph (1)
of section 1905(a) of such Act; and
[[Page 23337]]
(6) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not
count, for purposes of section 1108(f) of the Social Security
Act, such amount of payments under this section as bears a
reasonable relationship to the average national proportion of
payments made under this section for the 50 States and the
District of Columbia to the payments otherwise made under
title XIX for such States and District.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) Uninsured.--The term ``uninsured'' means, with respect
to an individual, that the individual is not covered under--
(A) a group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of
the Public Health Service Act),
(B) health insurance coverage (as defined in section
2791(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act), or
(C) a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act, other than under such title XIX pursuant to
this section.
For purposes of this paragraph, such coverage under
subparagraph (A) or (B) shall not include coverage consisting
solely of coverage of excepted benefits (as defined in
section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act).
(2) Cobra continuation coverage.--The term ``COBRA
continuation coverage'' means coverage under a group health
plan provided by an employer pursuant to title XXII of the
Public Health Service Act, section 4980B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, part 6 of subtitle B of title I of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or section
8905a of title 5, United States Code.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(4) Ending month.--The term ``ending month'' means the last
month that begins before the date that is 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon
its enactment, whether or not regulations implementing this
section are issued.
(B) Alternative notice.--In the case of COBRA continuation
coverage to which the notice provision under section
4980B(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 does not
apply, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in coordination
with administrators of the group health plans (or other
entities) that provide or administer the COBRA continuation
coverage involved, assure provision of such notice.
(C) Form.--The requirement of the additional notification
under this paragraph may be met by amendment of existing
notice forms or by inclusion of a separate document with the
notice otherwise required.
(2) Specific requirements.--Each additional notification
under this paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the forms necessary for establishing eligibility under
subsection (a)(2)(A) and enrollment under subsection
(a)(2)(B) in connection with the coverage with respect to
each covered employee or other qualified beneficiary;
(B) the name, address, and telephone number necessary to
contact the plan administrator and any other person
maintaining relevant information in connection with the
premium assistance; and
(C) the following statement displayed in a prominent
manner:
``You may be eligible to receive assistance with payment of
75 percent of your COBRA continuation coverage premiums for a
duration of not to exceed 12 months.''.
(3) Notice relating to retroactive coverage.--In the case
of such notices previously transmitted before the date of the
enactment of this Act in the case of an individual described
in paragraph (1) who has elected (or is still eligible to
elect) COBRA continuation coverage as to the date of the
enactment of this Act, the administrator of the group health
plan (or other entity) involved or the Secretary of the
Treasury (in the case described in the paragraph (1)(B))
shall provide (within 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act) for the additional notification required to be
provided under paragraph (1).
(4) Model notices.--The Secretary shall prescribe models
for the additional notification required under this
subsection.
(f) Obligation of Funds.--This section constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents
the obligation of the Federal government to provide for the
payment of premium assistance under this section.
(g) Prompt Issuance of Guidance.--The Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall
issue guidance under this section not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The team ``administrator'' has the
meaning given such term in section 3(16) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
(2) COBRA continuation coverage.-- The term ``COBRA
continuation coverage'' means continuation coverage provided
pursuant to title XXII of the Public Health Service Act,
section 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other
than subsection (f)(1) of such section insofar as it relates
to pediatric vaccines), part 6 of subtitle B of title I of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (other
than under section 609), section 8905a of title 5, United
States Code, or under a State program that provides
continuation coverage comparable to such continuation
coverage.
(3) Group health plan.--The term ``group health plan'' has
the meaning given such term in section 9832(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Subtitle C--Additional Assistance for Temporary Health Insurance
Coverage
SEC. 221. OPTIONAL TEMPORARY MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN
UNINSURED EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to any month before the ending month, a
State may elect to provide, under its medicaid program under
title XIX of the Social Security Act, medical assistance in
the case of an individual--
(1)(A) who has become totally or partially separated from
employment on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of
such ending month; or
(B) whose hours of employment have been reduced on or after
July 1, 2001, and before the end of such ending month;
(2) who is not eligible for COBRA continuation coverage;
and
(3) who is uninsured.
(b) Limitation of Period of Coverage.--Assistance under
this section shall end with respect to an individual on the
earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer uninsured; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
determined to be eligible for medical assistance under this
section.
(c) Special Rules.--In the case of medical assistance
provided under this section--
(1) the Federal medical assistance percentage under section
1905(b) of the Social Security Act shall be the enhanced FMAP
(as defined in section 2105(b) of such Act);
(2) a State may elect to apply alternative income, asset,
and resource limitations and the provisions of section
1916(g) of such Act, except that in no case shall a State
cover individuals with higher family income without covering
individuals with a lower family income;
(3) such medical assistance shall not be provided for
periods before the date the individual becomes uninsured;
(4) a State may elect to make eligible for such assistance
a spouse or children of an individual eligible for medical
assistance under paragraph (l), if such spouse or children
are uninsured;
(5) individuals eligible for medical assistance under this
section shall be deemed to be described in the list of
individuals described in the matter preceding paragraph (1)
of section 1905(a) of such Act; and
(6) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not
count, for purposes of section 1108(f) of the Social Security
Act, such amount of payments under this section as bears a
reasonable relationship to the average national proportion of
payments made under this section for the 50 States and the
District of Columbia to the payments otherwise made under
title XIX for such States and District.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) Uninsured.--The term ``uninsured'' means, with respect
to an individual, that the individual is not covered under--
(A) a group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of
the Public Health Service Act),
(B) health insurance coverage (as defined in section
2791(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act), or
(C) a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act, other than under such title XIX pursuant to
this section.
For purposes of this paragraph, such coverage under
subparagraph (A) or (B) shall not include coverage consisting
solely of coverage of excepted benefits (as defined in
section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act).
(2) Cobra continuation coverage.--The term ``COBRA
continuation coverage'' means coverage under a group health
plan provided by an employer pursuant to title XXII of the
Public Health Service Act, section 4980B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 part 6 of subtitle B of title I of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or section
8905a of title 5, United States Code.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(4) Ending month.--The term ``ending month'' means the last
month that begins before the date that is 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon
its enactment, whether or not regulations implementing this
section are issued.
(f) Limitation of Election.--A State may not elect to
provide coverage under this section unless the State elects
to provide coverage under section 222.
[[Page 23338]]
SEC. 222. OPTIONAL TEMPORARY COVERAGE FOR UNSUBSIDIZED
PORTION OF COBRA CONTINUATION PREMIUMS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to COBRA continuation coverage provided for
any month through the ending month, a State may elect to
provide payment of the unsubsidized portion of the premium
for COBRA continuation coverage in the case of any
individual--
(1)(A) who has become totally or partially separated from
employment on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of
the ending month; or
(B) whose hours of employment have been reduced on or after
July 1, 2001, and before the end of such ending month; and
(2) who is eligible for, and has elected coverage under,
COBRA continuation coverage.
(b) Limitation of Period of Coverage.--Premium assistance
under this section shall end with respect to an individual on
the earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer covered under
COBRA continuation coverage; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
determined to be eligible for premium assistance under this
section.
(c) Financial Payment to States.--A State providing premium
assistance under this section shall be entitled to payment
under section 1903(a) of the Social Security Act with respect
to such assistance (and administrative expenses relating to
such assistance) in the same manner as such State is entitled
to payment with respect to medical assistance (and such
administrative expenses) under such section, except that, for
purposes of this subsection, any reference to the Federal
medical assistance percentage shall be deemed a reference to
the enhanced FMAP (as defined in section 2105(b) of such
Act). The provisions of subsection (c)(6) of section 221
shall apply with respect to this section in the same manner
as it applies under such section.
(d) Unsubsidized Portion of Premium for COBRA Continuatioin
Coverage.--For purposes of this section, the term
`unsubsidized portion of premium for COBRA continuation
coverage' means that portion of the premium for COBRA
continuation coverage for which there is no financial
assistance available under 211.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon
its enactment, whether or not regulations implementing this
section are issued.
(f) Limitation on Election.--A State may not elect to
provide coverage under this section unless the State elects
to provide coverage under section 221.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 204, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 460]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Carson (IN)
Cooksey
Cubin
DeFazio
Ford
Frost
Quinn
Rothman
Wexler
{time} 1246
Messrs. HONDA, OBEY, BARRETT of Wisconsin, RUSH and WU and Ms.
WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BACHUS and Mr. TANCREDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 202, not voting 15, as follows:
[[Page 23339]]
[Roll No. 461]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Carson (IN)
Cooksey
Cubin
DeFazio
Dingell
Ford
Frost
Horn
Kleczka
Lantos
Quinn
Radanovich
Rothman
Watkins (OK)
Wexler
{time} 1255
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 297, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3210) to ensure the continued financial capacity of
insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 297, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3210 is as follows:
H.R. 3210
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorism
Risk Protection Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Congressional findings.
Sec. 3. Designation of Administrators.
Sec. 4. Submission of premium information to Administrator.
Sec. 5. Triggering determination and covered period.
Sec. 6. Federal cost-sharing for commercial insurers.
Sec. 7. Assessments.
Sec. 8. Terrorism loss repayment surcharge.
Sec. 9. Administration of assessments and surcharges.
Sec. 10. Reserve for terrorism coverage under commercial lines of
business.
Sec. 11. State preemption.
Sec. 12. Consistent State guidelines for coverage for acts of
terrorism.
Sec. 13. Consultation with State insurance regulators and NAIC.
Sec. 14. Sovereign immunity protections.
Sec. 15. Study of potential effects of terrorism on life insurance
industry.
Sec. 16. Definitions.
Sec. 17. Extension of program.
Sec. 18. Regulations.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon of September 11, 2001, resulted in a large number of
deaths and injuries, the destruction and damage to buildings,
and interruption of business operations;
(2) the attacks have inflicted possibly the largest losses
ever incurred by insurers and reinsurers;
(3) while the insurance and reinsurance industries have
committed to pay the losses arising from the September 11
attacks, the resulting disruption has created widespread
market uncertainties with regard to the risk of losses
arising from possible future terrorist attacks;
(4) such uncertainty threatens the continued availability
of United States commercial property casualty insurance for
terrorism risk at meaningful coverage levels;
(5) the unavailability of affordable commercial property
and casualty insurance for terrorist acts threatens the
growth and stability of the United States economy, including
impeding the ability of financial services providers to
finance commercial property acquisitions and new
construction;
(6) in the past, the private insurance markets have shown a
remarkable resiliency in adapting to changed circumstances;
(7) given time, the private markets will diversify and
develop risk spreading mechanisms to increase capacity and
guard against possible future losses incurred by terrorist
attacks;
(8) it is necessary to create a temporary industry risk
sharing loan program to ensure the continued availability of
commercial property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
for terrorism-related risks;
(9) such action is necessary to limit immediate market
disruptions, encourage economic stabilization, and facilitate
a transition to a viable market for private terrorism risk
insurance; and
(10) in addition, it is necessary to repeal portions of the
tax law which prohibit the insurance market from developing
the necessary reserves to handle possible future losses due
to acts of terrorism.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRATORS.
(a) In General.--Not later than December 1, 2001, the
President shall designate a Federal officer or officers to
act as the Administrator or Administrators responsible for
carrying out this Act and the responsibilities
[[Page 23340]]
under this Act to be carried out by each such officer.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that in determining the Administrator responsible for making
any determinations, for purposes of this Act, as to whether a
loss was caused by an act of terrorism and whether such loss
was caused by one or multiple such events, pursuant to
section 5(b), the President should consider the appropriate
role of the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.
SEC. 4. SUBMISSION OF PREMIUM INFORMATION TO ADMINISTRATOR.
To the extent such information is not otherwise available
to the Administrators, the appropriate Administrator may
require each insurer to submit, to the appropriate
Administrator or to the NAIC, a statement specifying the
aggregate premium amount of coverage written by such insurer
for properties and persons in the United States under each
line of commercial property and casualty insurance sold by
such insurer during such periods as the appropriate
Administrator may provide.
SEC. 5. TRIGGERING DETERMINATION AND COVERED PERIOD.
(a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, a ``triggering
determination'' is a determination by the appropriate
Administrator that the insured losses resulting from the
event of an act of terrorism occurring during the covered
period (as such term is defined in subsection (b)), or the
aggregate insured losses resulting from multiple events of
acts of terrorism all occurring during the covered period,
meet the requirements under either of the following
paragraphs:
(1) Industry-wide loss test.--Such industry-wide losses
exceed $1,000,000,000.
(2) Capital surplus and industry aggregate test.--Such
industry-wide losses exceed $100,000,000 and some portion of
such losses for any single commercial insurer exceed--
(A) 10 percent of the capital surplus of such commercial
insurer (as such term is defined by the appropriate
Administrator); and
(B) 10 percent of the commercial property and casualty
premiums written by such commercial insurer;
except that this paragraph shall not apply to any commercial
insurer that has been making commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage available for less than 4 years as of the
date of the determination under this subsection.
(b) Covered Period.--For purposes of this Act, the
``covered period'' is the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending on January 1, 2003.
(c) Determinations Regarding Events.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the appropriate Administrator shall have the
sole authority for determining whether--
(1) an occurrence or event was caused by an act of
terrorism;
(2) insured losses from acts of terrorism were caused by
one or multiple events or occurrences; and
(3) whether an act of terrorism occurred during the covered
period.
SEC. 6. FEDERAL COST-SHARING FOR COMMERCIAL INSURERS.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to a triggering determination,
the appropriate Administrator shall provide financial
assistance to commercial insurers in accordance with this
section to cover insured losses resulting from acts of
terrorism, which shall be repaid in accordance with
subsection (e).
(b) Amount.--Subject to subsection (c), with respect to a
triggering determination, the amount of financial assistance
made available under this section to each commercial insurer
shall be equal to 90 percent of the amount of the insured
losses of the insurer as a result of the triggering event
involved.
(c) Aggregate Limitation.--The aggregate amount of
financial assistance provided pursuant to this section may
not exceed $100,000,000,000.
(d) Limitations.--The appropriate Administrator may
establish such limitations as may be necessary to ensure that
payments under this section in connection with a triggering
determination are made only to commercial insurers that are
not in default of any obligation under section 7 to pay
assessments or under section 8 to collect surcharges.
(e) Repayment.--Financial assistance made available under
this section shall be repaid through assessments under
section 7 collected by the appropriate Administrator and
surcharges remitted to the appropriate Administrator under
section 8. Any such amounts collected or remitted shall be
deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.
(f) Emergency Designation.--Congress designates the amount
of new budget authority and outlays in all fiscal years
resulting from this section as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(e)). Such
amount shall be available only to the extent that a request,
that includes designation of such amount as an emergency
requirement as defined in such Act, is transmitted by the
President to Congress.
SEC. 7. ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--In the case of a triggering determination,
each commercial insurer shall be subject to assessments under
this section for the purpose of repaying financial assistance
made available under section 6 in connection with such
determination.
(b) Aggregate Assessment.--Pursuant to a triggering
determination, the appropriate Administrator shall determine
the aggregate amount to be assessed among all commercial
insurers, which shall be equal to 90 percent of the lesser
of--
(1) the amount of industry-wide losses resulting from the
triggering event involved; and
(2) $20,000,000,000.
(c) Allocation of Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The appropriate Administrator shall
allocate the aggregate assessment amount determined under
subsection (b) among all commercial insurers. The portion of
the aggregate assessment amount that is allocated as an
assessment on each commercial insurer shall be based on the
percentage, written by that insurer, of the aggregate written
premium, for all commercial insurers, for the calendar year
preceding the assessment.
(2) Payment requirement.--Upon notification by the
appropriate Administrator of an assessment under this
section, each commercial insurer shall be required to pay to
the appropriate Administrator, in the manner provided under
section 9 by the appropriate Administrator, the amount equal
to the assessment on such commercial insurer (subject to the
limitation under paragraph (3)).
(3) Annual limitation on amount allocated to each
commercial insurer.--
(A) In general.--Of any assessments under this section on a
commercial insurer, the portion required to be paid by any
commercial insurer during a calendar year shall not exceed
the amount that is equal to 3 percent of the aggregate
written premium for such insurer for the preceding calendar
year.
(B) Multiple payments.--If any amounts required to be
repaid under this section for a calendar year are limited by
operation of subparagraph (A), the appropriate Administrator
shall provide that all such remaining amounts shall be
reallocated among all commercial insurers (in the manner
provided in paragraph (1)) over such immediately succeeding
calendar years, and repaid over such years, as may be
necessary to provide for full payment of such remaining
amounts, except that the limitation under subparagraph (A)
shall apply to the amounts paid in any such successive
calendar years.
(C) Administrative flexibility.--
(i) Timing of assessments.--Assessments under this section
in connection with a triggering demonstration shall be made,
to the extent that the appropriate Administrator considers
practicable and appropriate, at the beginning of the calendar
year immediately following the triggering determination.
(ii) Estimates and corrections.--If the appropriate
Administrator makes an assessment at a time other than
provided under clause (i), the appropriate Administrator
may--
(I) require commercial insurers to estimate their aggregate
written premiums for the year in which the assessment is
made; and
(II) make a subsequent refund or require additional
payments to correct such estimation at the end of the
calendar year.
(4) Deferral of contributions.--The appropriate
Administrator may defer the payment of part or all of the
assessment required under paragraph (2) to be paid by a
commercial insurer, but only to the extent that the
appropriate Administrator determines that such deferral is
necessary to avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial
insurer.
SEC. 8. TERRORISM LOSS REPAYMENT SURCHARGE.
(a) Imposition and Collection.--If, pursuant to a
triggering determination, the appropriate Administrator
determines that the aggregate amount of industry-wide losses
resulting from the triggering event involved exceeds
$20,000,000,000, the appropriate Administrator shall--
(1) establish and impose a policyholder premium surcharge,
as provided under this section, on commercial property and
casualty insurance written after such determination, for the
purpose of repaying financial assistance made available under
section 6 in connection with such triggering determination;
and
(2) provide for commercial insurers to collect such
surcharge and remit amounts collected to the appropriate
Administrator.
(b) Amount and Duration.--The surcharge under this section
shall be established in such amount, and shall apply to
commercial property and casualty insurance written during
such period, as the appropriate Administrator determines is
necessary to recover the aggregate amount of financial
assistance provided under section 6 to cover insured losses
resulting from the triggering event that exceed
$20,000,000,000.
(c) Other Terms.--The surcharge under this section shall--
(1) be based on a percentage of the amount of commercial
property and casualty insurance coverage that a policy
provides; and
(2) be imposed with respect to all commercial property and
casualty insurance coverage written during the period
referred to in subsection (b).
[[Page 23341]]
SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF ASSESSMENTS AND SURCHARGES.
(a) Manner and Method.--The appropriate Administrator shall
provide for the manner and method of carrying out assessments
under section 7 and surcharges under section 8, including the
timing and procedures of making assessments and surcharges,
notifying commercial insurers of assessments or surcharge
requirements, collecting payments from and surcharges through
commercial insurers, and refunding of any excess amounts paid
or crediting such amounts against future assessments.
(b) Timing of Coverages and Assessments.--The appropriate
Administrator may adjust the timing of coverages and
assessments provided under this Act to provide for equivalent
application of the provisions of this Act to commercial
insurers and policies that are not based on a calendar year.
(c) Application to Self-Insurance Arrangements.--The
appropriate Administrator may, in consultation with the NAIC,
apply the provisions of this Act, as appropriate, to self-
insurance arrangements by municipalities and other entities,
but only if such application is determined before the
occurrence of a triggering event and all of the provisions of
this Act are applied uniformly to such entities.
(d) Adjustment.--The appropriate Administrator may adjust
the assessments charged under section 7 or the percentage
imposed under the surcharge under section 8 at any time, as
the appropriate Administrator considers appropriate to
protect the national interest, which may include avoiding
unreasonable economic disruption or excessive market
instability.
SEC. 10. RESERVE FOR TERRORISM COVERAGE UNDER COMMERCIAL
LINES OF BUSINESS.
(a) In General.--Section 832 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to insurance company taxable income) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Terrorism Reserve for Commercial Lines of Business.--
In the case of an insurance company subject to tax under
section 831(a)--
``(1) Inclusion for decreases, and deduction for increases,
in balance of reserve.--
``(A) Decrease treated as gross income.--If for any taxable
year--
``(i) the opening balance for the terrorism commercial
business reserve exceeds
``(ii) the closing balance for such reserve,
such excess shall be included in gross income under
subsection (b)(1)(F).
``(B) Increase treated as deduction.--If for any taxable
year--
``(i) the closing balance for the terrorism commercial
business reserve exceeds
``(ii) the opening balance for such reserve,
such excess shall be taken into account as a deduction under
subsection (c)(14).
``(2) Terrorism commercial business reserve.--For purposes
of this section, the term `terrorism commercial business
reserve' means amounts held in a segregated account (or other
separately identifiable arrangement or account) which are set
aside exclusively--
``(A) to mature or liquidate, either by payment or
reinsurance, future unaccrued claims arising from declared
terrorism losses under commercial lines of business, and
``(B) if so directed by the insurance commissioner of any
State, to pay other claims as part of a plan of the company
to avoid insolvency.
``(3) Limitation on amount of reserve.--
``(A) In general.--If the closing balance of any terrorism
commercial business reserve for any taxable year exceeds such
reserve's limit for such year--
``(i) such excess shall be included in gross income under
subsection (b)(1)(F) for the following taxable year, and
``(ii) if such excess is distributed during such following
taxable year, the opening balance of such reserve for such
following taxable year shall be determined without regard to
such excess.
``(B) Reserve limit.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
reserve's limit for any taxable year is such reserve's
allocable share of the national limit for the calendar year
in which such taxable year begins.
``(ii) National limit.--The national limit is
$40,000,000,000 ($13,340,000,000 for 2002).
``(iii) Allocation of limit.--
``(I) In general.--A reserve's allocable share of the
national limit for any calendar year is the amount which
bears the same ratio to the national limit for such year as
the company's net written premiums for commercial lines of
business bears to such net written premiums for all companies
for commercial line of business.
``(II) Exclusion of premiums for insurance not covering
declared terrorism losses and for reinsurance.--Subclause (I)
shall be applied without regard to premiums for insurance
which does not cover declared terrorism losses and premiums
for reinsurance.
``(III) Determination of net written premiums.--Except as
otherwise provided in this section, all determinations under
this subsection shall be made on the basis of the amounts
required to be set forth on the annual statement approved by
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
``(iv) Inflation adjustment of limit.--In the case of any
calendar year after 2002, the $40,000,000,000 amount in
clause (ii) shall be increased by an amount equal to the
product of--
``(I) such dollar amount, and
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
subsection (f)(3) for such calendar year, determined by
substituting `calendar year 2001' for `calendar year 1992' in
subparagraph (B) thereof.
If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence
is not a multiple of $1,000,000, such amount shall be rounded
to the nearest multiple of $1,000,000.
``(4) Declared terrorism losses.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `declared terrorism losses'
means, with respect to a taxable year--
``(i) the amount of losses and loss adjustment expenses
incurred in commercial lines of business that are
attributable to 1 or more declared terrorism events, plus
``(ii) any nonrecoverable assessments, surcharges, or other
liabilities that are borne by the company and are
attributable to such events.
``(B) Declared terrorism event.--The term `declared
terrorism event' means any event declared by the President to
be an act of terrorism against the United States for purposes
of this section.
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this
subsection, and shall prescribe such regulations after
consultation with the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 832(b) of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``, and'', and by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(F) each net decrease in reserves which is required by
paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (h) to be taken into
account under this subparagraph.''
(2) Subsection (c) of section 832 of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting in lieu
thereof ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(14) each net increase in reserves which is required by
subsection (h)(1) to be taken into account under this
paragraph.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 11. STATE PREEMPTION.
(a) Covered Perils.--A commercial insurer shall be
considered to have complied with any State law that requires
or regulates the provision of insurance coverage for acts of
terrorism if the insurer provides coverage in accordance with
the definitions regarding acts of terrorism under the
regulations issued by the Administrators.
(b) Rate Laws.--If any provision of any State law prevents
an insurer from increasing its premium rates in an amount
necessary to recover any assessments pursuant to section 7,
such provision is preempted only to the extent necessary to
provide for such insurer to recover such losses.
(c) File and Use.--With respect only to commercial property
and casualty insurance covering acts of terrorism, any
provision of State law that requires, as a condition
precedent to the effectiveness of rates or policies for such
insurance that is made available by an insurer licensed to
transact such business in the State, any action (including
prior approval by the State insurance regulator for such
State) other than filing of such rates and policies and
related information with such State insurance regulator is
preempted to the extent such law requires such additional
actions for such insurance coverage. This subsection shall
not be considered to preempt a provision of State law solely
because the law provides that rates and policies for such
insurance coverage are, upon such filing, subject to
subsequent review and action, which may include actions to
disapprove or discontinue use of such rates or policies, by
the State insurance regulator.
SEC. 12. CONSISTENT STATE GUIDELINES FOR COVERAGE FOR ACTS OF
TERRORISM.
(a) Sense of Congress Regarding Covered Perils.--It is the
sense of the Congress that--
(1) the NAIC, in consultation with the appropriate
Administrator, should develop appropriate definitions for
acts of terrorism and appropriate standards for making
determinations regarding events or occurrences of acts of
terrorism;
(2) each State should adopt the definitions and standards
developed by the NAIC for purposes of regulating insurance
coverage made available in that State;
(3) in consulting with the NAIC, the appropriate
Administrator should advocate and promote the development of
definitions and standards that are appropriate for purposes
of this Act; and
(4) after consultation with the NAIC, the appropriate
Administrator should adopt definitions for acts of terrorism
and standards for determinations that are appropriate for
this Act.
[[Page 23342]]
(b) Insurance Reserve Guidelines.--
(1) Sense of congress regarding adoption by states.--It is
the sense of the Congress that--
(A) the NAIC should develop appropriate guidelines for
commercial insurers and pools regarding maintenance of
reserves against the risks of acts of terrorism; and
(B) each State should adopt such guidelines for purposes of
regulating commercial insurers doing business in that State.
(2) Consideration of adoption of national guidelines.--Upon
the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, the appropriate Administrator
shall make a determination of whether the guidelines referred
to in paragraph (1) have, by such time, been developed and
adopted by nearly all States in a uniform manner. If the
appropriate Administrator determines that such guidelines
have not been so developed and adopted, the appropriate
Administrator shall consider adopting, and may adopt, such
guidelines on a national basis in a manner that would
supercede any State law regarding maintenance of reserves
against such risks.
(c) Guidelines Regarding Disclosure of Pricing and Terms of
Coverage.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the States should require, by laws or regulations
governing the provision of commercial property and casualty
insurance that includes coverage for acts of terrorism, that
the price of any such terrorism coverage, including the costs
of any terrorism related assessments or surcharges under this
Act, be separately disclosed.
(2) Adoption of national guidelines.--If the appropriate
Administrator determines that the States have not enacted
laws or adopted regulations adequately providing for the
disclosures described in paragraph (1) within a reasonable
period of time after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the appropriate Administrator shall, after consultation with
the NAIC, adopt guidelines on a national basis requiring such
disclosure in a manner that supercedes any State law
regarding such disclosure.
SEC. 13. CONSULTATION WITH STATE INSURANCE REGULATORS AND
NAIC.
The Administrators shall consult with the State insurance
regulators and the NAIC in carrying out this Act. The
Administrators may take such actions, including entering into
such agreements and providing such technical and
organizational assistance to insurers and State insurance
regulators, as may be necessary to provide for the
distribution of financial assistance under section 6 and the
collection of assessments under section 7 and surcharges
under section 8.
SEC. 14. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PROTECTIONS.
(a) Federal Cause of Action for Damages From Terrorist Acts
Resulting in Triggering Determination.--
(1) In general.--If a triggering determination occurs
requiring an assessment under section 7 or a surcharge under
section 8, there shall exist a Federal cause of action, which
shall be the exclusive remedy, for damages claimed pursuant
to, or in connection with, any acts of terrorism that caused
the insured losses resulting in such triggering
determination.
(2) Substantive law.--The substantive law for decision in
any such action shall be derived from the law, including
choice of law principles, of the State in which such act of
terrorism occurred, unless such law is inconsistent with or
preempted by Federal law.
(3) Jurisdiction.--Pursuant to each triggering
determination, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
shall designate one or more district courts of the United
States which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all actions brought pursuant to this subsection that
arise out of the triggering event involved.
(4) Offset for relief payments.--Any recovery by a
plaintiff in an action under this subsection shall be offset
by the amount, if any, received by the plaintiff from the
United States pursuant to any emergency or disaster relief
program, or from any other collateral source, for
compensation of losses related to the act of terrorism
involved.
(b) Damages in Actions Regarding Insurance Claims.--In an
action brought under this section for damages claimed by an
insured pursuant to, or in connection with, any commercial
property and casualty insurance providing coverage for acts
of terrorism that resulted in a triggering determination:
(1) Prohibition of punitive damages.--No punitive damages
intended to punish or deter may be awarded.
(2) Noneconomic damages.--
(A) In general.--Each defendant in such an action shall be
liable only for the amount of noneconomic damages allocated
to the defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of the defendant for the harm to the claimant.
(B) Definition.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
``noneconomic damages'' means damages for losses for physical
and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium, hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and any
other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
(c) Right of Subrogation.--The United States shall have the
right of subrogation with respect to any claim paid by the
United States under this Act.
(d) Protective Orders.--The United States or any
appropriate Administrator carrying out responsibilities under
this Act may seek protective orders or assert privileges
ordinarily available to the United States to protect against
the disclosure of classified information, including the
invocation of the military and State secrets privilege.
SEC. 15. STUDY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF TERRORISM ON LIFE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
commission (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'') to study and report on the potential effects
of an act or acts of terrorism on the life insurance industry
in the United States and the markets served by such industry.
(b) Membership and Operations.--
(1) Appointment.--The Commission shall consist of 5
members, as follows:
(A) The appropriate Administrator, as designated by the
President.
(C) 4 members appointed by the President, who shall be--
(i) a representative of direct underwriters of life
insurance within the United States;
(ii) a representative of reinsurers of life insurance
within the United States;
(iii) an officer of the NAIC; and
(iv) a representative of insurance agents for life
underwriters.
(2) Operations.--The chairperson of the Commission shall
determine the manner in which the Commission shall operate,
including funding, staffing, and coordination with other
governmental entities.
(c) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of the
life insurance industry in the United States, which shall
identify and make recommendations regarding--
(1) possible actions to encourage, facilitate, and sustain
provision by the life insurance industry in the United States
of coverage for losses due to death or disability resulting
from an act or acts of terrorism, including in the face of
threats of such acts; and
(2) possible actions or mechanisms to sustain or supplement
the ability of the life insurance industry in the United
States to cover losses due to death or disability resulting
from an act or acts of terrorism in the event that--
(A) such acts significantly affect mortality experience of
the population of the United States over any period of time;
(B) such loses jeopardize the capital and surplus of the
life insurance industry in the United States as a whole; or
(C) other consequences from such acts occur, as determined
by the Commission, that may significantly affect the ability
of the life insurance industry in the United States to
independently cover such losses.
(d) Recommendations.--The Commission may make a
recommendation pursuant to subsection (c) only upon the
concurrence of a majority of the members of the Commission.
(e) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report describing
the results of the study and any recommendations developed
under subsection (c).
(f) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 60 days
after submission of the report as provided for in subsection
(e).
SEC. 16. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Act of terrorism.--
(A) In general.--The term ``act of terrorism'' means any
act that the appropriate Administrator determines meets the
requirements under subparagraph (B), as such requirements are
further defined and specified by the appropriate
Administrator in consultation with the NAIC.
(B) Requirements.--An act meets the requirements of this
subparagraph if the act--
(i) is unlawful;
(ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the
United States;
(iii) is committed by a group of persons or associations
who--
(I) are not a government of a foreign country or the de
facto government of a foreign country; and
(II) are recognized by the Department of State or the
appropriate Administrator as a terrorist group or have
conspired with such a group or the group's agents or
surrogates; and
(iv) has as its purpose to overthrow or destabilize the
government of any country or to influence the policy or
affect the conduct of the government of the United States by
coercion.
(2) Appropriate administrators.--The term ``appropriate
Administrator'' means, with respect to any function or
responsibility of the Federal Government under this Act, the
Federal officer designated by the President pursuant to
section 3 as responsible for carrying out such function or
responsibility.
(3) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means, with respect
to an insurer, any company that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with the insurer.
(4) Aggregate written premium.--The term ``aggregate
written premium'' means,
[[Page 23343]]
with respect to a year, the aggregate premium amount of all
commercial property and casualty insurance coverage written
during such year for persons or properties in the United
States under all lines of commercial property and casualty
insurance.
(5) Commercial insurance.--The term ``commercial
insurance'' means property and casualty insurance that is not
insurance for homeowners, tenants, private passenger nonfleet
automobiles, mobile homes, or other insurance for personal,
family, or household needs.
(6) Commercial insurer.--The term ``commercial insurer''
means any corporation, association, society, order, firm,
company, mutual, partnership, individual, aggregation of
individuals, or any other legal entity that is engaged in the
business of providing commercial property and casualty
insurance for persons or properties in the United States.
Such term includes any affiliates of a commercial insurer.
(7) Commercial property and casualty insurance.--The term
``commercial property and casualty insurance'' means property
and casualty insurance that is commercial insurance.
(8) Control.--A company has control over another company
if--
(A) the company directly or indirectly or acting through
one or more other persons owns, controls, or has power to
vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of
the other company;
(B) the company controls in any manner the election of a
majority of the directors or trustees of the other company;
or
(C) the appropriate Administrator determines, after notice
and opportunity for hearing, that the company directly or
indirectly exercises a controlling influence over the
management or policies of the other company.
(9) Covered period.--The term ``covered period'' has the
meaning given such term in section 5(b).
(10) Industry-wide losses.--The term ``industry-wide
losses'' means the aggregate insured losses sustained by all
insurers, from coverage written for persons or properties in
the United States, under all lines of commercial property and
casualty insurance.
(11) Insured loss.--The term ``insured loss'' means any
loss in the United States covered by commercial property and
casualty insurance.
(12) Insurer.--The term ``insurer'' means any corporation,
association, society, order, firm, company, mutual,
partnership, individual, aggregation of individuals, or any
other legal entity that is engaged in the business of
providing property and casualty insurance for persons or
properties in the United States. Such term includes any
affiliates of an insurer.
(13) NAIC.--The term ``NAIC'' means the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners.
(14) Property and casualty insurance.--The term ``property
and casualty insurance'' means insurance against--
(A) loss of or damage to property;
(B) loss of income or extra expense incurred because of
loss of or damage to property; and
(C) third party liability claims caused by negligence or
imposed by statute or contract.
Such term does not include health or life insurance.
(15) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any
other territory or possession of the United States.
(16) State insurance regulator.--The term ``State insurance
regulator'' means, with respect to a State, the principal
insurance regulatory authority of the State.
(17) Triggering determination.--The term ``triggering
determination'' has the meaning given such term in section
5(a).
(18) Triggering event.--The term ``triggering event''
means, with respect to a triggering determination, the event
of an act of terrorism, or the events of such acts, that
caused the insured losses resulting in such triggering
determination.
(19) United states.--The term ``United States'' means,
collectively, the States (as such term is defined in this
section).
SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.
(a) Authority.--If the appropriate Administrator determines
that action under this section is necessary to ensure the
adequate availability in the United States of commercial
property and casualty insurance coverage for acts of
terrorism, the appropriate Administrator may provide that the
provisions of this Act shall continue to apply with respect
to a period or periods, as established by the Administrator,
that begin after the expiration of the covered period
specified in section 5(b) and end before January 1, 2005.
(b) Covered Period.--If the appropriate Administrator
exercises the authority under subsection (a), notwithstanding
section 5(b) and section 16(9), the period or periods
established by the appropriate Administrator shall be
considered to be the covered period for purposes of this Act.
SEC. 18. REGULATIONS.
The appropriate Administrators shall issue any regulations
necessary to carry out this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of H.R. 3357 is adopted.
The text of the bill as amended pursuant to House Resolution 297 is
as follows:
H.R. 3357
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorism
Risk Protection Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Congressional findings.
Sec. 3. Authority of Secretary of the Treasury.
Sec. 4. Submission of premium information to Secretary.
Sec. 5. Initial and subsequent triggering determinations.
Sec. 6. Federal cost-sharing for commercial insurers.
Sec. 7. Assessments.
Sec. 8. Terrorism loss repayment surcharge.
Sec. 9. Administration of assessments and surcharges.
Sec. 10. Application to self-insurance arrangements and offshore
insurers and reinsurers.
Sec. 11. Study of reserves for property and casualty insurance for
terrorist or other catastrophic events.
Sec. 12. State preemption.
Sec. 13. Consistent State guidelines for coverage for acts of
terrorism.
Sec. 14. Consultation with State insurance regulators and NAIC.
Sec. 15. Litigation management.
Sec. 16. Study of potential effects of terrorism on life insurance
industry.
Sec. 17. Railroad and trucking insurance study.
Sec. 18. Study of reinsurance pool system for future acts of terrorism.
Sec. 19. Definitions.
Sec. 20. Covered period and extension of program.
Sec. 21. Regulations.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon of September 11, 2001, resulted in a large number of
deaths and injuries, the destruction and damage to buildings,
and interruption of business operations;
(2) the attacks have inflicted possibly the largest losses
ever incurred by insurers and reinsurers in a single day;
(3) while the insurance and reinsurance industries have
committed to pay the losses arising from the September 11
attacks, the resulting disruption has created widespread
market uncertainties with regard to the risk of losses
arising from possible future terrorist attacks;
(4) such uncertainty threatens the continued availability
of United States commercial property and casualty insurance
for terrorism risk at meaningful coverage levels;
(5) the unavailability of affordable commercial property
and casualty insurance for terrorist acts threatens the
growth and stability of the United States economy, including
impeding the ability of financial services providers to
finance commercial property acquisitions and new
construction;
(6) in the past, the private insurance and reinsurance
markets have shown a remarkable resiliency in adapting to
changed circumstances;
(7) given time, the private markets will diversify and
develop risk spreading mechanisms to increase capacity and
guard against possible future losses incurred by terrorist
attacks;
(8) it is necessary to create a temporary industry risk
sharing program to ensure the continued availability of
commercial property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
for terrorism-related risks;
(9) such action is necessary to limit immediate market
disruptions, encourage economic stabilization, and facilitate
a transition to a viable market for private terrorism risk
insurance;
(10) in addition, it is necessary promptly to conduct a
study of whether there is a need for reserves for property
and casualty insurance for terrorist or other catastrophic
events; and
(11) terrorism insurance plays an important role in the
efficient functioning of the economy and the financing of
commercial property acquisitions and new construction and,
therefore, the Congress intends to continue to monitor,
review, and evaluate the private terrorism insurance and
reinsurance marketplace to determine whether additional
action is necessary to maintain the long-term stability of
the real estate and capital markets.
[[Page 23344]]
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for
carrying out a program for financial assistance for
commercial property and casualty insurers, as provided in
this Act.
SEC. 4. SUBMISSION OF PREMIUM INFORMATION TO SECRETARY.
To the extent such information is not otherwise available
to the Secretary, the Secretary may require each insurer to
submit, to the Secretary or to the NAIC, a statement
specifying the net premium amount of coverage written by such
insurer under each line of commercial property and casualty
insurance sold by such insurer during such periods as the
Secretary may provide.
SEC. 5. INITIAL AND SUBSEQUENT TRIGGERING DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, a ``triggering
determination'' is a determination by the Secretary that an
act of terrorism has occurred during the covered period and
that the aggregate insured losses resulting from such
occurrence or from multiple occurrences of acts of terrorism
all occurring during the covered period, meet the
requirements under either of the following paragraphs:
(1) Industry-wide trigger.--Such industry-wide losses
exceed $1,000,000,000.
(2) Individual insurer trigger.--Such industry-wide losses
exceed $100,000,000 and some portion of such losses for any
single commercial insurer exceed--
(A) 10 percent of the capital surplus of such commercial
insurer (as such term is defined by the Secretary); and
(B) 10 percent of the net premium written by such
commercial insurer that is in force at the time the insured
losses occurred;
except that this paragraph shall not apply to any commercial
insurer that was not providing commercial property and
casualty insurance coverage prior to September 11, 2001,
unless such insurer incurs such losses under commercial
property and casualty insurance providing coverage for acts
of terrorism through a pool of reserves for terrorism risks
that is not under the control of any commercial insurer.
(b) Determinations Regarding Occurrences.--The Secretary,
after consultation with the Attorney General of the United
States and the Secretary of State, shall have the sole
authority which may not be delegated or designated to any
other officer, employee, or position, for determining
whether--
(1) an occurrence was caused by an act of terrorism; and
(2) an act of terrorism occurred during the covered period.
SEC. 6. FEDERAL COST-SHARING FOR COMMERCIAL INSURERS.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to a triggering determination,
the Secretary shall provide financial assistance to
commercial insurers in accordance with this section to cover
insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism, which shall
be repaid in accordance with subsection (e).
(b) Amount.--
(1) Industry-wide trigger.--Subject to subsections (c) and
(d), with respect to a triggering determination under section
5(a)(1), financial assistance shall be made available under
this section to each commercial insurer in an amount equal to
the difference between--
(A) 90 percent of the amount of the insured losses of the
insurer as a result of the triggering event involved; and
(B) $5,000,000.
(2) Individual insurer trigger.--Subject to subsections (c)
and (d), with respect to a triggering determination under
section 5(a)(2), financial assistance shall be made available
under this section, to each commercial insurer incurring
insured losses as a result of the triggering event involved
that exceed the amounts under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
such section, in an amount equal to the difference between--
(A) 90 percent of the amount of the insured losses of the
insurer as a result of such triggering event; and
(B) the amount under subparagraph (B) of section 5(a)(2).
(3) Additional amounts.--Subject to subsection (c), if the
Secretary has provided financial assistance to a commercial
insurer pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection and
subsequently makes a triggering determination pursuant to
section 5(a)(1), the Secretary shall provide financial
assistance to such insurer in connection with such subsequent
triggering determination (in addition to the amount of
financial assistance provided to such insurer pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection) in the amount under section
5(a)(2)(B).
(c) Aggregate Limitation.--
(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of financial
assistance provided pursuant to this section may not exceed
$100,000,000,000.
(2) Sense of congress regarding severe losses.--It is the
sense of the Congress that acts of terrorism resulting in
insured losses greater than $100,000,000,000 would
necessitate further action by the Congress to address such
additional losses.
(d) Limitations.--The Secretary may establish such
limitations as may be necessary to ensure that payments under
this section in connection with a triggering determination
are made only to commercial insurers that are not in default
of any obligation under section 7 to pay assessments or under
section 8 to collect surcharges.
(e) Repayment.--Financial assistance made available under
this section shall be repaid through assessments under
section 7 collected by the Secretary and surcharges remitted
to the Secretary under section 8. Any such amounts collected
or remitted shall be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury.
(f) Emergency Designation.--Congress designates the amount
of new budget authority and outlays in all fiscal years
resulting from this section as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(e)). Such
amount shall be available only to the extent that a request,
that includes designation of such amount as an emergency
requirement as defined in such Act, is transmitted by the
President to Congress.
SEC. 7. ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--In the case of a triggering determination,
each commercial insurer shall be subject to assessments under
this section for the purpose of repaying a portion of the
financial assistance made available under section 6 in
connection with such determination.
(b) Aggregate Assessment.--Pursuant to a triggering
determination, the Secretary shall determine the aggregate
amount to be assessed under this section among all commercial
insurers, which shall be equal to the lesser of--
(1) $20,000,000,000; and
(2) the amount of financial assistance paid under section 6
in connection with the triggering determination.
The aggregate assessment amount under this subsection shall
be assessed to commercial insurers through an industry
obligation assessment under subsection (c) and, if necessary,
the remainder shall be assessed through one or more financing
assessments under subsection (d).
(c) Industry Obligation Assessments.--
(1) In general.--Immediately upon the occurrence of a
triggering determination, the Secretary shall impose an
industry obligation assessment under this subsection on all
commercial insurers, subject to paragraph (3).
(2) Amount.--The aggregate amount of an industry obligation
assessment in connection with a triggering determination
shall be equal to--
(A) in the case of a triggering determination occurring
during the covered period specified in section 20(a), the
lesser of--
(i) the difference between (I) $5,000,000,000, and (II) the
aggregate amount of any assessments made by the Secretary
pursuant to this section during the portion of such covered
period preceding the triggering determination; and
(ii) the amount of financial assistance made available
under section 6 in connection with the triggering
determination; or
(B) such other aggregate industry obligation amount as may
apply pursuant to subsection (g).
(3) Timing of multiple assessments.--
(A) Delayed imposition and aggregation of assessments.--In
the case of any triggering determination occurring within 12
months of the occurrence of a previous triggering
determination, any industry obligation assessments under this
subsection resulting from such subsequent determination shall
be imposed upon the conclusion of the quarterly assessment
period under subparagraph (B) during which such determination
occurs.
(B) Quarterly assessment period.--With respect to a
subsequent triggering determination referred to in
subparagraph (A), the quarterly assessment periods under this
subparagraph are--
(i) the 3-month period that begins upon the imposition of
the industry obligation assessment resulting from the
triggering determination that--
(I) occurred most recently before such subsequent
triggering determination; and
(II) did not occur within 12 months of the occurrence of
any previous triggering determination; and
(ii) each successive 3-month period thereafter that begins
during the covered period.
(d) Financing Assessments.--
(1) In general.--If the aggregate assessment amount in
connection with a triggering determination exceeds the
aggregate amount of the industry obligation assessment under
subsection (c) in connection with the determination, the
remaining amount shall be assessed through one or more, as
may be necessary pursuant to paragraph (3), financing
assessments under this subsection.
(2) Timing.--A financing assessment under this subsection
in connection with a triggering determination shall be
imposed only upon the expiration of any 12-month period
beginning after such determination during which no
assessments under this section have been imposed.
(3) Limitation.--The aggregate amount of any financing
assessments imposed under this subsection on any single
commercial insurer during any 12-month period shall not
exceed the amount that is equal to 3 percent of the net
premium for such insurer for such period.
[[Page 23345]]
(e) Allocation of Assessment.--The portion of the aggregate
amount of any industry obligation assessment or financing
assessment under this section that is allocated to each
commercial insurer shall be based on the ratio that the net
premium written by such commercial insurer during the year
during which the assessment is imposed bears to the aggregate
written premium for such year, subject to section 9 and the
limitation under subsection (d)(3) of this section.
(f) Notice and Obligation To Pay.--
(1) Notice.--As soon as practicable after any triggering
determination, the Secretary shall notify each commercial
insurer in writing of an assessment under this section, which
notice shall include the amount of the assessment allocated
to such insurer.
(2) Effect of notice.--Upon notice to a commercial insurer,
the commercial insurer shall be obligated to pay to the
Secretary, not later than 60 days after receipt of such
notice, the amount of the assessment on such commercial
insurer.
(3) Failure to make timely payment.--If any commercial
insurer fails to pay an assessment under this section before
the deadline established under paragraph (2) for the
assessment, the Secretary may take either or both of the
following actions:
(A) Civil monetary penalty.--Assess a civil monetary
penalty pursuant to section 9(d) upon such insurer.
(B) Interest.--Require such insurer to pay interest, at
such rate as the Secretary considers appropriate, on the
amount of the assessment that was not paid before the
deadline established under paragraph (2).
(g) Aggregate Industry Obligation Amount for Program
Extension Years.--If the Secretary exercises the authority
under section 20(b) to extend the covered period, the
aggregate industry obligation amount for purposes of
subsection (c)(2)(B) shall, in the case of a triggering
determination occurring during the portion of the covered
period beginning on the date referred to in section 20(a), be
equal to the lesser of--
(1) the difference between (A) $10,000,000,000, and (B) the
aggregate amount of any assessments made by the Secretary
pursuant to this section during the 12-month period preceding
the triggering determination; and
(2) the amount of financial assistance made available under
section 6 in connection with the triggering determination.
(h) Administrative Flexibility.--
(1) Adjustment of assessments.--The Secretary may provide
for or require estimations of amounts under this section and
may provide for subsequent refunds or require additional
payments to correct such estimations, as appropriate.
(2) Deferral of contributions.--The Secretary may defer the
payment of part or all of an assessment required under this
section to be paid by a commercial insurer, but only to the
extent that the Secretary determines that such deferral is
necessary to avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial
insurer.
(3) Timing of assessments.--The Secretary shall make
adjustments regarding the timing and imposition of
assessments (including the calculation of net premiums and
aggregate written premium) as appropriate for commercial
insurers that provide commercial property and casualty
insurance on a non-calendar year basis.
SEC. 8. TERRORISM LOSS REPAYMENT SURCHARGE.
(a) Determination of Imposition and Collection.--
(1) In general.--If, pursuant to a triggering
determination, the Secretary determines that the aggregate
amount of financial assistance provided pursuant to section 6
exceeds $20,000,000,000, the Secretary shall consider and
weigh the factors under paragraph (2) to determine the extent
to which a surcharge under this section should be
established.
(2) Factors.--The factors under this paragraph are--
(A) the ultimate costs to taxpayers if a surcharge under
this section is not established;
(B) the economic conditions in the commercial marketplace;
(C) the affordability of commercial insurance for small-
and medium-sized business; and
(D) such other factors as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Policyholder premium.--The amount established by the
Secretary as a surcharge under this section shall be
established and imposed as a policyholder premium surcharge
on commercial property and casualty insurance written after
such determination, for the purpose of repaying financial
assistance made available under section 6 in connection with
such triggering determination.
(4) Collection.--The Secretary shall provide for commercial
insurers to collect surcharge amounts established under this
section and remit such amounts collected to the Secretary.
(b) Amount and Duration.--Subject to subsection (c), the
surcharge under this section shall be established in such
amount, and shall apply to commercial property and casualty
insurance written during such period, as the Secretary
determines is necessary to recover the aggregate amount of
financial assistance provided under section 6 in connection
with the triggering determination that exceeds
$20,000,000,000.
(c) Percentage Limitation.--The surcharge under this
section applicable to commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage may not exceed, on an annual basis, the
amount equal to 3 percent of the premium charged for such
coverage.
(d) Other Terms.--The surcharge under this section shall--
(1) be based on a percentage of the premium amount charged
for commercial property and casualty insurance coverage that
a policy provides; and
(2) be imposed with respect to all commercial property and
casualty insurance coverage written during the period
referred to in subsection (b).
(e) Exclusions.--For purposes of this section, commercial
property and casualty insurance does not include any
reinsurance provided to primary insurance companies.
SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF ASSESSMENTS AND SURCHARGES.
(a) Manner and Method.--
(1) In general.--Except to the extent specified in such
sections, the Secretary shall provide for the manner and
method of carrying out assessments under section 7 and
surcharges under section 8, including the timing and
procedures of making assessments and surcharges, notifying
commercial insurers of assessments and surcharge
requirements, collecting payments from and surcharges through
commercial insurers, and refunding of any excess amounts paid
or crediting such amounts against future assessments.
(2) Effect of assessments and surcharges on urban and
smaller commercial and rural areas and different lines of
insurance.--In determining the method and manner of imposing
assessments under section 7 and surcharges under section 8,
including the amount of such assessments and surcharges, the
Secretary shall take into consideration--
(A) the economic impact of any such assessments and
surcharges on commercial centers of urban areas, including
the effect on commercial rents and commercial insurance
premiums, particularly rents and premiums charged to small
businesses, and the availability of lease space and
commercial insurance within urban areas;
(B) the risk factors related to rural areas and smaller
commercial centers, including the potential exposure to loss
and the likely magnitude of such loss, as well as any
resulting cross-subsidization that might result; and
(C) the various exposures to terrorism risk for different
lines of commercial property and casualty insurance.
(b) Timing of Coverages and Assessments.--The Secretary may
adjust the timing of coverages and assessments provided under
this Act to provide for equivalent application of the
provisions of this Act to commercial insurers and policies
that are not based on a calendar year.
(c) Adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust the assessments
charged under section 7 or the percentage imposed under the
surcharge under section 8 at any time, as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the national interest, which
may include avoiding unreasonable economic disruption or
excessive market instability and avoiding undue burdens on
small businesses.
(d) Civil Monetary Penalty.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may assess a civil monetary
penalty in an amount not exceeding the amount under paragraph
(2) against any commercial insurer that the Secretary
determines, on the record after opportunity for a hearing--
(A) has failed to pay an assessment under section 7 in
accordance with the requirements of, or regulations issued,
under this Act;
(B) has failed to charge, collect, or remit surcharges
under section 8 in accordance with the requirements of, or
regulations issued under, this Act;
(C) has intentionally provided to the Secretary erroneous
information regarding premium or loss amounts; or
(D) has otherwise failed to comply with the provisions of,
or the regulations issued under, this Act.
(2) Amount.--The amount under this paragraph is the greater
of $1,000,000 and, in the case of any failure to pay, charge,
collect, or remit amounts in accordance with this Act or the
regulations issued under this Act, such amount in dispute.
SEC. 10. APPLICATION TO SELF-INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND
OFFSHORE INSURERS AND REINSURERS.
(a) Self-Insurance Arrangements.--The Secretary may, in
consultation with the NAIC, apply the provisions of this Act,
as appropriate, to self-insurance arrangements by
municipalities and other entities, but only if such
application is determined before the occurrence of a
triggering event and all of the provisions of this Act are
applied uniformly to such entities.
(b) Offshore Insurers and Reinsurers.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the provisions of this Act are applied as
appropriate to any offshore or non-admitted entities that
provide commercial property and casualty insurance.
[[Page 23346]]
SEC. 11. STUDY OF RESERVES FOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE FOR TERRORIST OR OTHER CATASTROPHIC
EVENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
conduct a study of issues relating to permitting property and
casualty insurance companies to establish deductible reserves
against losses for future acts of terrorism, including--
(1) whether such tax-favored reserves would promote (A)
insurance coverage of risks of terrorism, and (B) the
accumulation of additional resources needed to satisfy
potential claims resulting from such risks,
(2) the lines of business for which such reserves would be
appropriate, including whether such reserves should be
applied to personal or commercial lines of business,
(3) how the amount of such reserves would be determined,
(4) how such reserves would be administered,
(5) a comparison of the Federal tax treatment of such
reserves with other insurance reserves permitted under
Federal tax laws,
(6) an analysis of the use of tax-favored reserves for
catastrophic events, including acts of terrorism, under the
tax laws of foreign countries, and
(7) whether it would be appropriate to permit similar
reserves for other future catastrophic events, such as
natural disasters, taking into account the factors under the
preceding paragraphs.
(b) Report.--Not later than 4 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit a report to Congress on the results of the study under
subsection (a), together with recommendations for amending
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or other appropriate
action.
SEC. 12. STATE PREEMPTION.
(a) Covered Perils.--A commercial insurer shall be
considered to have complied with any State law that requires
or regulates the provision of insurance coverage for acts of
terrorism if the insurer provides coverage in accordance with
the definitions regarding acts of terrorism under this Act or
under any regulations issued by the Secretary.
(b) Rate Laws.--If any provision of any State law prevents
an insurer from increasing its premium rates in an amount
necessary to recover any assessments pursuant to section 7,
such provision is preempted only to the extent necessary to
provide for such insurer to recover such losses.
(c) File and Use.--
(1) In general.--With respect only to commercial property
and casualty insurance covering acts of terrorism, any
provision of State law that requires, as a condition
precedent to the effectiveness of rates or policies for such
insurance that is made available by an insurer licensed to
transact such business in the State, any action (including
prior approval by the State insurance regulator for such
State) other than filing of such rates and policies and
related information with such State insurance regulator is
preempted to the extent such law requires such additional
actions for such insurance coverage.
(2) Subsequent review authority.--Paragraph (1) shall not
be considered to preempt a provision of State law solely
because the law provides that rates and policies for such
insurance coverage are, upon such filing, subject to
subsequent review and action, which may include actions to
disapprove or discontinue use of such rates or policies, by
the State insurance regulator.
(3) Treatment of prior review provisions.--Any authority
for prior review and action by a State regulator preempted
under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be authority to
conduct a subsequent review and action on such filings.
SEC. 13. CONSISTENT STATE GUIDELINES FOR COVERAGE FOR ACTS OF
TERRORISM.
(a) Sense of Congress Regarding Covered Perils.--It is the
sense of the Congress that--
(1) the NAIC, in consultation with the Secretary, should
develop appropriate definitions for acts of terrorism that
are consistent with this Act and appropriate standards for
making determinations regarding occurrences of acts of
terrorism;
(2) each State should adopt the definitions and standards
developed by the NAIC for purposes of regulating insurance
coverage made available in that State;
(3) in consulting with the NAIC, the Secretary should
advocate and promote the development of definitions and
standards that are appropriate for purposes of this Act; and
(4) after consultation with the NAIC, the Secretary should
adopt further definitions for acts of terrorism and standards
for determinations that are appropriate for this Act.
(b) Insurance Reserve Guidelines.--
(1) Sense of congress regarding adoption by states.--It is
the sense of the Congress that--
(A) the NAIC should develop appropriate guidelines for
commercial insurers and pools regarding maintenance of
reserves against the risks of acts of terrorism; and
(B) each State should adopt such guidelines for purposes of
regulating commercial insurers doing business in that State.
(2) Consideration of adoption of national guidelines.--Upon
the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make a
determination of whether the guidelines referred to in
paragraph (1) have, by such time, been developed and adopted
by nearly all States in a uniform manner. If the Secretary
determines that such guidelines have not been so developed
and adopted, the Secretary shall consider adopting, and may
adopt, such guidelines on a national basis in a manner that
supersedes any State law regarding maintenance of reserves
against such risks.
(c) Guidelines Regarding Disclosure of Pricing and Terms of
Coverage.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the States should require, by laws or regulations
governing the provision of commercial property and casualty
insurance that includes coverage for acts of terrorism, that
the price of any such terrorism coverage, including the costs
of any terrorism related assessments or surcharges under this
Act, be separately disclosed.
(2) Adoption of national guidelines.--If the Secretary
determines that the States have not enacted laws or adopted
regulations adequately providing for the disclosures
described in paragraph (1) within a reasonable period of time
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall, after consultation with the NAIC, adopt guidelines on
a national basis requiring such disclosure in a manner that
supersedes any State law regarding such disclosure.
SEC. 14. CONSULTATION WITH STATE INSURANCE REGULATORS AND
NAIC.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall consult with the State
insurance regulators and the NAIC in carrying out this Act.
(b) Financial Assistance, Assessments, and Surcharges.--The
Secretary may take such actions, including entering into such
agreements and providing such technical and organizational
assistance to insurers and State insurance regulators, as may
be necessary to provide for the distribution of financial
assistance under section 6 and the collection of assessments
under section 7 and surcharges under section 8.
(c) Investigating and Auditing Claims.--The Secretary may,
in consultation with the State insurance regulators and the
NAIC, investigate and audit claims of insured losses by
commercial insurers and otherwise require verification of
amounts of premiums or losses, as appropriate.
SEC. 15. LITIGATION MANAGEMENT.
(a) Federal Cause of Action for Claims Relating to
Terrorist Acts.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the Secretary
makes a determination pursuant to section 5(b) that one or
more acts of terrorism occurred, there shall exist a Federal
cause of action, which, except as provided in subsection (b),
shall be the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of,
relating to, or resulting from such acts of terrorism.
(2) Effect of determination.--A determination referred to
in paragraph (1)--
(A) shall not be subject to judicial review;
(B) shall take effect upon its publication in the Federal
Register; and
(C) shall be subject to such changes as the Secretary may
provide in one or more later determinations made in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.
(3) Substantive law.--The substantive law for decision in
any such action shall be derived from the law, including
choice of law principles, of the State in which such acts of
terrorism occurred, unless such law is inconsistent with or
preempted by Federal law.
(4) Jurisdiction.--For each determination under paragraph
(1), the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shall
designate one or more district courts of the United States
which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
actions for any claim (including any claim for loss of
property, personal injury, or death) brought pursuant to this
subsection. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
shall select and assign the district court or courts based on
the convenience of the parties and the just and efficient
conduct of the proceedings. For purposes of personal
jurisdiction, the district court or courts designated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shall be deemed to
sit in all judicial districts in the United States.
(5) Limits on damages.--In an action brought under this
subsection for damages:
(A) No punitive damages intended to punish or deter,
exemplary damages, or other damages not intended to
compensate a plaintiff for actual losses may be awarded, nor
shall any party be liable for interest prior to the judgment.
(B)(i) Each defendant in such an action shall be liable
only for the amount of noneconomic damages allocated to the
defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of the defendant for the harm to the
plaintiff, and no plaintiff may recover noneconomic damages
unless the plaintiff suffered physical harm.
(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``noneconomic
damages'' means damages for losses for physical and emotional
pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental
anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of
society and companionship, loss of consortium, hedonic
damages, injury to reputation, and any other nonpecuniary
losses.
(6) Collateral sources.--Any recovery by a plaintiff in an
action under this subsection
[[Page 23347]]
shall be reduced by the amount of collateral source
compensation, if any, that the plaintiff has received or is
entitled to receive as a result of the acts of terrorism with
respect to which the determination under paragraph (1) was
made.
(7) Attorney fees.--Reasonable attorneys fees for work
performed shall be subject to the discretion of the court,
but in no event shall any attorney charge, demand, receive,
or collect for services rendered, fees or compensation in an
amount in excess of 20 percent of the damages ordered by the
court to be paid pursuant to this section, or in excess of 20
percent of any court-approved settlement made of any claim
cognizable under this section. Any attorney who charges,
demands, receives, or collects for services rendered in
connection with such claim any amount in excess of that
allowed under this section, if recovery be had, shall be
fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(b) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall in any way
limit the liability of any person who--
(1) attempts to commit, knowingly participates in, aids and
abets, or commits any act of terrorism with respect to which
a determination under subsection (a)(1) was made, or any
criminal act related to or resulting from such act of
terrorism; or
(2) participates in a conspiracy to commit any such act of
terrorism or any such criminal act.
(c) Right of Subrogation.--The United States shall have the
right of subrogation with respect to any claim paid by the
United States under this Act.
(d) Relationship to Other Law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect--
(1) any party's contractual right to arbitrate a dispute;
or
(2) any provision of the Air Transportation Safety and
System Stabilization Act (Public Law 107-42; 49 U.S.C. 40101
note).
(e) Satisfaction of Judgments From Frozen Assets of
Terrorists, Terrorist Organizations, and State Sponsors of
Terrorism.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in
every case in which a person obtains a judgment against a
terrorist party on a claim for compensatory damages for an
act of terrorism, or a claim for money damages brought
pursuant to section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States
Code, the frozen assets of that terrorist party, or any
agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party, shall be
available for satisfaction of the judgment, to the extent of
any compensatory damages awarded in the judgment for which
the terrorist party is liable.
(2) Presidential waiver.--
(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), upon determining on an
asset-by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the
national security interest, the President may waive the
requirements of this subsection in connection with (and prior
to the enforcement of) any judicial order directing
attachment in aid of execution or execution against any
property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
(B) A waiver under this paragraph shall not apply to--
(i) property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that
has been used for any nondiplomatic purpose (including use as
rental property), the proceeds of such use; or
(ii) any asset subject to the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations that is sold or otherwise transferred for value to
a third party, the proceeds of such sale or transfer.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) The term ``terrorist party'' means a terrorist, a
terrorist organization, or a foreign state designated as a
state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) or
section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2371).
(B) The term ``frozen assets'' means assets seized or
frozen by the United States in accordance with law.
(C) The term ``property subject to the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations'' and the term ``asset subject to the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations'' mean any property or asset,
respectively, the attachment in aid of execution or execution
of which would result in a violation of an obligation of the
United States under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as
the case may be.
SEC. 16. STUDY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF TERRORISM ON LIFE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
commission (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'') to study and report on the potential effects
of an act or acts of terrorism on the life insurance industry
in the United States and the markets served by such industry.
(b) Membership and Operations.--
(1) Appointment.--The Commission shall consist of 7
members, as follows:
(A) The Secretary of the Treasury or the designee of the
Secretary.
(B) The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System or the designee of the Chairman.
(C) The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.
(D) 4 members appointed by the President, who shall be--
(i) a representative of direct underwriters of life
insurance within the United States;
(ii) a representative of reinsurers of life insurance
within the United States;
(iii) an officer of the NAIC; and
(iv) a representative of insurance agents for life
underwriters.
(2) Operations.--The chairperson of the Commission shall
determine the manner in which the Commission shall operate,
including funding, staffing, and coordination with other
governmental entities.
(c) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of the
life insurance industry in the United States, which shall
identify and make recommendations regarding--
(1) possible actions to encourage, facilitate, and sustain
the provision, by the life insurance industry in the United
States, of coverage for losses due to death or disability
resulting from an act or acts of terrorism, including in the
face of threats of such acts; and
(2) possible actions or mechanisms to sustain or supplement
the ability of the life insurance industry in the United
States to cover losses due to death or disability resulting
from an act or acts of terrorism in the event that--
(A) such acts significantly affect mortality experience of
the population of the United States over any period of time;
(B) such losses jeopardize the capital and surplus of the
life insurance industry in the United States as a whole; or
(C) other consequences from such acts occur, as determined
by the Commission, that may significantly affect the ability
of the life insurance industry in the United States to
independently cover such losses.
(d) Recommendations.--The Commission may make a
recommendation pursuant to subsection (c) only upon the
concurrence of a majority of the members of the Commission.
(e) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report describing
the results of the study and any recommendations developed
under subsection (c).
(f) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 60 days
after submission of the report pursuant to subsection (e).
SEC. 17. RAILROAD AND TRUCKING INSURANCE STUDY.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study to
determine how the Federal Government can address a possible
crisis in the availability and affordability of railroad and
trucking insurance by making such insurance for acts of
terrorism available on commercially reasonable terms. Not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report
regarding the results and conclusions of the study.
SEC. 18. STUDY OF REINSURANCE POOL SYSTEM FOR FUTURE ACTS OF
TERRORISM.
(a) Study.--The Secretary, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and the Comptroller General of the
United States shall jointly conduct a study on the
advisability and effectiveness of establishing a reinsurance
pool system relating to future acts of terrorism to replace
the program provided for under this Act.
(b) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and the Comptroller General shall consult
with (1) academic experts, (2) the United Nations Secretariat
for Trade and Development, (3) representatives from the
property and casualty insurance industry, (4) representatives
from the reinsurance industry, (5) the NAIC, and (6) such
consumer organizations as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, and the Comptroller General
shall jointly submit a report to the Congress on the results
of the study under subsection (a).
SEC. 19. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Act of terrorism.--
(A) In general.--The term ``act of terrorism'' means any
act that the Secretary determines meets the requirements
under subparagraph (B), as such requirements are further
defined and specified by the Secretary in consultation with
the NAIC.
(B) Requirements.--An act meets the requirements of this
subparagraph if the act--
(i) is unlawful;
(ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the
United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air
carrier or a United States flag vessel (or a vessel based
principally in the United States on which United States
income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to
regulation
[[Page 23348]]
in the United States), in or outside the United States;
(iii) is committed by a person or group of persons or
associations who are recognized, either before or after such
act, by the Department of State or the Secretary as an
international terrorist group or have conspired with such a
group or the group's agents or surrogates;
(iv) has as its purpose to overthrow or destabilize the
government of any country, or to influence the policy or
affect the conduct of the government of the United States or
any segment of the economy of United States, by coercion; and
(v) is not considered an act of war, except that this
clause shall not apply with respect to any coverage for
workers compensation.
(2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means, with respect
to an insurer, any company that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with the insurer.
(3) Aggregate written premium.--The term ``aggregate
written premium'' means, with respect to a year, the
aggregate premium amount of all commercial property and
casualty insurance coverage written during such year under
all lines of commercial property and casualty insurance.
(4) Commercial insurer.--The term ``commercial insurer''
means any corporation, association, society, order, firm,
company, mutual, partnership, individual, aggregation of
individuals, or any other legal entity that provides
commercial property and casualty insurance. Such term
includes any affiliates of a commercial insurer.
(5) Commercial property and casualty insurance.--
(A) In general.--The term ``commercial property and
casualty insurance'' means insurance or reinsurance, or
retrocessional reinsurance, for persons or properties in the
United States against--
(i) loss of or damage to property;
(ii) loss of income or extra expense incurred because of
loss of or damage to property;
(iii) third party liability claims caused by negligence or
imposed by statute or contract, including workers
compensation; or
(iv) loss resulting from debt or default of another.
(B) Exclusions.--Such term does not include--
(i) insurance for homeowners, tenants, private passenger
nonfleet automobiles, mobile homes, or other insurance for
personal, family, or household needs;
(ii) insurance for professional liability, including
medical malpractice, errors and omissions, or directors' and
officers' liability; or
(iii) health or life insurance.
(6) Control.--A company has control over another company
if--
(A) the company directly or indirectly or acting through
one or more other persons owns, controls, or has power to
vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of
the other company;
(B) the company controls in any manner the election of a
majority of the directors or trustees of the other company;
or
(C) the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, that the company directly or indirectly
exercises a controlling influence over the management or
policies of the other company.
(7) Covered period.--The term ``covered period'' has the
meaning given such term in section 20.
(8) Industry-wide losses.--The term ``industry-wide
losses'' means the aggregate insured losses sustained by all
insurers from coverage written under all lines of commercial
property and casualty insurance.
(9) Insured loss.--The term ``insured loss'' means any
loss, net of reinsurance and retrocessional reinsurance,
covered by commercial property and casualty insurance.
(10) NAIC.--The term ``NAIC'' means the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners.
(11) Net premium.--The term ``net premium'' means, with
respect a commercial insurer and a year, the aggregate
premium amount collected by such commercial insurer for all
commercial property and casualty insurance coverage written
during such year under all lines of commercial property and
casualty insurance by such commercial insurer, less any
premium paid by such commercial insurer to other commercial
insurers to insure or reinsure those risks.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(13) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any
other territory or possession of the United States.
(14) State insurance regulator.--The term ``State insurance
regulator'' means, with respect to a State, the principal
insurance regulatory authority of the State.
(15) Triggering determination.--The term ``triggering
determination'' has the meaning given such term in section
5(a).
(16) Triggering event.--The term ``triggering event''
means, with respect to a triggering determination, the
occurrence of an act of terrorism, or the occurrence of such
acts, that caused the insured losses resulting in such
triggering determination.
(17) United states.--The term ``United States'' means,
collectively, the States (as such term is defined in this
section).
SEC. 20. COVERED PERIOD AND EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.
(a) Covered Period.--Except to the extent provided
otherwise under subsection (b), for purposes of this Act, the
term ``covered period'' means the period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act and ending on January 1,
2003.
(b) Extension of Program.--If the Secretary determines that
extending the covered period is necessary to ensure the
adequate availability in the United States of commercial
property and casualty insurance coverage for acts of
terrorism, the Secretary may, subject to subsection (c),
extend the covered period by not more than two years.
(c) Report.--The Secretary may exercise the authority under
subsection (b) to extend the covered period only if the
Secretary submits a report to the Congress providing notice
of and setting forth the reasons for such extension.
SEC. 21. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary shall issue any regulations necessary to
carry out this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider a further amendment printed
in House Report 107-304, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce), or his designee, which shall be considered read and shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. LaFalce) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
General Leave
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman for his
leadership on this issue, and strongly support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3210, the Terrorism
Risk Protection Act and want to commend Chairman Oxley for his
leadership on this important issue. The legislation that we are
considering here today represents a balanced approach to a difficult
problem. It not only will allow the industry to move forward in
providing continued terrorist coverage but it will protect the American
taxpayer.
While the industry is able to pay the $40-$50 billion in claims
resulting from the September 11 attack, it will need our help to
protect against future acts of terrorism. The insurance industry is a
business of estimating risks on events that cannot be predicted with
any certainty such as earthquakes, fires, hurricanes and floods. These
types of events are priced according to history of catastrophic events
over time. But the World Trade terrorist disaster has no precedents.
There is no possible way to price for the likelihood of another
occurrence or the size of the potential loss.
Consequently, it stands to reason that any future incident of like
size could threaten the stability of the property/casualty market. In
these uncertain times and given the magnitude of the September 11
event, reinsurance companies are skittish about providing terrorist
coverage. If the reinsurance industry excludes terrorist coverage from
its policies, the primary insurers will find it difficult to provide
coverage without risking the financial health of their companies.
The lack of coverage has become an immediate issue for many companies
that are subject to short-term cancellation provisions (including many
aviation businesses) or that had October 1, 2001, renewal dates. It has
the potential to become a nationwide crisis January 1, 2002, when most
commercial policies are up for renewal. Companies may find terrorism
insurance impossible to buy. This could have a serious ripple effect on
the mortgage and real estate industries.
Congress must head off this danger. The industry needs the certainty
of this legislation to renegotiate their contracts prior to the January
2002 deadline.
The key elements of this bill includes provisions that are modeled
after existing State
[[Page 23349]]
risk-sharing insurance programs. The bill sets a trigger at $100
million for small insurers and $1 billion as an industry wide aggregate
and provides a 90 percent Federal share with 10 percent individual
company retention. Companies would be required to payback the first $20
billion in losses through assessments and allowed to recoup subsequent
losses through commercial policyholder surcharges.
Finally, this bill provides important liability reforms for private
businesses that could be affected by future terrorist attacks. We need
only look at the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to understand the need
for these important reforms. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing
resulted in 500 lawsuits by 700 individuals, businesses and insurance
companies. Damages claimed amounted to $550 million, and those cases
are just now getting started. It is unthinkable that we would not
provide innocent businesses protection against terrorist-inspired
litigation. Businesses and property owners simply cannot guard against
terrorist attacks seeking to cause mass destruction. This bill includes
common sense reforms that will assure the continued availability of
affordable insurance.
Let me remind my colleagues that provisions to limit punitive damages
and attorneys fees were included in the Airline Security Act that
originally passed the House with one distinct difference--H.R. 3210
does not cap damage awards. The litigation management provisions in
H.R. 3210 would also benefit victims of future terrorist attacks.
H.R. 3210 represents a balanced approach that will give the insurance
industry the short-term assistance they need and will protect the
taxpaying consumer by asking that every dollar of assistance be repaid.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the al Qaeda network began a
war of terrorism against our Nation. The insidious attack was planned
not only to kill Americans, but to disrupt our Nation's financial
center. The September 11 attack caused greater insured losses than most
of the recent top disasters combined, and, unfortunately, since that
attack, the foreign reinsurance market has refused to provide further
coverage for terrorism.
Without reinsurance for terrorism, primary insurers are not able to
responsibly insure high level risks. In fact, they have been filing new
policy forms to exclude terrorism coverage in almost every State of
this Nation. Without insurance, many creditors will not lend for new
projects, and many new businesses, projects, and buildings will simply
never happen.
We cannot afford this significant economic disruption at a time of
economic sluggishness. I am confident that the private insurance sector
will eventually adapt to the challenges of the new world, they always
do. But 70 percent of commercial insurance policies will be renewed
over the next 35 days, and if this Congress does not pass this
legislation, many of those policies will not be renewed and our economy
will be further injured. This is exactly the result that the terrorists
were hoping for, and this is why it is absolutely imperative that the
House act today to pass this bill.
{time} 1300
We crafted legislation in our committee to address this problem. Mr.
Speaker, H.R. 3210 creates a temporary risk-spreading program which
creates the strongest incentives for consumers to be able to obtain
coverage with significant solvency protections to maintain a stable
market. We created certainty in terrorist exposure for companies by
spreading any terrorism risk across the industry with temporary Federal
assistance. But the role of the Federal Government is limited to a
helping hand up, not a hand out. Any assistance provided must be repaid
by the industry over time.
We also based our bill on systems being used successfully in almost
every single State today: the State insurance guarantee funds. These
programs provide immediate liquidity up front to ensure that
policyholders are paid, and then the costs are collected back from the
industry as a whole. It is simple, it works, and we have the programs
in place today we can build on.
This is not the approach favored by many in the industry that want
free taxpayer money, but it is an approach supported by consumer and
taxpayer groups as diverse as the Consumer Federation of America,
Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste; and it
is critical for the House to pass this legislation today to make a
clear statement that we are going to protect the economy and we are
going to do it in a way that will not put the American taxpayer on the
hook or require future tax increases.
We need to get this legislation done today. Time is running out. We
passed H.R. 3210 out of committee with 35 bipartisan cosponsors on a
nearly unanimous voice vote. Since then, the only significant changes
our committee has made were in response to our good-faith commitment to
continue working to address Members' concerns, primarily to speed up
the assessments and create more flexibility for rural areas and small
towns.
The text made in order by the rule includes additional liability
reforms placing limitations on punitive damages and trial lawyer fees
for terrorist events. We have been working with Members' staffs in both
parties and will continue to make improvements to the insurance
provisions. But the minority is being given two opportunities to amend
this bill; and once the House works its will, we cannot allow a
disagreement on lawyers' fees to sabotage what would otherwise be a
bipartisan bill that is critical to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I support limits on legal fees and other liability
reforms to ensure that a future terrorist attack does not create a rush
to the courthouse. I supported more limited reforms in the Committee on
Financial Services. I will back the bill with or without the
strengthened provisions. But we cannot let the fight over the trial
lawyers undermine our critical responsibility to hold together our
Nation's financial foundations. This bill is critical, and it must be
sent to the President this year.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3210 is pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and pro-
business. Regardless of whether Members choose to side with the trial
lawyers or the liability reforms, we cannot let the terrorists win by
disrupting our economy because we failed to do our job in passing this
legislation.
I must point out the contributions of the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Baker) to this bill which reflects many of his ideas and much of
his energy as well. He, of course, chairs the appropriate subcommittee
of our Committee on Financial Services. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), and many others on the
Committee on Financial Services also deserve thanks for a great job on
this bill. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci) were early and
enthusiastic supporters of our commonsense, pay-back-the-taxpayer
approach.
Today it is time to put away egos and forget partisan blustering and
special interest politics. It is time to help those Americans who are
working to create jobs: the guy who is trying to buy a business, expand
a manufacturing plant, or construct a new building.
The 9-11 attack is over, but the economic terrorism goes on and on
unless we act. I strongly urge support for this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the Chairman of the Budget
Committee, Mr. Nussle, for his assistance in moving this legislation to
the floor quickly. I am inserting for the Record an exchange of letters
regarding his committee's jurisdictional interest in this legislation.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, November 26, 2001.
Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oxley: I am writing regarding H.R. 3210, the
``Terrorism Risk Protection Act'' which was recently ordered
reported by the Committee on Financial Services. As you know,
the legislation includes provisions addressing the budgetary
treatment of certain spending, a matter which falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Because of your ongoing willingness to work with the
Committee on the Budget on
[[Page 23350]]
this matter, and the need to move this legislation
expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the bill by the
Budget Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of
the bill, the Budget Committee does not waive its
jurisdiction over H.R. 3210. In addition, the Committee on
the Budget reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on the Budget for conferees on H.R.
3210 or related legislation.
I request that you include this letter and your response as
part of your committee's report on the bill. Thank you for
your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Nussle,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, November 26, 2001.
Hon. Jim Nussle,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nussle: Thank you for your letter regarding
your Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 3210, the
Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
I acknowledge your committee's jurisdictional interest in
the provisions addressing the budgetary treatment of certain
spending under the bill and appreciate your cooperation in
moving the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I agree
that your decision to forego further action on the bill will
not prejudice the Committee on the Budget with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation
and will support your request for conferees on those
provisions. I will include a copy of your letter and this
response in the Committee's report on the bill and the
Congressional Record when the legislation is considered by
the House.
Thank you again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Republicans are snatching
defeat from the jaws of victory. When we worked together, we produced a
financial services modernization bill that had not been pulled off in
60 years, but it took true bipartisanship. Just a short time ago, a
month or so ago, we worked together in a bipartisan manner. With total
bipartisanship, we passed major anti money-laundering legislation, and
we stood together with President Bush at the White House signing when
he signed and gave the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and myself pens,
the pens he used to sign the PATRIOT bill. We could have done the same
thing on terrorism insurance. I desperately wanted to. I tried to. We
were rebuffed. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Why so? If the Republicans are victorious today, it is going to be a
Pyrrhic victory, but there were certain things that were more important
than a good victory. What was more important? Well, they had to include
extraneous material within the bill, either because they were told to,
or because it is part of a theological belief. And what is that? That
we must restrict victims' rights. Forget all lawyers. We are talking
about victims.
We are talking about the rights of victims to be able to obtain the
redress that they have been able to pursue from 1776 to now, from the
beginning of the Republic to the present. And those rights have evolved
over 200-plus years in the several States where they have become the
common law of the land, they have been codified in State law; and in
one fell swoop we say, we eliminate all State causes of actions and
there shall be one exclusive Federal cause of action, one exclusive
Federal cause of action.
Now, we will look to State law for a little bit of guidance, but
certainly not on the issue of damages. On damages, we will eviscerate
their rights for economic damages, we will eviscerate their rights for
noneconomic damages, we will eviscerate their rights, we will prohibit
their rights, for punitive damages.
That is going to kill this bill, and that is going to greatly,
greatly worsen our economy.
Mr. Speaker, they could take one of two approaches. They could say,
let us take the best bill we could fashion in a bipartisan manner that
might pass muster with the Senate and negotiate differences, send it to
the President, or they could say, oh, my gosh, we have a majority of
one Democrat in the Senate; therefore, the only approach we can take is
to come up with the worst possible bill imaginable, pass that, because
that will increase our negotiating leverage with the Senate. The worse
our bill, the better our negotiating stance. That is what they have
done.
This is not about passing a bill. They are not arguing the merits of
this bill because they want to see it become the law of the land. They
know it never will be. They just want to posture themselves, leverage,
to get better leverage in negotiating with Senator Daschle, Senator
Dodd, Senator Leahy, Senator Hollings, et cetera.
In doing this, they are playing Russian roulette. Because what they
are doing is they are permitting that Damoclean sword that is hanging
over the economy, producing a chilling effect right now on the
provision of credit to businessmen across America. They are permitting
that Damoclean sword to fall come January 1, 2002. It is Russian
roulette and it need not be.
We could pass a bill; we could pass the substitute that would go to
the Senate and, with minor changes, be signed by President Bush next
week and eliminate that Damoclean sword that is hanging over the head
of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is faced with numerous economic dislocations
as a result of the September 11 attacks. A case in point is the
legitimate concern that the reinsurance market for terrorism coverage
is evaporating and will force primary insurers to increase prices or
withdraw coverage. This is not an industry problem. If industry cannot
reinsure the risk of further terrorist attacks, it will either not
offer terrorism coverage or price it out of the reach of most
consumers. The consequences of such action for our economy and for
consumers would be devastating, particularly given our current
recession.
We must recognize that the crisis is only weeks away, as most
policies are coming up for renewal on January 1, 2002. If businesses
are forced to go without coverage, lenders will not lend because they
require proof of insurance as part of the prudential credit decisions
they make. Congress does not have the luxury of time to debate
extraneous and controversial issues such as restrictions on victims'
compensation while the health of our fragile economy hangs in the
balance.
Since the markup of H.R. 3210 last month, I have repeatedly expressed
my willingness to work with Mr. Oxley and Mr. Baker on devising a plan
that I could support. The goal was to create a short-term solution that
will keep terrorism insurance coverage against any future attacks
available and affordable, until Congress can revisit the issue. The
approach Mr. Oxley devised was, in large part, reasonable and I could
have supported it. However, because this bill is laden with extraneous
provisions that limit victims rights and does not address some of the
core issues that I believe are essential, I cannot embrace this
legislation in its current form. It did not have to be this way.
First, H.R. 3210 does not impose an industry deductible. Instead, it
creates a program under which the Federal Government finances industry
losses from the first dollar and calls for those funds to be recouped
over time through industry assessments and policy surcharges. Second,
the bill does not require, by its terms, that property and casualty
coverage be part of commercial property and casualty coverage, as it
normally is now. Third, it egregiously limits victims rights by
eliminating punitive damages, limits noneconomic damages, caps
attorneys fees and creates a Federal cause of action. These provisions
are extraneous, represent a wish list for those who have long wished to
restrict the rights of victims in our civil justice system, alienate
most Democrats and many Republicans here and in the Senate, and,
therefore, imperils this legislation's ultimate enactment.
The advocates of radical tort reform in the White House and in the
Republican leadership are using this terrorism risk bill to promote an
aggressive antivictim agenda. Section 15 of the Armey bill, entitled
``Litigation Management'' may constitute the most radical and one-sided
liability limitations ever. Even worse, the provision bears little
relationship to the issue of insurance and is not even limited to cases
involving insurance coverage.
The Republican bill diminishes the protections that Americans enjoy
under state law by restricting the availability of noneconomic damages
and by eliminating punitive damages. These limitations on damages apply
not
[[Page 23351]]
only to insurance companies, but also to the wrongdoer, as well.
Adoption of these provisions rewards wrongdoers at the expense of
innocent victims of terrorist attacks. If an airport screening firm
hires a known terrorist who allows a weapon to slip on board a plane,
this bill would protect that company.
Punitive damages are rare and only awarded in the most egregious
cases where a defendant willfully or intentionally disregards the
safety of the American public. The elimination of punitive damages
takes away incentives for businesses to do everything they can
reasonably do to protect the American public.
Noneconomic damages are real damages. The loss of a limb, eyesight,
constant pain and loss of a loved one are real life-altering events.
Limiting their recovery harms the most severely injured victims and
discriminates against children, the elderly, and homemakers, who do not
receive much in the way of economic damages.
The Republican bill tries to limit victims' access to the civil
justice system by capping the fees available to pay the victims'
attorneys and threatens their attorneys with criminal sanctions for
violations of the cap. This particular provision reveals the real
motives of the proponents because the provisions does not impose any
cap on the fees paid to defendants.
It bill takes away all judicial review relating to the issue of
whether terrorism caused the injury, an unprecedented and very likely
unconstitutional limitation on victim rights. It eliminates prejudgment
interest, which takes away any incentive for negligent parties to reach
settlements. It mandates collateral source, which forces victims to
choose between seeking money from charities and pursuing a grossly
negligent party in court, and permits wrongdoers to take advantage of
life and health insurance policies purchased by the victim or the
victim's employer.
The Republicans claim that the provisions are needed to protect the
taxpayers from paying for excessive damages through the reinsurance
mechanism. But, under the Republican bill every penny of assistance is
recouped through assessments on the industry. If they were really
concerned with limiting taxpayer exposure rather an aggressive and
radical tort reform agenda, why is there no limitation on property
damages under the bill? Does making a family whole means less to my
colleagues than making a corporation whole for the loss of a luxurious
building?
While I firmly believe these victim compensation restrictions have no
place in this bill, we on our side sought to find some common ground on
this tort reform issue, so we could report out a bill that is vitally
important for the economic recovery of this Nation. We presented to the
Rules Committee three amendments to modify the provision. But the
Republican leadership was unwilling to give the House an opportunity to
refine these provisions and reach a compromise on an issue that also
has the Senate tied up in knots. Instead they insist on pursuing a
radical, partisan agenda to limit the compensation needed to make the
victims of terrorist attacks whole.
Later in this debate, Ranking Member Kanjorski and I will offer a
substitute which cures many of the defects of the Republican bill and
presents this body with a clean piece of legislation that Members on
both sides of the aisle can support.
First, my bill would require a real up-front deductible. The
insurance industry would pay the first $5 billion of insured losses in
the first year, increasing to $10 billion in the second and third
years. Individual company liability would be capped at 7 percent of
premiums. The insurance industry has made clear that it can afford a
deductible of this magnitude and they were prepared to embrace it when
it was under consideration in the Senate. The administration, too,
supports such a deductible. It is a sensible mechanism that protects
taxpayers and imposes underwriting discipline. It is a necessary part
of any legislation that we ultimately send to the President.
At the same time, my bill maintains the sensible assessment
provisions of the Oxley bill for losses in excess of the deductible,
and imposes a discretionary surcharge on policyholders for losses above
$20 billion. I believe these provisions fairly protect the American
taxpayer while not overly burdening industry.
Second, to prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking the safest
properties and leaving sites which present greater risk uncovered, our
substitute, unlike the Republican bill, would require that terrorism
coverage be part of property and casualty coverage. This is essential
to avoid a situation where insurers would only insure ``good risks''
and leave large portions of the economy uncovered. This provision would
also eliminate any incentive for small businesses to opt out of
insurance coverage.
Finally, my bill does not limit victims rights by denying them the
legal redress that they deserve.
Although I cannot support the bill in its present form, I hope we can
engage in a bipartisan, collaborative process going forward.
Despite our present differences, I do see common ground and I do see
how we could meld our approaches. But if we are to get there, it will
take respectful bipartisan dialog, not the gratuitous and unnecessary
pushing of ideological agendas. We have little time, and a serious
responsibility which we must meet quickly to protect our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who has done extraordinary work
in this regard.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and
his courtesy.
I think it appropriate at this point in our debate to talk simply
about what is it that this bill does and on what issues are there
agreement. It is very clear that through the extensive hearings and
work of the committee that much agreement was reached. First, that if
there is another unfortunate terrorist attack on this great Nation,
that we should not let the secondary effect of that attack to bring
terror to our national economy, and that we must respond quickly.
Some have criticized, for example, the concept of first-dollar
participation at the moment the event occurs. There are other views
that we should wait until perhaps some $5 billion of damages have been
paid out by the industry before getting government involvement. In
other words, after the terrorist event has occurred, let us make sure
the economy suffers for a while before we respond. This bill takes a
different approach and says, we should get that assistance immediately,
not 6 months, not 60 days, but immediately upon validation that there
has been an event for which there have been losses that can be
substantiated.
Secondly, since we are providing this immediate assistance, there
should be some guarantee that this is not viewed or, in practice, turns
out to be a bailout of the insurance industry. So this bill provides
for repayment. Yes, we have a crisis. Yes, there are people who are
suffering. So we say, insurance company, go help the insureds. Make
sure they get the funds necessary to repair those businesses, to get
the economy going again, to make sure we do not have the unemployed or
we do not have those who are without medical insurance because their
company doors are closed. But when you are profitable and when you are
making money, we expect you to give the taxpayers their money back.
That is what this bill provides for. It is a new approach. We will
help, but we expect you to be responsible when you are profitable.
We give the Secretary of the Treasury large discretion in how to
implement the requirements of this legislation. If we find ourselves in
the very unfortunate event after a terrorist attack that our general
economic condition is poor, the Secretary of the Treasury may use his
judgment as to when and how to recoup repayment to the taxpayer. But
there is a guarantee that there will be a repayment to the taxpayer.
So first and foremost, there is bipartisan agreement that this
legislation is not an industry bailout. It is necessary, an absolutely
necessary step to maintenance of our economic survival.
Secondly, it is not going to be a gift, that this money will not go
out the door of the United States Treasury never to be seen again.
Third, we act to help not only the big insurance companies; this
proposal's effect is to help all insurance companies. It is true that
the top 25 percent of all insurance companies out there write 94.6
percent of all property and casualty premiums in this country. There
are very large companies providing the bulk of coverage in this
country, but there are an extraordinarily large number of very small
corporations that could not withstand $5 billion industry-wide loss
without going insolvent themselves. The bill provides immediate
assistance for small companies. It provides immediate assistance for
small businesses by
[[Page 23352]]
not requiring terrorism insurance to be part of the property and
casualty coverage. Why is that important?
Our bill provides that one can stipulate what the cost of the
terrorism component is separate from the underlying property and
casualty bill. So if one is a business owner today who wants to make
sure his property and casualty insurance premiums have not been jacked
through the ceiling by some irresponsible insurance executive, one can
look at what they paid last year and look at what they are asking to be
paid this year, and then out over to one column to the side will be a
little line that says ``terrorism risk premium'' and you can identify
it. If you happen to be in Wyoming or on the great Gulf Coast of
Mississippi or somewhere where you make the judgment that you do not
wish to pay that terrorism premium, you do not have to. We do not
believe we should dictate to every business owner in America, you must
buy terrorism insurance regardless of what the cost may be, or what the
risk may be to you. So we provide market opportunity. You can buy the
property and casualty, you can buy the terrorism component from company
A, you can buy property and casualty from company B, and the terrorism
component from company C. It is free market at its best. It is a
responsible solution to the problems we face.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this proposal.
{time} 1315
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee with jurisdiction on this issue.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and I will take a moment to congratulate the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), for what I
thought was a job well performed as far as moving a bill that could
gain bipartisan support through the Committee on Financial Services.
Unfortunately, with heavy heart, the product that we are about to
vote on on the floor today does not meet the standard that it met as it
came out of the Committee on Financial Services. It has had added to it
something called tort revision, tort reform, some sort of change.
To most people watching this debate today, they are going to say,
what is all this thing about liability? We are in an emergency.
What it means, to say it simply, is there is an attempt here today
with these new additions to change the history of responding to
liability claims and civil procedures to settle those claims, and
change significantly the history of the United States for 200 years by
passing this legislation.
It is unnecessary. It is not only unnecessary, it is something the
industry did not ask for. As a matter of fact, in discussions with the
industry, they did not even ask for support down to dollar one lost
from terrorist events. They had represented themselves that they were
perfectly able to handle as much as a $10 billion terrorist attack on
the United States without consequences.
What they asked us to do in the interim of a 2- to 3-year period
would be to provide a mechanism that if a terrorist attack of the
magnitude of September 11 occurred, there would be a mechanism in place
that they could move quickly to resolve the problem and put the money
back into the marketplace.
As a result of not having that mechanism, they are unable to sell
policies now with terrorist insurance as part of the policy face and
are asking the right to not write terrorism policy in this country. The
reinsurance industry will not touch this until the experience table is
established as to what rates they can set for terrorist insurance.
So what did the Committee on Financial Services start with? What did
the White House request? What did the industry request? That we put
together a stopgap measure to allow normal commerce to go on in the
United States and have terrorist protection insurance in place over the
next 3- to 5-year period so we would not stultify or have a
disadvantageous result to the economy as a whole. I call it an economic
stabilization bill, that is all it is, to show that the United States
government, at a time of extreme need and under dangerous
circumstances, can put the taxpayers of the United States in a
supportive situation to a free market institution, but not interfering
with the free market, encouraging the free market to come back and
handle the insurance as it has in the past and will in the future, but
for a period of 1 to 3 or 5 years, that the United States Government is
in there to create a position that would help the insurance industry,
the real estate industry, the financial services industry, but most of
all, the economy of the United States.
That has not happened. The one major reason it has not happened, in
spite of some of the changes, is the new additions on tort reform or
tort revision are so onerous, so extreme, that we are asking the
American people and this Congress to forget victims' rights, rights of
plaintiffs, rights of complainants, and rights of injured people, and
only taking care of the 25 largest companies in the United States who
write 94 percent of the insurance.
If I wanted to be a demagogue, I could easily say it is a bailout of
the insurance industry. But in my heart and mind, I know it is not
that; and it is not intended to be that. If we could have passed the
underlying bill, we would have had a very strong, bipartisan support to
do that; and it could not have been categorized as a bailout of the
insurance industry.
But it can clearly be labeled a locomotive for tort reform at the
wrong time, at the wrong place, in the wrong bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote down the existing bill, unfortunately,
taking some time to come back and work out another bill so we can go to
conference and pass this important legislation.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act. This legislation is essential to not just the insurance
industry, but to the entire economy.
Businesses in America face a crisis this year, and they will face a
crisis next year if we are unable to obtain commercial insurance
coverage, which includes insurance against terrorism losses. Without
this insurance coverage, businesses will be unable to obtain financing
for new building projects, and an already weak economy will be served
another harsh blow.
With the cowardly acts of September 11, our insurance industry faces
a new reality which must be addressed as soon as possible. This is a
reality in which an act of terrorism is a risk which requires
insurance, the cost of which is impossible to predict, and hence,
impossible for an insurance company to price.
Because of this, insurance companies are currently unable to offer
coverage for impossible future terrorist acts. To prevent this crisis,
TRPA would spread the risk for possible future acts out across the
insurance industry, giving the industry time to develop their own
mechanisms to cover risk for the future. TRPA is designed to provide
only the necessary temporary stability to the insurance market and
sunset shortly thereafter.
Unlike like some of the solutions put forward, TRPA does not put
taxpayers' money at risk. All loans made under the act must be repaid.
In addition, the triggers in the bill are low enough to ensure that
small insurance companies remain competitive.
Finally, I want to assure my colleagues that the Committee on
Financial Services' work on the issue only begins with this
legislation. As the chairwoman of the oversight subcommittee, we will
be vigorous in our follow-up on this crisis. We must ensure that we do
all in our power to provide stability to the industry while we
[[Page 23353]]
give the private market time to innovate and quickly establish a new
market to cover potential terrorism loss.
TRPA is an excellent solution to this crisis and deserves our full
support. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
the strong support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am pleased that the Financial Services
Committee and this House have acted expeditiously on the terrorism
reinsurance crisis, and that this legislation is being considered
today. Today in this chamber, we are appropriately engaging in a fierce
debate over various aspects of how to make this legislation work for
insurance consumers. We are debating federal backstops, mandates for
coverage, tort reform, and all trying to do the best thing for the
American economy--in the hope that this very complex and difficult
issue can be resolved by the time Congress recesses for the year.
But I would appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take just one
step back from this debate, and remind us all again why we are here.
One of the persons who would have been intimately involved in the
creation of a federal terrorism reinsurance program was Charlie
McCrann. Charlie was a senior vice president at Marsh and McLennan, the
world's largest commercial insurance brokerage firm, and his
responsibilities included advocacy at both the state and federal
levels. Charlie was a pivotal player on many of the issues surrounding
insurance regulation over the years--from the product liability crisis
of the 1980s, to the Dingell insurance solvency legislation in the
1990s, to our debates on agent/broker licensing reform as a part of
Gramm-Leach-Bliley two years ago. As he spoke on behalf of the firm
that sells more business insurance (and reinsurance) than any other
firm in the world, this terrorism insurance coverage legislation would
have been right down Charlie's alley. As always, he would have done
everything in his power to make sure that we craft a bill that restores
and calms the marketplace without overreaching.
On September 11, Charlie had arrived early to his office on the 100th
floor of 1 World Trade Center. Like 294 of his colleagues at Marsh, he
perished.
As a profile in the New York Times recently said of him, Charles
Austin McCrann was a levelheaded, respected executive, devoted to his
wife, Michelle, and children, Derek and Maxine. He was also a splendid
attorney and representative of the insurance industry, through his
earlier work at the New York Assembly's Insurance Committee, and at the
law firm of LeBoeuf, Greene & McRae. At Marsh, where he served since
1979, in addition to his advocacy, he was a regulatory compliance
officer, and was responsible for interpreting industry regulations and
providing guidance on these regulations to Marsh's brokers throughout
the country. He represented the National Association of Insurance
Brokers and its successor organization, the Council of Insurance Agents
and Brokers, before the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners.
I could go on and on.
As a subcommittee chair on the Financial Services Committee, I mourn
the fact that Charlie is not in this chamber today witnessing our
spirited debate and our actions designed to assist the commercial
insurance marketplace. And I hope that as this legislation continues to
move through the legislative process, we will be mindful of the 500
employees of the world's two largest commercial insurance brokerages--
Marsh and Aon--who lost their lives on that horrible day.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the
Committee on Financial Services.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary
and the Committee on Financial Services, both of which have worked very
hard in a bipartisan manner to legislate cooperatively in the wake of
the events of September 11.
Last month, the Committee on the Judiciary reported out the PATRIOT
Act, the antiterrorism bill. The committee product was a true
bipartisan effort and was reported out unanimously. That product was
then abandoned in the Committee on Rules for a partisan, inferior
product.
Similarly, this bill, H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act,
was reported out of the Committee on Financial Services by voice vote.
The bill we are debating today is not the product of that committee's
good work. It is, instead, a bill that does not contain a deductible
for the insurance industry before government steps up to the plate; and
even more disturbing, this necessary piece of legislation has become a
vehicle for broad-based tort reform.
The Armey substitute creates an exclusive Federal cause of action for
lawsuits arising out of acts of terrorism, prohibits punitive damages,
prohibits joint and several liability, limits attorney fees, and
requires that any victim compensation shall be reduced by any amount
the victim receives from other sources.
These tort reform provisions are broad and far-reaching. These
provisions are an appalling attempt by anti-consumer legislators to use
this bill to further their own agenda by changing the laws on victim
compensation. They would never get away with this under normal
circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances.
We have to respond quickly to the events of September 11, and we
should do so in a bipartisan manner. I find it utterly shameful that
certain Members see fit to exploit this terrible tragedy by using
necessary legislation as a vehicle for special interest items.
Unfortunately, this crass opportunism is becoming the hallmark of
this House. So far, we have seen attempts to load up bills that respond
to this tragedy with all sorts of tax breaks and Christmas presents for
corporate America, while we still have not taken care of the
unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been corrupted with these harsh
limitations on victim compensation. These limitations are unrelated to
the issue at hand and have no place in this bill. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this legislation and support the LaFalce substitute, which
contains no limitations on tort actions or recoveries.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a valued member of our
committee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the insured losses from September 11 attacks are
expected to total more than $70 billion, the largest insured
catastrophic loss in history. The good news is that the insurance
industry is paying these claims and has stated that all claims will be
paid expeditiously.
The bad news is that the insurance industry cannot withstand multiple
events of this magnitude without harming all consumers. This is
uncharted territory, and it will take some time for an efficient market
for terrorism insurance to develop. That is why passage of H.R. 3210 is
so important at this critical time.
For those who think that this bill applies only to the market for
commercial insurance, they should think again. Right now there are more
than 140 public self-insured risk pools operating in 41 States; and
they, too, will be covered by this bill.
What are public, self-insured risk pools? They are the entities that
provide coverage for those most often at the greatest risk: our
firefighters and police officers, our children in schools, teachers,
city workers, and many others.
In short, public self-insured risk pools provide an enormous cost
saving to State and local taxpayers. When private insurance premiums
are prohibitively expensive, these pools absorb the risk across their
membership base. Failure to include public risk pools in this bill
would have resulted in a dramatic increase in insurance premiums for
those providing critical public service and, ultimately, for taxpayers.
I appreciate the strong support this provision received in the
committee, especially from the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and
the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). I
look forward to working closely with them to see that this provision is
retained in the conference.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership members of the
Committee on Financial Services for including key litigation management
provisions in this bill. Let us face it, there is no reasonable way for
even the most responsible property owner or business to prepare for
every conceivable attack by a terrorist. Yet under
[[Page 23354]]
current law, they would be on the hook for 100 percent of such damages,
facing total financial ruin.
This bill limits the potential liability by barring punitive damages
and providing other protections if and when the Secretary of the
Treasury determines that an act of terrorism has occurred.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3210 is a responsible approach to a very difficult
situation. By demanding that every tax dollar is repaid, we will
provide a helping hand, not a handout, to the insurance industry.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of both the Committee on Financial
Services and the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, several days after the
events of September 11, some of my insurance company representatives
who are based in my district approached me and described what would
become a very, very serious problem.
Essentially, they said that most of the reinsurance in this country,
a lot of it is being done by off-shore reinsurers, and that those
people were not going to reinsure against terrorism after the events of
September 11.
It became obvious that there was a serious problem that would need to
be addressed, and I committed to work to try to address that problem,
both in the Committee on Financial Services and in the Committee on the
Judiciary, both of which I am a member of.
We did that in the Committee on Financial Services. We reported out a
bill that received virtual unanimous support. Unfortunately, just like
the PATRIOT bill, the antiterrorism bill that the Committee on the
Judiciary had reported out unanimously, the leadership got its hands on
the product of our committee and rewrote the bill. They inserted
provisions that had little, or nothing, I would submit, to do with the
problem that the insurance companies had described to me in that
initial meeting, the one dealing with reinsurance and the necessity for
reinsurance.
{time} 1330
This bill has been hijacked, unfortunately, the same way that the so-
called PATRIOT bill was hijacked by the leadership, and provisions have
been placed in this bill which actually just make it unsupportable.
We are going to have a serious problem if we do not get to a final
product on this bill very soon. Insurance policies that are expiring
and are having to be renewed will need terrorism coverage, and it is
that kind of brinksmanship that I am concerned about; because as the
ranking member has indicated, we have taken a situation which could
have been resolved easily through bipartisan cooperation, that had been
resolved through bipartisan cooperation on our Committee on Financial
Services, and the leadership has decided that it would rather play
political brinksmanship with this bill.
If a product is not delivered that is satisfactory before the end of
this year, I hope that the American people will hold the people who are
responsible for this brinksmanship responsible for their conduct, and I
encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill today.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his hard work and leadership on this difficult
issue.
Congress simply must act, before we adjourn, to avert an insurance
coverage crisis caused by the increased risk of terrorism against the
citizens and businesses of this country. I think that statement is
absolutely true. I am proud of the insurance industry and the way it
has stood up to what is going to be a $40 billion loss, but there is no
question that they cannot do this again tomorrow.
Furthermore, we in our Nation need to figure out how we are going to
share this new risk, because if we do not, the cities of America are
going to be the victims. It is not going to be Torrington, Connecticut.
It is not going to be Rutland, Vermont. It is going to be New York,
Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston. Who in their right mind
is going to pay the high premiums that will be charged of those who
locate in New York? Every one of the big cities will be seen as the
likely target for the next terrorist act, and so the premiums for
businesses in our cities are going to skyrocket if we do not legislate
now, do it right and follow it through over the next few years.
It is hard enough for the cities to attract businesses to them,
because cities have so many burdens that often their taxes are high,
their police problems are great, and so on and so forth. Now we are
going to add to that the highest possible insurance premiums for those
companies that are willing to headquarter in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and other big cities of America.
We would not do it intentionally, but that is going to be the
unintended consequence of not handling this issue correctly. It will be
the cities that hurt; not the towns, not the little cities, not all of
America. We will put a death knell over economic activity in the big
cities of our country.
So I urge support of this legislation.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the committee.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, for yielding me the time and
for his leadership and hard work on this issue.
Our work today is not bailout of the insurance industry. We are
simply working to keep our economy on track with a short-term program
that addresses the new terrorist threat.
I believe the gentleman from New York's (Mr. LaFalce) bill recognizes
the importance of this potential insurance crisis to our country and
the time-sensitive nature of the problem. With 70 percent of
reinsurance contracts expiring at the end of the year, we have a
limited time to act before the end of the year.
In the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kanjorski) understand the importance of this issue and they have worked
tirelessly to move the process forward.
I was particularly concerned with surcharges placed on future
policyholders in the bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) originally introduced. It is
my belief that this language would have placed an undue burden on
future policyholders just as they are trying to recover from the
attack. Working together, we have reached a compromise on this issue,
limiting future surcharges to 3 percent of premiums.
While we have reached agreement on many issues, I believe the
approach taken in the Democratic substitute is superior to the bill
that is the underlying one today. The goal of any bill should be to
restore the availability and affordability of property and casualty
insurance. Limiting the rights of potential plaintiffs is a peripheral
issue. We are dealing with a crisis, and partisan legal reform issues
have no role in protecting the viability of insurance markets.
We do not know where the next attack will be, but we can be pretty
sure that right now terrorists are planning to strike again. Hopefully
our increased security will thwart any attack, but now is not the time
to prospectively limit the rights of individuals to make themselves
whole if they are victims of a future attack.
To quote a letter from the Consumer Union, ``Although individuals in
businesses may be unable to prevent future terrorist attacks and are
not directly responsible for those acts, they should be expected to
take reasonable and measured actions to promote public safety.''
I believe the legal limitations and the majority bill discourage such
conduct. Furthermore, the LaFalce substitute is more taxpayer friendly
by requiring the insurance industry to cover
[[Page 23355]]
a deductible of $5 billion in the first year and $10 billion in the
second. This industry is capable of covering this deductible and does
not oppose this provision.
Every Member of this House owns an insurance policy and we all face
deductibles. This bill to prevent an insurance crisis should not be any
different.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the LaFalce substitute.
Mr. Speaker, viewers of this debate should be clear.
Our work today is not a bailout of the insurance industry--we are
simply working to keep our economy on track with a short-term program
that address the new terrorist threat.
I believe Ranking Member LaFalce's bill recognizes the importance of
this potential insurance crisis to our country and the time sensitive
nature of the problem.
With 70 percent of reinsurance contracts expiring at the end of the
year we have a limited time to act before the end of the year and we
have to get this right.
In the Financial Services Committee Chairmen Oxley and Baker and
Ranking Members LaFalce and Kanjorski understand the importance of this
issue and have worked tirelessly to move the process forward.
I was particularly concerned with surcharges placed on future policy
holders in the bill that Mr. Oxley and Baker originally introduced.
It is my belief that this language would have placed an undue burden
on future policyholders just as they are trying to recover from an
attack.
Working together--we have reached a compromise on this issue--
limiting future surcharges to 3 percent of premiums.
While we have reached agreement on many issues, I believe the
approach taken in the Democratic Substitute is superior to the bill
that we are considering today.
The goal of any bill should be to restore the availability and
affordability of property and casualty insurance.
Limiting the rights of potential plaintiffs is a peripheral issue.
We are dealing with a crisis and partisan legal reform issues have no
role in protecting the viability of insurance markets.
We do not know where the next attack will be but we can be pretty
sure that right now terrorists are planning to strike again.
Hopefully our increased security will thwart any attack--but now is
not the time to prospectively limit the rights of individuals to make
themselves whole if they are victims of a future attack.
To quote a letter that Consumers Union which was sent to Members
yesterday. ``Although individuals and businesses may be unable to
prevent future terrorist attacks and are not directly responsible for
those acts, they should be expected to take reasonable and measured
actions to promote public safety.''
I believe the legal limitations in the Majority bill discourages such
conduct.
Furthermore, the LaFalce substitute is more taxpayer friendly by
requiring the insurance industry to cover a deductible of $5 billion in
the first year and $10 billion in the second.
This industry is capable of covering this deductible and does not
oppose this provision.
Every Member of this House owns an insurance policy and we all face
deductibles. This bill to prevent an insurance crisis should not be any
different.
Unfortunately, I am fairly certain that businesses will pay billions
more for insurance in New York in next year--even with Congressional
intervention. As I have said, this increase could amount to a tax of
billions of dollars on New York business.
I urge my colleagues not to tie outside issues to this legislation.
It is too important. Support the clean LaFalce substitute.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a very valuable member of our committee.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act. This bill creates a temporary industry risk-spreading
program to provide a financial backstop for insurers in the event of
losses from future terrorist attacks. It is not a bailout, and
taxpayers will recoup every penny of assistance insurance companies
receive.
It is critical for the Nation that terrorism insurance legislation be
enacted before January 1. This legislation is particularly critical for
insurance companies and financial services. The impact of not enacting
this legislation will significantly damage these vital industries and
will have dire consequences as well for the real estate, energy,
construction and transportation industries.
It is also clear our Nation's cities and metropolitan areas will be
impacted the most for failing to act on this legislation. Time is
quickly running out. The market for new commercial insurance contracts
and renewals is already undergoing serious and potentially severe
disruptions. Almost 70 percent of reinsurance policies expire on
December 31, and virtually all reinsurers have said they will no longer
provide terrorism insurance after that date.
This will create a chain reaction that will affect our entire
economy. Without insurance, lenders will not lend and investors will
not invest. The economic effects of inaction simply cannot be
overstated.
To me, this is the true stimulus bill. We need to enact this bill.
None of us can be sure when and where another terrorist act will occur,
but it will occur. And we have the opportunity today to offer
businesses, employers, and other economic activities across the country
much needed protection.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and
help avoid an otherwise inevitable market dislocation and subsequent
economic crisis. We need to enact this bill. I thank my chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for acting so quickly to see that we
will do that.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Financial Services.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the process and also the
content of this bill. Many important amendments, including those on
tort reform and my consumer amendment on data disclosure, were not even
allowed to be offered. At a time when thousands of men and women are
losing their jobs and their health insurance, it is really a shame that
we are again putting corporate interests before the interests of our
workers.
Unemployment and health insurance benefits for those people who have
lost their jobs should be our first priority.
On the content of this bill, the egregious tort reform provisions are
reason enough to oppose it. Companies that do not take appropriate
safety steps or do not act responsibly in the face of credible threats
should not receive protection for their actions. If the owner of a
building locks the emergency exit doors and a terrorist attack occurs
there, that building owner must be held responsible for their negligent
actions. This is just common sense. Under the Republican bill, they
could not be held responsible. Under the LaFalce substitute they would.
In terms of the process of this bill, I have tried to offer an
amendment to require insurers to provide the same data, the same data,
mind you, that banks currently provide on the race, ethnicity, gender
and location of their policyholders to ensure that they are not
discriminating against minority, women or low-income individuals.
However, this very modest amendment was not even allowed by the
Committee on Rules.
If we are to give billions of dollars to the insurance industry, we
should at least have basic data to know if they are using those Federal
dollars to engage in discriminatory practices. This is only fair.
It is time that this Congress really gets its priorities straight and
supports the working men and women in our Nation. The tragic events of
September 11 should not be used as an opportunity for corporate tax
cuts and bailouts. Let us put first things first and make sure that our
enhanced national security ensures economic security for those who so
desperately need our assistance.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a valuable member of our committee.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I serve both on the Committee on Financial Services and
on the Committee on the Judiciary and have certainly, like many Members
[[Page 23356]]
who have spoken, spent some time on this issue and certainly understand
the gravity of what we are doing here today, because in January, a
little more than 30 days from now, 70 percent of the commercial
insurance policies will be up for renewal.
Not only has the Committee on Financial Services received quite a bit
of testimony that without legislation, commercial insurers will be
unwilling to provide significant terrorism coverage, newspapers have
been full of stories about companies finding terrorism coverage
impossible to buy.
If businesses are unable to obtain insurance to cover their losses
caused by future acts of terror, they will not only potentially be
liable for significant damages any terrorist could cause, but they
would also face significantly higher financing and other costs. This
has the potential to wipe out any beneficial impact of an economic
stimulus package that we hope will be passed and signed by the
President.
In order to attract capital, companies have to convince investors
that their money will not be wiped out. We take steps through this
legislation to make sure that that is the case. This is not a bailout.
This is a backstop. This is legislation that will give confidence back
in your economy, confidence to investors.
It allows for exact pricing so that in the event of another terrorist
attack, the government would not only collect the amount of money it
needs in accordance with this law, it prevents the creation of another
mammoth government agency. In other words, we help finance money
temporarily.
This is not giving money away. This is assistance to our economy. It
is very important. Limiting the legal liability of these insurers by
restricting punitive damages is a big part of it. It is very important.
Terrorism is not the fault of insurers, it is the fault of the
terrorists. It is important that we take into consideration the
realities here.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of my colleagues, both the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner). I urge support of the bill as it is, H.R. 3210.
{time} 1345
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I speak vigorously against this bill because
it is radically callous toward reform provisions, and let me explain
how radical they are.
It seems to me that we have given a lot of at least lip service to
the value of marriage on this floor in a lot of different debates, but
look what this bill does. Take a situation where a wife lost her
husband, firefighter in New York City. She has had the destruction of
her relationship with her husband, she is a widow, and let us say this
bill becomes law. If this bill becomes law, it says that the only value
of that husband to that widow was the value of his paycheck.
This bill would destroy the ability that is now the case in 50 States
in this country that when a widow loses her husband she would be
entitled under American law to noneconomic damages. That is a sound
policy, because many of us believe that a husband has a value to a wife
that is greater than his paycheck. But the Republican proposal here is
based on the proposition that the only meaningful value of a husband to
a wife is what he brings home at the end of the month, and that the
value of the relationship between a husband and wife is zero under the
Republican bill. That is wrong. That is wrong.
The value of a relationship between a husband and wife is worthy of
the respect of us individually and worthy of the respect of the
American judicial system. This bill is wrong in eliminating that civil
right. I think it is a sad day when terrorists get to destroy the civil
right of an American to recognize the value of their spouse, which
under the Republican bill my colleagues are doing. Frankly, I do not
know if my colleagues intended to do it, but this bill accomplishes
that end, and it is wrong.
But there is a second reason I speak against this bill, Mr. Speaker.
If we pass this bill, it will have been after we passed the airline
bailout bill, or airline bill, whatever we want to call it, and did not
give a dime to the workers, over 100,000 workers who have been laid
off. Yet we now pass a bill to help the insurance industry, which I
think is necessary, some bill, to help the insurance industry, but
still without helping laid-off workers with a dime or a nickel.
I now have in the Puget Sound, or will have, 30,000 laid-off workers
from the Boeing company alone as a result of this terrorist activity.
And what has the Congress done? Nothing. Why do the big dogs always eat
first in Congress? It is time to take care of working people. Defeat
this bill.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Grucci), another valuable member of our committee.
Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.R. 3210, the Terrorist Risk Protection Act.
First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Baker), chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets,
Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, the Republican
leadership, and my colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services
for their tireless efforts to negotiate a comprehensive package to
prevent the disruption and destabilization of America's markets via the
collapse of our insurance industry.
The horrifying events of September 11 have touched each and
everyone's lives in so many ways. Our Nation will never again be the
same. These events have introduced new problems for industries and
small businesses, because reinsurers have been telling primary insurers
that they will exclude terrorist coverage from their policies. Now,
without the ability to insure properties against future terrorist
attacks, financial institutions will be unable to provide loans, New
York will be unable to rebuild, and everyday business transactions will
be disrupted. If we permit this to happen, we let the terrorists win.
Time is running out. On December 31, 2001, 70 percent of these
reinsurance policies will expire. New policies are currently being
negotiated without these necessary legislative changes. We should have
passed this critical legislation in time for these companies to provide
45-day notices. Well, we missed that deadline; and now we have only 32
calendar days, leaving us only 16 business days until the Christmas
holiday. Speaking as a former small businessman, I can tell my
colleagues that does not provide much time for effective business
decision-making, particularly in light of our Nation's current economic
conditions.
H.R. 3210 creates a temporary industry risk-spreading program to
ensure the continued availability of commercial property and casualty
insurance and reinsurance for American consumers. The post-event
assessment system provides an incentive to provide coverage, spreads
out risk, prevents guessing at costs, and does not take money out of
the economy. This requires that all of the Federal funds used to boost
liquidity are paid back by the commercial industry/policyholders over
time.
This is sound, effective, and timely legislation; and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this critical measure and in
supporting the economic stabilization of our country.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a former insurance commissioner for that
great State.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I commend him and the rest of the leadership of the
committee, including Chairman Oxley, ranking member LaFalce,
Subcommittee Chairman Baker, and ranking member Kanjorski for their
really terrific work on this matter. This should be the finest hour for
the Committee on Financial Services.
[[Page 23357]]
We have an issue where there is broad bipartisan agreement. We need
to act. We need to act now. Because without enactment before we go
home, there will be significant capacity consequences in the
availability of coverage for terrorism. The ripple effect of that
through the economy will be significant. And that is why we have to
act.
Now, under these circumstances, committee leadership undertook this
difficult assignment of creating some kind of public mechanism to wrap
around the private insurance capacity to continue to insure this risk,
a risk that has grown infinitely more grave and significant. Out of
this long, rather intense legislative process came a bill that, after
committee markup, passed by voice vote, virtually capturing all of the
members of the committee.
Now, it was recognized by committee leadership not to be the perfect
bill, that more work would be required; but it was the legislative
format for the congressional response that, I believe, would have
provided direction to the Senate and would have been the principal way
in the end we enact this legislation. Well, what happened? This work
product was taken away from the committee. It was ripped up and
rewritten. It was wrecked and brought forward.
And the irony of ironies is that now the chairman of the Committee on
Financial Services has to lead the debate for its enactment. I believe
the committee leadership deserved better than this in light of the
fair-minded effort they made to get a solution created.
There are two reasons to oppose this bill: substance and process. And
the argument as to substance, I believe, has been very well advanced by
previous speakers; and I will not reiterate that part. But I do want to
speak a bit on process.
This is one of the most technically difficult assignments this body
has undertaken, and to do it in a tight time frame makes it
particularly difficult. There are lots of ways that have been advanced
in terms of how we construct this assistance to keep terrorism coverage
available. The administration took a whack at it. They had one
approach. A bipartisan effort between Senator Dodd and Senator Gramm in
the Senate took another approach. Chairman Baker worked with Chairman
Oxley to construct an approach that, in the end, was quite a bit like
the approach taken by ranking members LaFalce and Kanjorski.
Out of all these approaches, none of them have the offending
provisions slapped on in a kind of a haphazard, almost cavalier way by
House majority leadership in bringing this form. What they have done is
thrown a red herring into this whole debate as to how we construct the
package.
I believe passage of this bill does not advance completion of the
terrorism insurance assignment; I think it makes it even more
difficult. Because rather than focusing on the technically demanding
issues before us, we are also going to be debating unrelated,
ideological points of agenda that really have no place, especially when
considering the dwindling hours we have to get this bill into place.
I believe that, in the end, we have to act; but we can best act by
rejecting the flawed proposal that has been put before us and going
back to the committee, bring their bill forward to get this on the
track that we need to go.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a new member of our committee.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley), chairman of the full committee; the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Baker), chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce), ranking minority member, for bringing this most
critical, critical bill to the floor.
As has been said before, on September 11, thousands of innocent
Americans were killed in a savage terrorist attack that no one could
ever have imagined. This catastrophe, though, also has left the
American economy and American businesses with an insurance crisis.
Seventy percent of insurance contracts in this country expire at year's
end. As a small businessperson, I know that there are millions of
individuals out there now receiving expiration notices not knowing what
to do come year-end.
If we look at it, if there is no insurance, business owners across
America, both small and large, may all be in default of loan covenants
which require collateral to be insured against terrorist strikes.
Without this bill, there will be no such insurance.
Some individuals may fear the worst and close or put a halt to
expansion plans. We can forget about growth in our cities and towns.
What bank will loan money to build a shopping center or an office
building without insurance to protect their investments in such a
project? And then where will the jobs be without those projects?
H.R. 3210 addresses this impending crisis not by an industry bailout
but by extending credit to cover claims associated with terrorist
strikes akin to those on 9-11. Such loans will be repaid through
industry assessments so that American taxpayers will remain whole. Mr.
Speaker, I also commend both Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker on the
very innovative way that this bill tries to provide a resolution to
this impending crisis. It does provide a fix.
And I would say we ought to support this bill because of the
substance. There are no mandates on terrorism coverage, so, therefore,
if there is a small business owner, let us say in Orange, Virginia, who
has a small ice cream shop and chooses not to pay for that particular
coverage because of the cost, that business owner ought not be made to
do so. Yet the bill also provides for protection against those who may
seek compensation in lawsuits against a terrorist strike.
Let us not put the bill on the American people; let us put the bill
on the terrorists. It is the terrorists who were responsible for the
strikes on 9-11 and will be responsible if it occurs in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Financial Services.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have visited Rayburn 2128,
the room in which the Committee on Financial Services meets. It is a
large and beautiful room, and I would propose that we make that room
available to provide housing for the homeless. Because what went on in
that room in crafting this bill has nothing to do with the bill that
reaches the floor.
{time} 1400
Mr. Speaker, if all of our financial services bills are to be written
in the Committee on Rules on the third floor of this building, why must
people sleep out in the cold when they could be provided housing in
room 2128?
In fact, we are presented this bill on very short notice, basically
24 hours' notice, and it has so many changes from the bill that left
our committee. One of the flaws in this bill is that it provides first
dollar coverage with no deductible. What does this mean? It means that
if there is a terrorist event that causes a billion dollars in damage,
less one penny, comes within 1 cent of causing a billion dollars of
damage, the Federal Government does nothing.
But if instead the damage is a billion dollars, plus one penny, then
the taxpayers come forward with $900 million. Never has 1 cent mattered
so much, and that is clearly absurd.
We need instead a bill that says that the first billion dollars is
absorbed by the insurance and reinsurance industry, and only then
should taxpayer dollars be involved. What, after all, is the insurance
industry if it cannot absorb in total, with all of its companies and
all of the reinsurance companies, a billion dollars in risk? If
insurance companies cannot take the first billion of risk, then why do
they exist? They are, after all, in the risk-sharing and risk-
absorption business.
We need a bill. Many speakers who have come forward have explained
why it is so important that we pass a bill so that those who own
businesses are able to get terrorism insurance; or, rather, continue to
get the kind of insurance
[[Page 23358]]
that they have now without an exception for terrorist damage. That is
why it is so important that those who want a bill vote for the
Democratic substitute, because that is a bill that could be passed by
both Houses, that is a bill that could be signed into law before we
adjourn. That is serious economic policy.
Instead, we have a bill with loathsome, absurd, highly partisan,
quote, tort-reform provisions; provisions which everyone knows cannot
be passed on a bipartisan basis. I would point out that they deprive
those that lose a child of any recourse at all, not one penny, to the
parents who lose their child to terrorism.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation. It is legislation that I
want to see enacted into law before we adjourn this year. But the
substance of the bill before us and the procedure that we have used to
get here is atrocious. It is not necessary to take away victims'
rights. This bill does that. It does it in a very heavy-handed manner.
There ought to be a deductible. That is, the insurance industry
should be paying the first dollar up to a certain amount and the
Federal reimbursement payment should come in only after that. Their
bill is grossly deficient in that respect.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is absolutely necessary. That is why
this committee is charged by the Speaker to produce a bill, and
produced it in virtually record time. That is why during a day-long
markup, it culminated in a voice vote for the legislation. And that is
why, frankly, the substitute that is going to be offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) contains 85-90 percent of the
bill that came out of our committee.
Let us understand that most of this debate today, at least on the
other side, has been about legal reforms, liability reforms, and not
about the specific areas that were negotiated and worked on and I think
is an excellent work product; and, in fact, solves the problem that all
of us want to solve, and that is the availability of insurance to make
certain that our economy continues to move forward. That is what all of
us have as a goal.
As we pass this bill on to the other body, it is important that the
House send a strong signal that we are prepared to meet that challenge.
This legislation, this underlying legislation, is exactly what the
patient needs to provide the kind of stability in the insurance market
that all of us desire.
Make no mistake about it, this Congress will pass this legislation,
this type of legislation, before we return home. We have no other
choice, it seems to me. If we do not, we face political peril, should
the economy start to unravel, with the unavailability of credit in this
dynamic marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, my hat is off to all of those who participated in this
great endeavor.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role
to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by
terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of
fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how
best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I
am afraid that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates
several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not
in the best interests of the American people.
Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of
the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident
exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are
responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the
Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the
majority of the subsidy in order to ``avoid the likely insolvency of
the commercial insurer,'' or avoid ``unreasonable economic disruption
and market instability.'' This language may cause administrators to
defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers
to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when
one considers that ``avoid . . . likely insolvency, unreasonable
economic disruption, and market instability'' are highly subjective
standards, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict
repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to
be more ``flexible'' in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers.
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ``temporary''
government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years
if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is
still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of
terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will
refuse to reauthorize this ``temporary'' insurance program or provide
some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would
like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of
expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to
be ``temporary.''
H.R. 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what
economists call the ``moral hazard'' problem. A moral hazard is created
when individuals have the costs incurred from a risky action subsidized
by a third party. In such a case individuals may engage in unnecessary
risks or fail to take steps to minimize their risks. After all, if a
third party will bear the costs of negative consequences of risky
behavior, why should individuals invest their resources in avoiding or
minimizing risk?
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and
businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we
would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy
reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police,
but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns,
and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms
put these security measures in place is because insurance companies
provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt
security measures. H.R. 3210 contains no incentives for this private
activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance
plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an
incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage
from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases
the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks.
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism
insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction
for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for
claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with
offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces
government's control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a
tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own
resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated
with federally funded insurance is avoided.
The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee
took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty
which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for
human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible
provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs
the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to
establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The
perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the
Federal Government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong
with Washington.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3210 may reduce the risk to
insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs
incurred by American taxpayers. More significantly, by ignoring the
moral hazard problem this bill may have the unintended consequence of
increasing the losses suffered in any future terrorist attacks.
Therefore, passage of this bill is not in the long-term interests of
the American people.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3210,
the Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
This legislation addresses a critical need of the insurance industry,
that has so far been overlooked by Congress in the wake of the events
of September 11.
It is a common practice for companies that serve as primary insurers
in the property and casualty field to take out secondary policies with
other companies in order to cover themselves against the possibility of
having to make large payouts on future claims.
In the wake of September 11, virtually all of the secondary insurers
have announced that they will no longer cover acts of terrorism when
the policies they have sold come up for renewal, effective January 1,
2002. The insurance industry estimates that approximately 70 percent of
the secondary policies will expire at the end of the current year.
[[Page 23359]]
Unless Congress takes immediate action, primary insurers will not be
able to offer coverage against terrorism in their property and casualty
accounts. Under these circumstances any future successful terrorist
attack would have a devastating impact on both the national economy and
the local economy where the attack occurs.
This legislation enlists the Federal Government to serve as a
stabilizing force in the insurance market, as well as a safety net to
cushion the economic effects of future acts of terrorism. Under this
bill, insurers would help create a pool from which funds could be drawn
to help meet future payout contingencies.
In the case where an event causes payouts to exceed $100 million, the
Federal Government would step in and assume 90 percent of the burden
with the remaining 10 percent coming from the industry. A similar
program would be put in place for large companies for an event that
exceeds $20 billion in payout costs.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that Congress address this immediate
need to head off what would be a catastrophic blow to the insurance
industry. American businesses need to be reassured that the insurance
industry is both financially sound and able to meet their coverage
obligations in the new terror-prone world, since September 11.
Our country was in the midst of a recession when those barbaric acts
of September 11 took place. We have all witnessed the resulting shock
waves that were sent through the economy. Recent evidence suggests that
we may finally be on the road to economic recovery. The resulting
damage from a future act of terrorism against an uninsured business
sector is too awful to contemplate.
Fortunately, this scenario is easily preventable and we in Congress
must take the necessary steps to ensure that this future does not come
to pass. Our swift passage of H.R. 3210 will serve that purpose.
I therefore strongly urge my colleagues to lend support to this vital
measure.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. This
legislation will help ensure that businesses are able to acquire
property and casualty insurance while still providing full taxpayer
protection against terrorist losses.
This Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the
House Financial Services Committee from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for both
introducing this legislation and for his efforts in moving this
legislation. Additional appreciation is expressed to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who played a crucial role in
drafting this legislation. On most crucial parts of this legislation
there was bipartisan cooperation and assistance led by the ranking
minority member of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce).
The uncertainty caused by the terrorist events on September 11 have
resulted in our attention to the possibility of severe future problems
for the insurance industry and the insured, even a crisis, from
additional severe terrorist attacks. To illustrate this, reinsurance
companies provide insurance against massive losses for insurance
companies. Many commercial reinsurance policies need to be renewed by a
December 31 deadline of this year. Since this terrorist attack, many
primary insurance companies, because they cannot receive reinsurance,
have sent notice cancellations to businesses indicating that they will
not receive coverage for losses caused by terrorist activities. If both
small and large businesses are unable to receive insurance coverage for
acts of terrorism by the end of the year, it will contribute to the
further instability of the American economy. Insurance provides a very
important element of the stability needed by businesses to continue
functioning and investing, and for bankers to continue lending to
businesses.
As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has
jurisdiction over the important elements of the limited Federal role in
commercial insurance, this Member supports this legislation for the
following two reasons. First, obviously it helps ensure that commercial
insurance continues to be available for businesses--and available at
affordable costs. Second, it provides necessary taxpayer protections
against possible severe terrorist losses to businesses.
Under this legislation, Federal assistance will be provided to those
commercial insurers which have suffered a significant terrorist loss
over a specific dollar threshold. The Secretary of the Treasury will
determine if there has been an industry-wide loss to the commercial
property and casualty insurance industry exceeding $1 billion due to a
terrorist act. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury can also make
a company-specific triggering determination if industry-wide losses
exceed $100 million and the portion of those losses for the insurer
exceed both 10 percent of the company's capital surplus and net
premiums.
If one of these thresholds is reached, the Federal Government will
provide to each relevant insurance company 90 percent of the amount of
insured terrorism losses minus $5 million. This Federal cost-sharing is
capped at $100 billion.
Unlike the different Senate approaches which are being proposed, the
House legislation requires the Federal assistance to be paid back in
full by the insurance companies who suffered the terrorist loss. Under
H.R. 3210, the relevant insurance companies will be required to pay
assessments back to the Federal Government for up to $20 billion of
Federal assistance over a three year time period. Above this $20
billion threshold, up to $100 billion, in order to recoup the level of
Federal assistance, the Secretary of the Treasury will impose a
commercial policyholder surcharge.
Since the insurance companies are required to pay back the Federal
Government for the exact level of Federal assistance through both
assessments on the industry and/or commercial policyholder surcharges,
this legislation ensures that taxpayers are not liable for the Federal
cost-sharing. Therefore, this legislation is not an insurance company
bailout; it protects the American taxpayer against a big hit while
continuing to maintain insurability against terrorist attacks.
This legislation also protects taxpayers from punitive damages
against insurance companies for terrorist loses in Federal court. Since
the Federal Government is providing assistance to insurance companies
in cases of significant terrorist losses, punitive damages against
insurance companies could result in taxpayer liability. This
legislation does not limit a plaintiff's right to hold a primary
tortfeasor liable for a terrorist act. For my Nebraska constituents, it
is important to note that punitive damages are not allowed under
Nebraska state law in Nebraska state courts.
In conclusion, since this legislation balances the need of businesses
to continue to receive commercial insurance against terrorist acts at
affordable costs, with taxpayer liability protection, this Member urges
his colleagues to support H.R. 3210.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
I do not disagree that the business of commercial insurance
underwriting faces difficult times ahead as we confront the threat of
terrorism against our homeland. But we have our priorities backward.
Insurance underwriters are not the only ones facing difficult times.
Since September 11, hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their
jobs because of the attacks and subsequent accelerated economic
slowdown. Indeed, I have met on several occasions with hundreds of
workers in California's 36th District whose livelihoods and futures
were suspended when they were laid off following the attacks.
Many of these workers were directly employed in the aviation
industry, which took a tremendous hit on September 11. Many thousands
more were employed at Los Angeles International Airport and in the
associated hospitality industry, which relies on business travelers and
tourists. Hundreds more were affected as the consequences of September
11 rippled through the local economy.
Mr. Speaker, these individuals and their families are my top
priorities. Last month I introduced legislation to give first
preference to qualified laid-off aviation workers for the new airport
security positions created by the Aviation Security Act. Regrettably,
that bill languishes in the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, though 44 of my colleagues recently joined me in writing
Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta requesting that he incorporate
this initiative in the regulations he issues to implement the new
Airline Security Act.
Aiding unemployed workers can no longer take a back seat. Indeed, the
House is still waiting for the Speaker of the House to fulfill the
promise he made at the time of the Airline Bailout Bill to bring to the
floor legislation providing relief to these individuals.
Until Congress and the Administration act to aid these unemployed
workers, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that addresses one
more industry, however meritorious their claim.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, and in support of the
LaFalce substitute to that bill.
Once again, the House is being asked to consider legislation that
purports to address a legitimate public need but which is cloaked in
special interest giveaways that do harm to the public interest.
[[Page 23360]]
First, we acted to provide a $15 billion airline bailout that did
nothing to help laid-off airline workers, improve safety or even
guarantee that funds would be reinvested in improving American
airlines. Airline workers are still waiting for unemployment insurance
compensation and health care benefits. The need to help airlines and
their employees after the tragedies of September 11 was legitimate, but
the legislation we passed was a special interest giveaway that failed
to meet that need.
Second, we passed a so-called economic stimulus bill that will do
little to stimulate the economy but instead includes tax breaks for the
wealthy and for giant corporations, including refunds for taxes paid
back to 1986 and incentives to invest overseas. And, again, the needs
of laid-off workers and their families are ignored. We need to enact
economic recovery measures, but the House-passed bill is largely a
package of long-demanded tax breaks that will bring little, if any,
benefit to the vast majority of American families and small businesses.
Today, we are being asked to pass the legislation that not only
provides an unwarranted bailout to the insurance industry but actually
takes away consumer protections by making it extremely difficult for
those injured to seek full compensation. Again, there is a legitimate
concern. Although no one denies that the insurance industry has
sufficient revenues to meet its current obligations, there is a need to
address the decision of reinsurance companies to stop providing
terrorism risk coverage in the future. This problem would seem to
demand a narrow, well-considered approach. But this vehicle has served
as a magnet for companies that are trying to avoid responsibility by
limiting their payout liabilities and by preventing injured consumers
from getting their fair day in court.
As the Washington Post reported today, ``The insurance industry's
lobbying campaign for federal help covering future terrorism claims was
in full swing last month when a group representing Lloyd's of London
investors published a newsletter highlighting the `historic
opportunity' for insurers to make money after the September 11
attacks.'' This is not the history that we want to write here today.
In the event of future terrorist attacks, H.R. 3210 requires that
U.S. taxpayers pay for 90 percent of all claims, including first dollar
losses. It is simply outrageous that, as unemployed workers and their
families are waiting for federal assistance, our first priority should
be to bail out an insurance industry that is sitting on major reserves.
The LaFalce substitute, unlike the underlying bill, would require that
the industry pay a deductible of at least $5 to $10 billion annually.
The LaFalce substitute not only protects U.S. taxpayers, it ensures
that insurance companies will still have incentives to press their
policyholders to act to improve safety and security. That is why groups
like Consumer Federation of America, the National Taxpayers Union, and
Consumers Union oppose H.R. 3210 and support the LaFalce substitute.
Even more disturbing to me than the size of the potential bailout in
H.R. 3210 is the assault on the rights of victims. There is no
justification for taking away the rights of injured consumers or their
families to seek redress through our civil justice system. There is no
justification for immunizing companies from dangerous behavior. Yet,
H.R. 3210 would do just that.
H.R. 3210 would prevent future juries from awarding punitive damages.
These damages are extremely rare and used only where injuries are
caused by recklessly dangerous and irresponsible conduct. Under H.R.
3210, a security firm that hires felons, a building owner who refuses
to put in fire escapes, a construction firm that doesn't meet building
codes, or a company that fails to provide escape procedures for persons
with disabilities would be immunized from punitive damages.
H.R. 3210 also limits a jury's or judge's discretion to award non-
economic damages. If we agree to this provision, we are saying that the
loss of a child or husband and the inability to walk or have children
are injuries that are not worthy of full compensation.
Finally, H.R. 3210 provides a one-sided and unfair limitation on
victims by limiting attorney's fees. Defendants would, of course, be
free to pay their attorneys whatever they wish. But plaintiffs, who
usually rely on a contingency fee system because they lack the funds to
pay up front lawyers' fees, are hampered. As a result, victims may find
it difficult to find qualified attorneys to take what may be
complicated and costly cases to prepare.
Unlike H.R. 3210, the LaFalce substitute leaves our civil justice
system intact. It does not assault the rights of victims. And it leaves
in place the potential for damages that will encourage firms to be as
careful as possible in improving security and contingency plans.
We pray that we will not suffer from future terrorist attacks. But,
as we mourn the victims of September 11, we must not take away the
rights of any future victims or their families. Nor should we reduce
the incentives on the insurance industry and other companies to do
everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks or prepare safety
measures in case they occur. By limiting insurance industry liability,
shielding wrongdoers from liability, and reducing the ability of
victims to recover for their losses, H.R. 3210 would do far more harm
than good. It should be defeated.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act. We worked hard to make sure that the taxpayers' money
is protected and that we have taken care of the victims of terrorism.
The Terrorism Risk Protection Act is essential to America's economic
security. Right now, we have a problem: small insurers can be
overwhelmed by the cost of a terrorist attack; a major of insurance
contracts will expire at the end of the year, destabilizing our economy
if nothing is done; and currently, insurers have no incentive to
``write in'' terrorism coverage in their policies.
As Members of both parties have repeatedly pointed out, this bill
protects every sector of the economy--every noninsurance worker and
employer--by providing a temporary legislative backstop that will make
it possible for American companies to gain the insurance they need to
continue operating in the post-September 11 environment where threats
of terrorism still exist.
The Terrorism Risk Protection Act is a very pro-taxpayer, pro-
consumer proposal, which provides significant benefits to both
commercial industry and policyholders, while requiring relatively
little regulation.
By passing the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, today we greatly
increase the capacity of insurers to offer terrorism coverage; we
protect small and large policyholders insurers, while retaining
incentives for risk management and efficient claims processing.
However, I do have reservations on expanding the scope of the
punitive damages ban beyond simply the use of government funds by
attaching tort reform language to this legislation. Instead of limiting
punitive damages we should ensure that the wrongdoer bear the financial
burden, not an insurance company or the taxpayer. I am concerned that
the inclusion of punitive damage language would limit victims' rights
by protecting companies that fail to implement appropriate safety
measures or do not act responsibly in the face of credible threats. My
preference would have been to pass a bill without attaching the tort
reform measure.
We have worked hard over the past few days and weeks to avoid the
possibility of any economic disruption that could result from a lack of
available, affordable terrorism insurance. Today, I am proud to say
that we have worked to help provide commercial insurance for terrorism
and strengthen our economy by passing the Terrorism Risk Protection
Act.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we could have and should have a much
stronger bill on the floor, both to protect our economy, and to protect
the victims of terrorist attacks.
Given the extraordinary circumstances, it is reasonable to provide a
Federal ``backstop'' to the insurance industry for terrorist attacks.
Developers, builders, and the people they employ need to know that
insurance is available--otherwise, important projects may come to a
halt, American commerce will be hurt, and jobs will be lost. The
problem is while the Republican bill provides a guarantee to the
insurance industry, it does not in turn require that the industry
provides the insurance when it is needed; the Democratic substitute
does.
We also need to make sure that in the event of an attack, victims can
go after any negligent parties. But the Republican bill severely limits
victims' rights--even in cases where the negligence was willful. That
is not, in my view, a defensible position.
Finally, while we are undertaking this important effort, we should
also be doing much more for the many American workers who have already
lost their jobs.
I support guaranteeing insurance against terrorism is readily
available.
I support full victims' rights.
And it is because of my belief in those principles that I must oppose
final passage, with the hope and trust that these deficiencies can be
fixed in conference.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues
to support final passage of this important legislation. I want to thank
Ranking Member LaFalce and Congressman Kanjorski for all their hard
work in bringing an economically vital issue to the top of Congress'
agenda.
Finding a solution to the impending insurance crisis is vital to our
long-term economic security. Unfortunately, the events of September 11
have made a substantial impact on
[[Page 23361]]
the marketplace and we now face contracting insurance and reinsurance
markets. This tightening could have a devastating effect on the
economy, particularly with regard to real estate markets, small
business lending, and urban development activities. Without insurance,
banks will not lend money to developers, businesses will be unable to
get financing for new projects, and credit will be scarce as investors
will be unwilling to take on the additional risk of not having
insurance. Providing a Federal backstop is critical to guaranteeing
that insurance remains available.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today contains some very troubling
provisions that would weaken our legal system of mutual responsibility.
I want to make it clear that I will continue working to remove these
overly broad and extreme provisions from this legislation. However, as
insurance is the linchpin of our Nation's economic stability, we must
act on this important issue. Our economy depends on it.
I look forward to working with my colleagues through conference as
this bill moves forward. I am committed to developing a final
legislative product that will provide our economy with the stability
that insurance guarantees, without weakening our legal system of mutual
responsibility.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I
commend the Financial Services Committee on their hard work to reach a
compromise on this important issue. To maintain stability within the
insurance industry and the economy as a whole, it is essential that the
Federal Government provide a backstop for losses due to potential acts
of terrorism. It is too bad the Republican leadership and their Rules
Committee are undercutting this work.
I will not vote for a bill in which the democratic process has once
again been subverted in favor of a partisan maneuver. It risks
needlessly delaying important relief that we could approve and have on
the President's desk in a matter of hours. In fact, this is a
continuation of a pattern that's moving beyond partisanship to a point
where it is reckless. These bills have been twisted beyond recognition
of any solution reached by the original bill. First it was the Airline
Bailout, then the PATRIOT Act which passed out of the Judiciary
Committee unanimously only to be substituted with a Republican
alternative. The pattern continued with the Economic Stimulus package
and the Airline Security bill. It is unconscionable that the Republican
leadership continue to act in such a partisan manner to delay this
legislation when it is critical that Congress act quickly and in a
united fashion to stabilize our insurance industry and assure help to
those in dire need.
H.R. 3210, as amended in the Rules Committee, attempts to force
adoption of extraordinarily controversial changes in legal procedures
that have nothing to do with preserving a market for terrorism
insurance coverage. The end result is that the rights of victims and
their families to recover fair compensation would be greatly limited in
any future terrorist related incidents.
For instance, the bill seeks to ban punitive damages, which would
shield all defendants, not just insurers, even those who had been
criminally negligent. As an example, this bill would protect a building
owner from paying punitive damages who, despite numerous citations and
warnings, refused to install emergency lighting and escape routes in
his building. Residents and families of residents injured or killed
during a terrorist attack as a result of the owner's disregard for
State or local safety codes should be allowed to pursue their claims to
the full extent of the law. The bill also limits the ability of victims
to receive awards for noneconomic damages. These issues have no place
in this urgent terrorism insurance bill. Because the Republican
leadership will not allow a vote on a clean bill, I have no choice but
to vote no. I will not support the continued actions of the Republican
leadership to undercut the committee process that is essential to
effective solutions.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, I
rise in strong support of the bipartisan Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
I also wish to thank Financial Services committee Chairman Oxley for
his leadership on this issue and to recognize the efforts of committee
and subcommittee Ranking Members LaFalce and Kanjorksi.
While economic uncertainty can lead to stock market volatility and
wide fluctuations in value--a phenomenon we are now witnessing daily--
uncertainty in the operation of a business can be downright halting or
fatal. This is why insurance plays such a vital role in our economy,
providing security in calamity and the promise of liquidity necessary
for the smooth functioning of the wheels of commerce.
Fortunately, property-and-casualty insurers were able to cover
obligations for the estimated $40 billion in damages related to
September 11. But that may not be the case should any subsequent and
comparably costly events take place. Worse still, the availability and
affordability of terrorism insurance itself will become increasingly
less likely. The primary cause for the terrorism coverage crunch is the
fact that reinsurance companies, which back up the insurers by helping
them spread risk, say they will not renew terrorism-related coverage by
December 31, when some 70 percent of policies expire.
Insurers and reinsurers cannot underwrite infinite risks with finite
capital. Without the ability to spread risk through reinsurers,
insurance companies face constraints against covering businesses
against acts of terrorism. Here's the result, as one magazine recently
put it: ``With no coverage, lenders won't lend, builders won't build,
and business will grind to a halt.''
With an already weakened economy, many in Congress understand that,
like it or not, the Federal Government must take action quickly to
avert such a systemic catastrophe. But there have been differences over
the scope and form of this government intervention in the marketplace,
and, it now appears, over just how urgently action is needed.
The Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly passed the House's
legislative response, H.R. 3210. Today I come before you to impress
upon you the need for passage of this important bill and why, on three
points in particular, it will be important for us to maintain the
integrity of the bill.
Time is of the essence. Commercial property and casualty insurance is
usually written on a 1- or 2-year basis, with approximately 70 percent
of reinsurance contracts up for renewal on January 1, 2002. The
potential unavailability of terrorism risk coverage for businesses
comes at precisely the time of greatest demand for the insurance.
Moreover, insurance coverage is almost universally a requirement of any
commercial lending contract. Lenders will simply not provide financing
for new or existing construction without certainty that the properties
and businesses that they are funding have adequate insurance to protect
the lenders' investment. Thus, the lack of available insurance for
terrorism risk has adverse consequences that would spread throughout
the entire economy and stifle its growth. There is a high probability
that the economy as a whole would suffer tremendously without
meaningful and affordable terrorism coverage.
To say that these policies expire on December 31 is not to say that
we, as policymakers, have until that time to take decisive action. In
fact, in many cases we have already crossed the threshold into that
time when businesses begin their search and make their arrangements to
secure coverage for next year. Even under normal circumstances this
process, in itself, takes time, typically a month or even more. We have
worked closely with the Financial Services Committee Democrats to
address many of their concerns regarding the insurance mechanism
established by the bill. Furthermore, we have cooperated with the other
committees of jurisdiction, specifically, the Judiciary and Ways and
Means Committees to ensure that this legislation represents the best
efforts of this body as a whole. I believe that the Armey bill
introduced today reflects this bipartisan achievement.
Unfortunately, the other Chamber of Congress has not even begun
serious consideration of this issue. Already, with each passing day of
congressional inactivity in providing assistance for the affordability
and availability of terrorism insurance, we run the risk of being held
accountable, and deservedly so, for fiddling while Rome burned.
We must limit government exposure to actual losses and provide timely
and efficient adjudication of claims. Acts of terrorism give rise to
very unique sets of facts and a complexity of interested parties that
is uncommon in tort law. It is essential that the administration of the
program established by this legislation is performed in a consistent
and timely manner. Additionally, the exposure of the Federal Government
as an insurer for anything other than actual losses should be avoided.
To these ends this bill creates an exclusive Federal cause of action
and limits the venues in which claims can be brought. We do not want to
see a situation like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing where cases
are just now going to trial.
H.R. 3210 also prohibits claims for punitive damages arising out of
terrorist acts and does not allow joint and several liability for
noneconomic damages caused by terrorist acts.
The sovereign immunity provisions of this bill will help ensure the
fair and prompt distribution of the enormous public and private
[[Page 23362]]
resources that would be needed to respond to terrorist acts of any
magnitude.
We must maintain provisions of repayment of taxpayer dollars. Unlike
all other proposals, H.R. 3210 protects taxpayers, requiring insurers,
when they're again able to stand on their own two feet, to pay back
over time whatever taxpayer dollars they received during their short-
term time of need. Without this I personally don't see how any proposal
could be called anything but a bailout--an open checkbook, drawn out of
taxpayer pockets.
Paying back government assistance is neither a liberal nor a
conservative concept. Or more precisely, it's both liberal and
conservative, because it values common sense and, above all, our common
concerns of fairness for both consumers and taxpayers--two groups
rarely, if ever, afforded the opportunity to skip out on their bills.
Not surprisingly, both the Consumer Federation of America and the
Citizens Against Government Waste, two prominent grass-roots advocacy
groups, have come out in support of the ``loan-based'' over the
``giveaway'' approach to the insurance industry.
Changes in the Tax Code are our only mechanism to provide an exit
strategy for taxpayers. Again, unlike other proposals, our bill points
toward how--not just when--the Federal Government can end its market
intervention. It includes a study of tax-free reserving of insurance
funds for terrorism risk to assist the private market that, at the end
of the day, will be made healthier, stronger, and more independent than
it was when we began.
The reason we're in this bind to begin with, remember, is that
reinsurance companies, mostly located offshore in Europe, will no
longer make their pool of resources available for backing terrorism
insurers. In the long run, the strongest answer to the reinsurance
vacuum, and the surest way to avoid having the government serving that
function indefinitely, is to take away the barriers that keep American
insurers from filling it themselves. We can accomplish this quite
easily by simply deferring taxation on reserves that insurance
companies can set aside and build up exclusively for protection against
future terrorist attacks.
Hardly a ``tax break'' for insurance companies, which wouldn't be
able to use the money for any other purpose, it would serve as a
catalyst and incentive for an industry to end its own dependence on
government. What we certainly don't need is a situation in which
taxpayers unendingly subsidize an industry while it continues posting
very healthy profits.
And, if we have a plan that provides market stability without simply
giving away the taxpayers' money--one that temporarily backs insurers
without indefinitely bailing them out--what else, really, do we need?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Oxley
and Subcommittee Chairman Richard Baker for their hard work on this
legislation.
As a former insurance agent and counselor, I understand the
challenges the insurance industry faces after the tragic events of
September 11. I believe this bill moves us in the right direction to
reach a solution before the end of the year when most of the current
policies expire.
Let's be clear--we are not bailing out the insurance industry. But we
must be equally clear that, without action, companies and individuals
will face skyrocketing premiums or have to buy policies that do not
cover terrorist events. No action risks further harm to our economy.
This bill provides a federal risk-sharing loan program to ensure the
liquidity to the industry. The federal government will pay 90 percent
of insurance claims once triggered by a terrorist event costing over
$100 million. However, it also provides flexibility to help smaller
companies who take a significant loss but do not reach that trigger
amount. These loans will be repaid over time by the industry, providing
assistance but not a bailout. The loan program sunsets after 1 year so
that Congress can revisit any unforeseen consequences of this bill and
make further changes.
I think this bill is a good starting point, and we must get started.
I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and settle our
differences with the Senate in Conference quickly so we can get
something to the President before the end of the year.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the effort to
provide the insurance industry a helping hand in the aftermath of the
September 11th attacks. The insurance industry estimates that it will
have approximately $60 billion in claims as a direct result of these
events. And though the industry has the available capital to cover
these claims now, payment on future claims are in grave doubt. In fact,
many insurance companies are considering dropping this product
altogether. The damage to our Nation's economy if that were to happen
would be grievous. Construction companies and building owners would not
be able to get adequate insurance, which in turn would prevent them
from being able to get access to bonds to build and renovate their
structures.
Yet, what does the Majority bring to the floor today? Is it a bill
that helps the insurance industry? Somewhat. What else does it do? The
Republican majority is using this as a vehicle to advance one of its
long held goals--tort reform. But, instead of having a full and just
debate on tort reform, they are slipping provisions into a necessary
and important bill.
And what do they do with these provisions? They once again tell the
American people that the majority party believes people with lots of
money are more important that the average American. This bill prevents
non-economic damages from being awarded. If someone loses a spouse in a
terrorist attack, all one can expect is remuneration for lost wages.
But what about the other losses--such as companionship, emotional
support, and parenting? Sorry, the majority says, you are out of luck
there.
The insurance industry came to Congress with a sensible idea. It
asked us to adopt a system similar to that of Britain by creating a
terrorism reinsurance pool under which insurers voluntarily buy
reinsurance coverage from the government, with pooled premiums being
used to cover terrorism claims. Sounds pretty sensible to me. Instead,
this bill creates a loan program--which might help, but certainly isn't
the easiest or cleanest solution. If we can provide millions each year
for the National Flood Insurance program, why can't we do the same for
a terrorism reinsurance program.
Finally, my colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to
mention one thing that has come to my attention regarding the clean up
of ground zero. The construction companies doing the clean up and
removal presently have no indemnity for their work. In fact, they are
still working without a written contract. Their workers are being
exposed to an extremely hazardous working environment. If we are to
provide liability protections to the airline industry and the building
owners, I urge my colleagues to move immediately to provide indemnity
protections to the construction companies. If we don't, these companies
are in danger of financial ruin and future incidents of terrorism will
have a very different response from such companies.
So, my colleagues, let's get serious about solving these problems.
Vote no on this bill and support real reinsurance reform.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the beleaguered
workers of this country who have been doubly affected by both the
recession that the experts now say that we have been in since last
spring and the ripple effects of September 11.
According to the Department of Labor, 415,000 Americans lost their
jobs in the month of October. Eight hundred people in my very small
district of the U.S. Virgin Islands have lost their jobs in our tourism
dependent district--an increase of over 150 percent over last year.
Travel agents, airline workers, taxi drivers, chefs and hotel service
employees will now face the holidays without jobs, without health and
other benefits in an economy that will be slow to absorb them any where
else.
Mr. Speaker, we were right to provide relief for the airlines, but we
will be remiss if we do not see the individual lives that are affected
by the loss of jobs in the downturn of our once thriving economy. It is
also right that we provide assistance to the insurance industry in the
wake of the September 11th attack. I oppose the Republican Leadership
terrorism insurance relief bill, though because it added unnecessary
and unrelated provisions to advance their partisan agenda on tort
reform. I support the LaFalce Democratic substitute, which avoids
dramatic premium increases for businesses and consumers but also
insures that industry assumes their appropriate financial
responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, let's do right by the working men and women of our
country. Let's provide relief that will help them weather this storm
until our economy rebounds.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3210.
H.R. 3210, in its present form, contains a litany of tort reform
provisions that are necessary to achieve the basic purpose of this
bill. This bill began as a bipartisan effort to provide a mechanism for
addressing the insurance risk in connection with terrorist acts, but
has ended up as yet another vehicle to enact a one-sided, tort reform
agenda, which has failed every time it has been subjected to the
regular, deliberative legislative process.
Under this bill, all victims of a future terrorist act will be
required to bring their action in federal court. Once the Secretary of
the Treasury makes a determination that a ``terrorist act'' occurred,
then all claims with any relation to that terrorist act must be brought
in federal
[[Page 23363]]
court. There would be no opportunity for a victim to choose to bring an
action in state court, even though the state court may otherwise have
jurisdiction over the matter and even though the state court may be
more convenient or more efficient. This process will cause unnecessary
complications related to the statute of limitations, if suit is filed
in the wrong court, and will present unnecessary questions related to
what ``related to terrorism'' means in those cases in which terrorism
might have a vague connection to the cause of action. For example, are
cases involving failure to perform in a contract dispute ``related to
terrorism'' if the airline disruption after September 11 is alleged to
be a factor? And if a questionable ``related to terrorism'' defense is
offered, must the case be remanded to federal court?
Worse, this bill contains radical liability limitations that are not
even limited to cases involving insurance coverage and includes other
provisions that bear little relationship to the issue of insurance. For
example, future victims of terrorism would be precluded from collecting
punitive damages--even in cases where it can be shown that the most
outrageous acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct
contributed to the act of terrorism.
This bill would also severely limit the ability of the victims of
terrorism to collect non-economic damages. Non-economic damages include
physical impairment, disfigurement and mental anguish, and these will
be denied, whether insurance is available or not.
Further, this bill puts extreme and unprecedented limits on
plaintiff's attorney's fees. In the bill which purports to assist
insurance companies, it is important to note that insurance companies
do not pay plaintiff's attorney's fees; those fees are paid by the
plaintiff out of the recovery. Therefore, the amount the insurance
company pays is not effected by the size of the attorney's fee. The
only effect this provision might have on the insurance company is to
deny some plaintiffs the ability to hire an attorney to bring a
meritorious claim. Only meritorious claims will be effected, because
most attorneys get nothing, if there is no recovery. It is also
important to note that the bill does not limit defense attorney's
fees--which the insurance companies do pay.
There is no good reason for including these extreme tort reform
provisions that will limit the rights of victims in a bill which is
supposed to be designed to address the capacity of insurers to provide
coverage for risks from terrorism. I therefore urge my colleagues to
vote against H.R. 3210 in its current form.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. I am very concerned about
tort provisions that were added to the bill by the House Rules
Committee. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3210, I am disappointed
that the House Rules Committee acted to rewrite this bill.
I strongly believe that we must act to ensure that terrorism
insurance is available for our nation's property owners. Without such
coverage, we endanger our nation's economy. With the current recession
which we are experiencing, I do not believe that we should jeopardize
our economy. Today, many property owners are receiving property
insurance renewal notices which specifically exclude terrorism
coverage. For many property owners, failure to purchase terrorism
insurance may jeopardize their credit and result in devastating actions
by their creditors.
I am disappointed that the underlying bill includes tort reform
provisions which are fatally flawed. As a sponsor of an amendment to
the liability provisions in this bill, I am concerned that the new
liability provisions will hurt victims of terrorism and are not
necessary for this bill. The underlying bill was introduced at the last
minute with many onerous provisions which are not reasonable and fair.
First, the liability section will preclude spouses of victims from
seeking non-economic damages when a spouse is lost to a terrorism
attack. I do not believe that the House of Representatives should be
limiting spouses of victims to collect only lost wages and no other
reparations. This is an unprecedented effort to cause economic
hardships for victims of terrorism.
I am disappointed that the House of Representatives will have to vote
today on the underlying bill which has been rewritten since it was
reported from the House Financial Services Committee. As a senior
member of the House Financial Services Committee, I offered a
critically important amendment to the liability section of this bill.
The Bentsen amendment would have protected the taxpayers by ensuring
that the government nor the insurance policy could be held liable for
either punitive damages or non-economic damages related to this
coverage. I believe it is proper to provide this protection for the
taxpayers. In order to protect consumers, my amendment ensures that
consumers can seek both punitive and non-economic damages from parties
who have committed a gross negligent act related to terrorist attacks.
I believe that the Bentsen amendment is fair and reasonable. For
example, an airline security firm should be responsible for its
employees who allow a terrorist to knowingly pass through a security
check. I also want to highlight that my amendment on tort reform was
approved on a bipartisan basis and represented the consensus of our
committee on this issue. I am disappointed that the House Rules
Committee acted to eviscerate my language.
I also want to express my support for the underlying loan structure
in the underlying bill. In fact, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3210,
I cosponsored this bill in part because of the loan structure included
in it. I also strongly supported efforts to keep this program as a
temporary program. During consideration of this bill, I offered an
amendment that requires that this program can only be renewed on a
yearly basis. In addition, my amendment requires the Administration to
provide a report to Congress detailing why this program has been
renewed. I believe that these accountability provisions are necessary
to ensure that this program is established for a short time period. I
believe that the reinsurance market for terrorism coverage will recover
and we should act prudently.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3210,
the Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
It is true that certain key industries, including insurance
companies, have been negatively impacted by the tragic events of
September 11 and legitimately deserve assistance from the American
public.
While the bill before us today provides some genuinely needed relief
for the insurance industry, unfortunately it fails in other important
ways.
First, instead of keeping the bill focused on providing a federal
``safety net'' for insurance companies in the wake of the September
11th attacks, the Republican leadership has included provisions that
limit the rights of victims to pursue legal action as a result of any
future terrorist attacks. These last-minute tort reform provisions
include a complete ban on punitive damages, limits on non-economic
damages, and caps on attorney's fees. These restrictions are not only
unwarranted and unrelated to this bill, but they will severely limit
the ability of victims to obtain any reimbursement they are due as a
result of negligence. These provisions were not included in the bi-
partisan bill approved by the Financial Services Committee and are
completely unnecessary and unrelated to the insurance relief provided
by the bill.
Next, I believe that in granting government assistance to any sector,
Congress must take positive steps to ensure that these companies follow
responsible and fair business practices by providing affordable,
quality services to the American taxpayer.
In the case of the insurance industry, companies have a
responsibility to make insurance coverage available at affordable rates
to those who need it. History indicates that it is common for insurers
to increase the cost of policies after major catastrophes, whether
these are weather-related, riot-related or other events. Therefore it
is conceivable that insurers may use the tragic events of September 11
to raise rates, withdraw from some markets, and try to shift risk onto
the government.
As data from the California Department of Insurance shows, lack of
affordable insurance is a serious problem for many communities,
especially low and moderate-income communities and communities of
color, such as in my Los Angeles-based Congressional District. When
uninsured or under-insured buildings suffer damage in these
communities, oftentimes they are not repaired or replaced. As a result,
the property owner suffer financial losses and the community is exposed
to social and economic instability. Homeowners, renters and business
owners are all at risk.
Since the taxpayers are assuming the risk to prop up the insurance
industry, Congress must put into place protections to insure that
Americans have access to affordable, high quality insurance coverage
for their homes and businesses.
Establishing requirements for insurance companies to publicly report
the availability and affordability of their policies is a key component
of these protections. Such public disclosure will inform Congress and
the American people about the fairness of various insurance policies.
In addition, the insurance industry should be required to invest in
low-income neighborhoods and minority communities. Because of the
Community Reinvestment Act, banks have been required to invest in low-
income neighborhoods and have found significantly financial
opportunities in these communities. Investments such as these are
particularly critical to struggling communities in the current
difficult
[[Page 23364]]
economically times. However, as the data from the California Department
of Insurance and the California Reinvestment Committee shows, insurers
have essentially balked at making significant contributions and
investments in these communities. I am submitting this data for
inclusion in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, the bill before us is fatally flawed.
It insures that the insurance industry is protected while leaving too
many Americans with little or no assurance of either affordable,
quality insurance coverage or corporate investment in their
communities.
I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed bill and pass a measure
that insures protection for the American public not just the insurance
industry.
California Reinvestment Committee--Insurance Investment Issues
In 1999, Californians paid $81 billion in insurance
premiums. Of those premiums, $36 billion were for property
and casualty insurance coverage.
According to the 1998 California Insurance Commissioner's
Report on Underserved Communities, only 6.43 percent of 1997
California property and casualty insurance policies were in
the 138 underserved zip codes identified by the Department
which represent 15 percent of the state's population. (This
is the most recent report available.)
In 2000, the California Organized Investment Network
(COIN), an investment unit of the California Department of
Insurance designed by insurers, had only $108 million in
investments, which represent 0.13 percent of 1999 insurance
premiums paid by Californians.
In 2000, COIN had less than $5 million in insurance
investments, which represent 0.01 percent of California
insurance premiums.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). All time for general debate
on the bill has expired.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. LaFalce
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
LaFalce:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorism
Risk Protection Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Congressional findings.
Sec. 3. Authority of Secretary of the Treasury.
Sec. 4. Submission of premium information to Secretary.
Sec. 5. Initial and subsequent triggering determinations.
Sec. 6. Federal cost-sharing for commercial insurers.
Sec. 7. Assessments.
Sec. 8. Terrorism loss repayment surcharge.
Sec. 9. Administration of assessments and surcharges.
Sec. 10. Application to self-insurance arrangements and offshore
insurers and reinsurers.
Sec. 11. Requirement to provide terrorism coverage.
Sec. 12. State preemption.
Sec. 13. Consistent State guidelines for coverage for acts of
terrorism.
Sec. 14. Consultation with State insurance regulators and NAIC.
Sec. 15. Study of potential effects of terrorism on life insurance
industry.
Sec. 16. Railroad and trucking insurance study.
Sec. 17. Study of reinsurance pool system for future acts of terrorism.
Sec. 18. Definitions.
Sec. 19. Covered period and extension of program.
Sec. 20. Regulations.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon of September 11, 2001, resulted in a large number of
deaths and injuries, the destruction and damage to buildings,
and interruption of business operations;
(2) the attacks have inflicted possibly the largest losses
ever incurred by insurers and reinsurers in a single day;
(3) while the insurance and reinsurance industries have
committed to pay the losses arising from the September 11
attacks, the resulting disruption has created widespread
market uncertainties with regard to the risk of losses
arising from possible future terrorist attacks;
(4) such uncertainty threatens the continued availability
of United States commercial property and casualty insurance
for terrorism risk at meaningful coverage levels;
(5) the unavailability of affordable commercial property
and casualty insurance for terrorist acts threatens the
growth and stability of the United States economy, including
impeding the ability of financial services providers to
finance commercial property acquisitions and new
construction;
(6) in the past, the private insurance and reinsurance
markets have shown a remarkable resiliency in adapting to
changed circumstances;
(7) given time, the private markets will diversify and
develop risk spreading mechanisms to increase capacity and
guard against possible future losses incurred by terrorist
attacks;
(8) it is necessary to create a temporary industry risk
sharing program to ensure the continued availability of
commercial property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
for terrorism-related risks;
(9) such action is necessary to limit immediate market
disruptions, encourage economic stabilization, and facilitate
a transition to a viable market for private terrorism risk
insurance; and
(10) terrorism insurance plays an important role in the
efficient functioning of the economy and the financing of
commercial property acquisitions and new construction and,
therefore, the Congress intends to continue to monitor,
review, and evaluate the private terrorism insurance and
reinsurance marketplace to determine whether additional
action is necessary to maintain the long-term stability of
the real estate and capital markets.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for
carrying out a program for financial assistance for
commercial property and casualty insurers, as provided in
this Act.
SEC. 4. SUBMISSION OF PREMIUM INFORMATION TO SECRETARY.
To the extent such information is not otherwise available
to the Secretary, the Secretary may require each insurer to
submit, to the Secretary or to the NAIC, a statement
specifying the net premium amount of coverage written by such
insurer under each line of commercial property and casualty
insurance sold by such insurer during such periods as the
Secretary may provide.
SEC. 5. INITIAL AND SUBSEQUENT TRIGGERING DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, a ``triggering
determination'' is a determination by the Secretary that--
(1) an act of terrorism has occurred during the covered
period; and
(2) the industry-wide losses resulting from such occurrence
or from multiple occurrences of acts of terrorism all
occurring during the covered period, exceed $100,000,000.
(b) Determinations Regarding Occurrences.--The Secretary,
after consultation with the Attorney General of the United
States and the Secretary of State, shall have the sole
authority which may not be delegated or designated to any
other officer, employee, or position, for determining
whether--
(1) an occurrence was caused by an act of terrorism; and
(2) an act of terrorism occurred during the covered period.
SEC. 6. FEDERAL COST-SHARING FOR COMMERCIAL INSURERS.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to a triggering determination,
the Secretary shall provide financial assistance to
commercial insurers in accordance with this section to the
extent provided under this section to cover eligible insured
losses resulting from acts of terrorism, which shall be
repaid in accordance with subsection (g).
(b) Industry Obligation Amount.--For purposes of this
section, the industry obligation amount in connection with a
triggering determination is the following amount:
(1) Initial covered period.--In the case of a triggering
determination occurring during the covered period specified
in section 19(a), the difference between--
(A) $5,000,000,000; and
(B) the aggregate amount of industry-wide losses resulting
from the triggering events involved in any triggering
determinations preceding such triggering determination.
(2) Extended covered period.--If the Secretary exercises
the authority under section 19(b) to extend the covered
period, in the case of a triggering determination occurring
during the portion of the covered period consisting of such
extension, the difference between--
(A) $10,000,000,000; and
(B) the aggregate amount of industry-wide losses resulting
from the triggering events involved in any triggering
determinations preceding such triggering determination.
(c) Eligible Insured Losses.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``eligible insured losses'' means, with respect to a
triggering determination, any insured losses resulting from
the triggering event involved that are in excess of the
industry obligation amount for such triggering determination.
(d) Amount of Financial Assistance.--Subject to subsection
(e), with respect to a triggering determination, financial
assistance shall be made available under this section to each
commercial insurer in an
[[Page 23365]]
amount equal to 90 percent of the amount of the eligible
insured losses of the insurer as a result of the triggering
event involved.
(e) Limitations.--
(1) Aggregate limitation.--The aggregate amount of
financial assistance provided pursuant to this section may
not exceed $100,000,000,000.
(2) Notice to congress.--The Secretary shall notify the
Congress if the amount of financial assistance provided
pursuant to this section reaches $100,000,000,000 and the
Congress shall determine the procedures for, and the source
of, any additional payments of financial assistance to cover
such additional insured losses.
(3) Default on assessments and surcharges.--The Secretary
may establish such limitations as may be necessary to ensure
that payments under this section in connection with a
triggering determination are made only to commercial insurers
that are not in default of any obligation under this section
or section 7 to pay assessments or under section 8 to collect
surcharges.
(f) Annual Limit on Individual Insurer Liability.--
(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
(A) Annual insurer limit.--The term ``annual insurer
limit'' means, with respect to a commercial insurer and a
program year, the amount equal to 7 percent of the aggregate
premium amount of all commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage, written by such insurer during the
calendar year preceding such program year, under all lines of
commercial property and casualty insurance.
(B) Limitable losses.--The term ``limitable losses'' means,
for any program year, the industry-wide losses in such
program year that do not exceed the dollar amount specified
in subsection (b)(1)(A) or (b)(2)(A), as applicable to the
program year.
(C) Program year.--The term ``program year'' means the
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and
ending on January 1, 2003. If the Secretary extends the
covered period pursuant to section 20(b), each calendar year
(or portion thereof) covered by such extension shall be a
program year for purposes of this subsection.
(2) Triggering of industry assessments.--If, for any
program year, the amount of the limitable losses for such
program year that are incurred by any single commercial
insurer exceed the annual insurer limit for the commercial
insurer for such program year, the Secretary shall apportion
the amount of such excess limitable losses pursuant to
assessments under paragraph (3).
(3) Industry assessments to cover losses exceeding loss
limit.--For each program year, the Secretary shall, as soon
as practicable, determine the aggregate amount of excess
limitable losses described in paragraph (2), for all
commercial insurers. Subject to paragraph (4), the Secretary
shall assess, to each commercial insurer not described in
paragraph (2), a portion of such aggregate limitable losses
based on the proportion, written by each such commercial
insurer, of the aggregate written premium for the calendar
year preceding such program year.
(4) Operation of annual insurer limit to assessments.--The
sum of the amount of limitable losses incurred by a
commercial insurer in a program year and the aggregate amount
of an assessment under this subsection to such insurer may
not in any case exceed the annual insurer limit for the
insurer.
(5) Notice.--Upon determining the amount of the assessments
under this subsection for a program year, the Secretary
shall, as soon as practicable, provide written notice to each
commercial insurer that is subject to an assessment of the
amount of the assessment and the deadline pursuant to
paragraph (6) for payment of the assessment.
(6) Payment.--Each commercial insurer that is subject to an
assessment under this subsection shall pay to the Secretary
the amount of the assessment not later than 60 days after the
Secretary provides notice of the assessment under paragraph
(5).
(7) Distribution of assessment amounts.--Upon receiving
payment of assessments under this subsection, the Secretary
shall promptly distribute all such amounts among commercial
insurers described in paragraph (2), based on limitable
losses incurred in excess of the annual insurer limits for
such insurers. The Secretary may take such actions, including
making such adjustments and reimbursements, as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
(g) Repayment.--Financial assistance made available under
this section shall be repaid through assessments under
section 7 collected by the Secretary and surcharges remitted
to the Secretary under section 8. Any such amounts collected
or remitted shall be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury.
(h) Final Netting.--The Secretary shall have sole
discretion to determine the time at which claims relating to
any insured loss or act of terrorism shall become final.
(i) Finality of Determinations.--Any determination of the
Secretary under this section shall be final, and shall not be
subject to judicial review.
(j) Emergency Designation.--Congress designates the amount
of new budget authority and outlays in all fiscal years
resulting from this section as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(e)). Such
amount shall be available only to the extent that a request,
that includes designation of such amount as an emergency
requirement as defined in such Act, is transmitted by the
President to Congress.
SEC. 7. ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--In the case of a triggering determination,
each commercial insurer shall be subject to assessments under
this section for the purpose of repaying a portion of the
financial assistance made available under section 6 in
connection with such determination.
(b) Aggregate Assessment.--Pursuant to a triggering
determination, the Secretary shall determine the aggregate
amount (if any) to be assesseed under this section among all
commercial insurers, which shall be equal to the lesser of--
(1) the difference between--
(A) $20,000,000,000; and
(B) the dollar amount specified in paragraph (1)(A) or
(2)(A) of section 6(b), as applicable for such triggering
determination; and
(2) the amount of financial assistance paid under section 6
in connection with the triggering determination.
(c) Method and Timing.--
(1) In general.--The aggregate assessment amount in
connection with a triggering determination shall be assessed
through one or more, as may be necessary pursuant to
paragraph (3), assessments under this section.
(2) Timing.--An assessment under this section in connection
with a triggering determination shall be imposed only upon
the expiration of any 12-month period beginning after such
determination during which no other assessments under this
section have been imposed.
(3) Limitation.--The aggregate amount of any assessments
imposed under this section on any single commercial insurer
during any 12-month period shall not exceed the amount that
is equal to 3 percent of the net premium for such insurer for
such period.
(d) Allocation.--The portion of the aggregate amount of any
assessment under this section that is allocated to each
commercial insurer shall be based on the ratio that the net
premium written by such commercial insurer during the year
during which the assessment is imposed bears to the aggregate
written premium for such year, subject to section 9 and the
limitation under subsection (c)(3) of this section.
(e) Notice and Obligation to Pay.--
(1) Notice.--As soon as practicable after any triggering
determination, the Secretary shall notify each commercial
insurer in writing of an assessment under this section, which
notice shall include the amount of the assessment allocated
to such insurer.
(2) Effect of notice.--Upon notice to a commercial insurer,
the commercial insurer shall be obligated to pay to the
Secretary, not later than 60 days after receipt of such
notice, the amount of the assessment on such commercial
insurer.
(3) Failure to make timely payment.--If any commercial
insurer fails to pay an assessment under this section before
the deadline established under paragraph (2) for the
assessment, the Secretary may take either or both of the
following actions:
(A) Civil monetary penalty.--Assess a civil monetary
penalty pursuant to section 9(d) upon such insurer.
(B) Interest.--Require such insurer to pay interest, at
such rate as the Secretary considers appropriate, on the
amount of the assessment that was not paid before the
deadline established under paragraph (2).
(f) Administrative Flexibility.--
(1) Adjustment of assessments.--The Secretary may provide
for or require estimations of amounts under this section and
may provide for subsequent refunds or require additional
payments to correct such estimations, as appropriate.
(2) Deferral of contributions.--The Secretary may defer the
payment of part or all of an assessment required under this
section to be paid by a commercial insurer, but only to the
extent that the Secretary determines that such deferral is
necessary to avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial
insurer.
(3) Timing of assessments.--The Secretary shall make
adjustments regarding the timing and imposition of
assessments (including the calculation of net premiums and
aggregate written premium) as appropriate for commercial
insurers that provide commercial property and casualty
insurance on a non-calendar year basis.
SEC. 8. TERRORISM LOSS REPAYMENT SURCHARGE.
(a) Determination of Imposition and Collection.--
(1) In general.--If, pursuant to a triggering
determination, the Secretary determines that the aggregate
amount of financial assistance provided pursuant to section 6
exceeds the amount determined pursuant to section 7(b)(1),
the Secretary shall consider and weigh the factors under
paragraph (2) to determine the extent to which a surcharge
under this section should be established.
[[Page 23366]]
(2) Factors.--The factors under this paragraph are--
(A) the ultimate costs to taxpayers if a surcharge under
this section is not established;
(B) the economic conditions in the commercial marketplace;
(C) the affordability of commercial insurance for small-
and medium-sized business; and
(D) such other factors as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Policyholder premium.--Any amount established by the
Secretary as a surcharge under this section shall be
established and imposed as a policyholder premium surcharge
on commercial property and casualty insurance written after
such determination, for the purpose of repaying financial
assistance made available under section 6 in connection with
such triggering determination.
(4) Collection.--The Secretary shall provide for commercial
insurers to collect surcharge amounts established under this
section and remit such amounts collected to the Secretary.
(b) Amount and Duration.--Subject to subsection (c), the
surcharge under this section shall be established in such
amount, and shall apply to commercial property and casualty
insurance written during such period, as the Secretary
determines is necessary to recover the aggregate amount of
financial assistance provided under section 6 in connection
with the triggering determination that exceeds the amount
determined pursuant to section 7(b)(1).
(c) Percentage Limitation.--The surcharge under this
section applicable to commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage may not exceed, on an annual basis, the
amount equal to 3 percent of the premium charged for such
coverage.
(d) Other Terms.--The surcharge under this section shall--
(1) be based on a percentage of the premium amount charged
for commercial property and casualty insurance coverage that
a policy provides; and
(2) be imposed with respect to all commercial property and
casualty insurance coverage written during the period
referred to in subsection (b).
(e) Exclusions.--For purposes of this section, commercial
property and casualty insurance does not include any
reinsurance provided to primary insurance companies.
SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF ASSESSMENTS AND SURCHARGES.
(a) Manner and Method.--
(1) In general.--Except to the extent specified in such
sections, the Secretary shall provide for the manner and
method of carrying out assessments under section 7 and
surcharges under section 8, including the timing and
procedures of making assessments and surcharges, notifying
commercial insurers of assessments and surcharge
requirements, collecting payments from and surcharges through
commercial insurers, and refunding of any excess amounts paid
or crediting such amounts against future assessments.
(2) Effect of assessments and surcharges on urban and
smaller commercial and rural areas and different lines of
insurance.--In determining the method and manner of imposing
assessments under section 7 and surcharges under section 8,
including the amount of such assessments and surcharges, the
Secretary shall take into consideration--
(A) the economic impact of any such assessments and
surcharges on commercial centers of urban areas, including
the effect on commercial rents and commercial insurance
premiums, particularly rents and premiums charged to small
businesses, and the availability of lease space and
commercial insurance within urban areas;
(B) the risk factors related to rural areas and smaller
commercial centers, including the potential exposure to loss
and the likely magnitude of such loss, as well as any
resulting cross-subsidization that might result; and
(C) the various exposures to terrorism risk for different
lines of commercial property and casualty insurance.
(b) Timing of Coverages and Assessments.--The Secretary may
adjust the timing of coverages and assessments provided under
this Act to provide for equivalent application of the
provisions of this Act to commercial insurers and policies
that are not based on a calendar year.
(c) Adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust the assessments
charged under section 7 or the percentage imposed under the
surcharge under section 8 at any time, as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the national interest, which
may include avoiding unreasonable economic disruption or
excessive market instability and avoiding undue burdens on
small businesses.
(d) Civil Monetary Penalty.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may assess a civil monetary
penalty in an amount not exceeding the amount under paragraph
(2) against any commercial insurer that the Secretary
determines, on the record after opportunity for a hearing--
(A) has failed to pay an assessment under section 7 in
accordance with the requirements of, or regulations issued,
under this Act;
(B) has failed to charge, collect, or remit surcharges
under section 8 in accordance with the requirements of, or
regulations issued under, this Act;
(C) has intentionally provided to the Secretary erroneous
information regarding premium or loss amounts; or
(D) has otherwise failed to comply with the provisions of,
or the regulations issued under, this Act.
(2) Amount.--The amount under this paragraph is the greater
of $1,000,000 and, in the case of any failure to pay, charge,
collect, or remit amounts in accordance with this Act or the
regulations issued under this Act, such amount in dispute.
SEC. 10. APPLICATION TO SELF-INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND
OFFSHORE INSURERS AND REINSURERS.
(a) Self-Insurance Arrangements.--The Secretary may, in
consultation with the NAIC, apply the provisions of this Act,
as appropriate, to self-insurance arrangements by
municipalities and other entities, but only if such
application is determined before the occurrence of a
triggering event and all of the provisions of this Act are
applied uniformly to such entities.
(b) Offshore Insurers and Reinsurers.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the provisions of this Act are applied as
appropriate to any offshore or non-admitted entities that
provide commercial property and casualty insurance.
SEC. 11. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE TERRORISM COVERAGE.
The Secretary shall require each commercial insurer to
include, in each policy for commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage made available, sold, or otherwise
provided by such insurer, coverage for insured losses
resulting from the occurrence of an act of terrorism that--
(1) does not differ materially from the terms, amounts, and
other coverage limitations applicable to losses arising from
events other than acts of terrorism;
(2) may not be eliminated, waived, or excluded, by mutual
agreement, request or consent of the policyholder, or
otherwise; and
(3) that meets any other criteria that the Secretary may
reasonably prescribe.
SEC. 12. STATE PREEMPTION.
(a) Covered Perils.--A commercial insurer shall be
considered to have complied with any State law that requires
or regulates the provision of insurance coverage for acts of
terrorism if the insurer provides coverage in accordance with
the definitions regarding acts of terrorism under this Act or
under any regulations issued by the Secretary.
(b) Rate Laws.--If any provision of any State law prevents
an insurer from increasing its premium rates in an amount
necessary to recover any assessments pursuant to section 7,
such provision is preempted only to the extent necessary to
provide for such insurer to recover such losses.
(c) File and Use.--
(1) In general.--With respect only to commercial property
and casualty insurance covering acts of terrorism, any
provision of State law that requires, as a condition
precedent to the effectiveness of rates or policies for such
insurance that is made available by an insurer licensed to
transact such business in the State, any action (including
prior approval by the State insurance regulator for such
State) other than filing of such rates and policies and
related information with such State insurance regulator is
preempted to the extent such law requires such additional
actions for such insurance coverage.
(2) Subsequent review authority.--Paragraph (1) shall not
be considered to preempt a provision of State law solely
because the law provides that rates and policies for such
insurance coverage are, upon such filing, subject to
subsequent review and action, which may include actions to
disapprove or discontinue use of such rates or policies, by
the State insurance regulator.
(3) Treatment of prior review provisions.--Any authority
for prior review and action by a State regulator preempted
under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be authority to
conduct a subsequent review and action on such filings.
SEC. 13. CONSISTENT STATE GUIDELINES FOR COVERAGE FOR ACTS OF
TERRORISM.
(a) Sense of Congress Regarding Covered Perils.--It is the
sense of the Congress that--
(1) the NAIC, in consultation with the Secretary, should
develop appropriate definitions for acts of terrorism that
are consistent with this Act and appropriate standards for
making determinations regarding occurrences of acts of
terrorism;
(2) each State should adopt the definitions and standards
developed by the NAIC for purposes of regulating insurance
coverage made available in that State;
(3) in consulting with the NAIC, the Secretary should
advocate and promote the development of definitions and
standards that are appropriate for purposes of this Act; and
(4) after consultation with the NAIC, the Secretary should
adopt further definitions for acts of terrorism and standards
for determinations that are appropriate for this Act.
(b) Insurance Reserve Guidelines.--
(1) Sense of congress regarding adoption by states.--It is
the sense of the Congress that--
[[Page 23367]]
(A) the NAIC should develop appropriate guidelines for
commercial insurers and pools regarding maintenance of
reserves against the risks of acts of terrorism; and
(B) each State should adopt such guidelines for purposes of
regulating commercial insurers doing business in that State.
(2) Consideration of adoption of national guidelines.--Upon
the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make a
determination of whether the guidelines referred to in
paragraph (1) have, by such time, been developed and adopted
by nearly all States in a uniform manner. If the Secretary
determines that such guidelines have not been so developed
and adopted, the Secretary shall consider adopting, and may
adopt, such guidelines on a national basis in a manner that
supercedes any State law regarding maintenance of reserves
against such risks.
(c) Guidelines Regarding Disclosure of Pricing and Terms of
Coverage.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the States should require, by laws or regulations
governing the provision of commercial property and casualty
insurance that includes coverage for acts of terrorism, that
the price of any such terrorism coverage, including the costs
of any terrorism related assessments or surcharges under this
Act, be separately disclosed.
(2) Adoption of national guidelines.--If the Secretary
determines that the States have not enacted laws or adopted
regulations adequately providing for the disclosures
described in paragraph (1) within a reasonable period of time
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall, after consultation with the NAIC, adopt guidelines on
a national basis requiring such disclosure in a manner that
supercedes any State law regarding such disclosure.
SEC. 14. CONSULTATION WITH STATE INSURANCE REGULATORS AND
NAIC.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall consult with the State
insurance regulators and the NAIC in carrying out this Act.
(b) Financial Assistance, Assessments, and Surcharges.--The
Secretary may take such actions, including entering into such
agreements and providing such technical and organizational
assistance to insurers and State insurance regulators, as may
be necessary to provide for the distribution of financial
assistance under section 6 and the collection of assessments
under section 7 and surcharges under section 8.
(c) Investigating and Auditing Claims.--The Secretary may,
in consultation with the State insurance regulators and the
NAIC, investigate and audit claims of insured losses by
commercial insurers and otherwise require verification of
amounts of premiums or losses, as appropriate.
SEC. 15. STUDY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF TERRORISM ON LIFE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
commission (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'') to study and report on the potential effects
of an act or acts of terrorism on the life insurance industry
in the United States and the markets served by such industry.
(b) Membership and Operations.--
(1) Appointment.--The Commission shall consist of 7
members, as follows:
(A) The Secretary of the Treasury or the designee of the
Secretary.
(B) The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System or the designee of the Chairman.
(C) The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.
(D) 4 members appointed by the President, who shall be--
(i) a representative of direct underwriters of life
insurance within the United States;
(ii) a representative of reinsurers of life insurance
within the United States;
(iii) an officer of the NAIC; and
(iv) a representative of insurance agents for life
underwriters.
(2) Operations.--The chairperson of the Commission shall
determine the manner in which the Commission shall operate,
including funding, staffing, and coordination with other
governmental entities.
(c) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of the
life insurance industry in the United States, which shall
identify and make recommendations regarding--
(1) possible actions to encourage, facilitate, and sustain
the provision, by the life insurance industry in the United
States, of coverage for losses due to death or disability
resulting from an act or acts of terrorism, including in the
face of threats of such acts; and
(2) possible actions or mechanisms to sustain or supplement
the ability of the life insurance industry in the United
States to cover losses due to death or disability resulting
from an act or acts of terrorism in the event that--
(A) such acts significantly affect mortality experience of
the population of the United States over any period of time;
(B) such losses jeopardize the capital and surplus of the
life insurance industry in the United States as a whole; or
(C) other consequences from such acts occur, as determined
by the Commission, that may significantly affect the ability
of the life insurance industry in the United States to
independently cover such losses.
(d) Recommendations.--The Commission may make a
recommendation pursuant to subsection (c) only upon the
concurrence of a majority of the members of the Commission.
(e) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report describing
the results of the study and any recommendations developed
under subsection (c).
(f) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 60 days
after submission of the report pursuant to subsection (e).
SEC. 16. RAILROAD AND TRUCKING INSURANCE STUDY.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study to
determine how the Federal Government can address a possible
crisis in the availability and affordability of railroad and
trucking insurance by making such insurance for acts of
terrorism available on commercially reasonable terms. Not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report
regarding the results and conclusions of the study.
SEC. 17. STUDY OF REINSURANCE POOL SYSTEM FOR FUTURE ACTS OF
TERRORISM.
(a) Study.--The Secretary, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and the Comptroller General of the
United States shall jointly conduct a study on the
advisability and effectiveness of establishing a reinsurance
pool system relating to future acts of terrorism to replace
the program provided for under this Act.
(b) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and the Comptroller General shall consult
with (1) academic experts, (2) the United Nations Secretariat
for Trade and Development, (3) representatives from the
property and casualty insurance industry, (4) representatives
from the reinsurance industry, (5) the NAIC, and (6) such
consumer organizations as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, and the Comptroller General
shall jointly submit a report to the Congress on the results
of the study under subsection (a).
SEC. 18. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Act of terrorism.--
(A) In general.--The term ``act of terrorism'' means any
act that the Secretary determines meets the requirements
under subparagraph (B), as such requirements are further
defined and specified by the Secretary in consultation with
the NAIC.
(B) Requirements.--An act meets the requirements of this
subparagraph if the act--
(i) is unlawful;
(ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the
United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air
carrier or a United States flag vessel (or a vessel based
principally in the United States on which United States
income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to
regulation in the United States), in or outside the United
States;
(iii) is committed by a person or group of persons or
associations who are recognized, either before or after such
act, by the Department of State or the Secretary as an
international terrorist group or have conspired with such a
group or the group's agents or surrogates;
(iv) has as its purpose to overthrow or destabilize the
government of any country, or to influence the policy or
affect the conduct of the government of the United States or
any segment of the economy of United States, by coercion; and
(v) is not considered an act of war, except that this
clause shall not apply with respect to any coverage for
workers compensation.
(2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means, with respect
to an insurer, any company that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with the insurer.
(3) Aggregate written premium.--The term ``aggregate
written premium'' means, with respect to a year, the
aggregate premium amount of all commercial property and
casualty insurance coverage written during such year under
all lines of commercial property and casualty insurance.
(4) Commercial insurer.--The term ``commercial insurer''
means any corporation, association, society, order, firm,
company, mutual, partnership, individual, aggregation of
individuals, or any other legal entity that provides
commercial property and casualty insurance. Such term
includes any affiliates of a commercial insurer.
(5) Commercial property and casualty insurance.--
(A) In general.--The term ``commercial property and
casualty insurance'' means insurance or reinsurance, or
retrocessional reinsurance, for persons or properties in the
United States against--
(i) loss of or damage to property;
(ii) loss of income or extra expense incurred because of
loss of or damage to property;
[[Page 23368]]
(iii) third party liability claims caused by negligence or
imposed by statute or contract, including workers
compensation; or
(iv) loss resulting from debt or default of another.
(B) Exclusions.--Such term does not include--
(i) insurance for homeowners, tenants, private passenger
nonfleet automobiles, mobile homes, or other insurance for
personal, family, or household needs;
(ii) insurance for professional liability, including
medical malpractice, errors and omissions, or directors' and
officers' liability; or
(iii) health or life insurance.
(6) Control.--A company has control over another company
if--
(A) the company directly or indirectly or acting through
one or more other persons owns, controls, or has power to
vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of
the other company;
(B) the company controls in any manner the election of a
majority of the directors or trustees of the other company;
or
(C) the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, that the company directly or indirectly
exercises a controlling influence over the management or
policies of the other company.
(7) Covered period.--The term ``covered period'' has the
meaning given such term in section 19.
(8) Industry-wide losses.--The term ``industry-wide
losses'' means the aggregate insured losses sustained by all
insurers from coverage written under all lines of commercial
property and casualty insurance.
(9) Insured loss.--The term ``insured loss'' means any
loss, net of reinsurance and retrocessional reinsurance,
covered by commercial property and casualty insurance.
(10) NAIC.--The term ``NAIC'' means the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners.
(11) Net premium.--The term ``net premium'' means, with
respect a commercial insurer and a year, the aggregate
premium amount collected by such commercial insurer for all
commercial property and casualty insurance coverage written
during such year under all lines of commercial property and
casualty insurance by such commercial insurer, less any
premium paid by such commercial insurer to other commercial
insurers to insure or reinsure those risks.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(13) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any
other territory or possession of the United States.
(14) State insurance regulator.--The term ``State insurance
regulator'' means, with respect to a State, the principal
insurance regulatory authority of the State.
(15) Triggering determination.--The term ``triggering
determination'' has the meaning given such term in section
5(a).
(16) Triggering event.--The term ``triggering event''
means, with respect to a triggering determination, the
occurrence of an act of terrorism, or the occurrence of such
acts, that caused the insured losses resulting in such
triggering determination.
(17) United states.--The term ``United States'' means,
collectively, the States (as such term is defined in this
section).
SEC. 19. COVERED PERIOD AND EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.
(a) Covered Period.--Except to the extent provided
otherwise under subsection (b), for purposes of this Act, the
term ``covered period'' means the period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act and ending on January 1,
2003.
(b) Extension of Program.--If the Secretary determines that
extending the covered period is necessary to ensure the
adequate availability in the United States of commercial
property and casualty insurance coverage for acts of
terrorism, the Secretary may, subject to subsection (c),
extend the covered period by not more than two years.
(c) Report.--The Secretary may exercise the authority under
subsection (b) to extend the covered period only if the
Secretary submits a report to the Congress providing notice
of and setting forth the reasons for such extension.
SEC. 20. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary shall issue any regulations necessary to
carry out this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 297, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a substitute that I believe would
greatly improve the bill before us. The substitute in large part
reflects the structure of the bill before us, but it makes improvements
to the bill in three very crucial areas.
First of all, it requires the individual insurers to retain a more
significant share of initial losses, providing for a real, up-front
deductible.
Second, it requires that terrorism coverage be included with all
property and casualty insurance, eliminating the ability of insurers to
cherry-pick safer properties, while placing coverage out of the reach
of others.
Third, it eliminates the extraneous limitations on victims' recovery
rights that are not necessary to address this problem and have no place
in this bill or any bill. There will be no bill that contains these
provisions.
Let me address each of these in turn. The deductible included in my
substitute would require the insurance industry to pay the first $5
billion of insured losses in the first year, increasing to $10 billion
in the second and third years. Interestingly, the insurance industry,
the Senate, and administration negotiators said they could accept a
bill with a $10 billion deductible in the first year. My substitute has
a $5 billion deductible. The bill before us has no deductible. There
should be a deductible.
The deductible would be met in the first instance by individual
insurers who would be responsible for 100 percent of the losses
suffered by their policyholders up to a cap of 7 percent of the
insurer's premium income. This first dollar of loss retention is
critical to the maintenance of sound underwriting practices by the
insurance industry, and it will make it much easier for a private
reinsurance market to reemerge. It will also make it less likely that
the Federal Government will need to step in to cover losses. Some
events could be covered entirely by the deductible. It would keep the
Federal Government out unless it were absolutely imperative that the
Federal Government enter.
This kind of deductible has the support of a broad and diverse
coalition of taxpayer, consumer, and environmental groups, each of
which believe it is important that insurers should pay some level of
initial loss in its entirety. And the concept of a deductible of up to
$10 billion in the first year was agreed to by the Treasury Department
of the Bush administration in their conversations with the Senate.
Again, the main bill before us has no deductible. The substitute does.
We should have a deductible.
Second, to avoid the cherry-picking, my substitute, unlike the
Republican bill, would mandate terrorist coverage. This will prevent
insurers from providing terrorism coverage only on properties that are
perceived as low risk while leaving large portions of the economy
uncovered. This provision would help to ensure that terrorism coverage
is affordable by spreading the risk across the broadest possible base.
By ensuring that this coverage would be included in all property and
casualty policies, as it is today, it would help to cushion the effects
on businesses of any further terrorist attacks by eliminating the
temptation for commercial property holders and businesses to ``opt
out'' of terrorism coverage. Do not forget, property and casualty
properties today include terrorism coverage.
Finally, my bill does not limit victims' rights by denying them the
legal redress that they deserve. For reasons completely extraneous to
the current insurance crisis, the White House and the Republican
leadership are pursuing, by means of this legislation, long-sought
restrictions going back 20-30 years on the rights of victims. They seek
to minimize the compensation needed to make the victims of terrorism
whole. These restrictions on victims' rights will create disincentives
for businesses to do all that they reasonably can to prevent another
terrorist attack and make America safer.
I urge Members' support for this substitute. It is basically the
House bill, with those changes I have articulated. In the short amount
of time that we have left to address the serious threat to our economy,
I believe the substitute represents a much-improved response to meeting
our responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 23369]]
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are several problems that the membership ought to
have with this amendment, things that I hope that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce) will respond to, concerns which we have.
My first concern is that we are mandating that anyone who takes out
commercial insurance must also take out coverage for terrorism. Now, in
the towns and the cities and rural areas that I represent, there are a
lot of small businessmen who do not think that they need insurance to
ensure against terrorism.
{time} 1415
Actually, I have farmers in my district. They have chicken houses, I
would say to the gentleman from New York. Those farmers do not feel
like those chicken houses and those chickens need insurance against
terrorism. They do not believe that there is much of a possibility of a
terrorist planting a bomb in one of those chicken houses. I have a lot
of repair shops in my district that repair used automobiles. The people
that own those businesses and that pay liability insurance and take out
coverage on those businesses, they do not believe that they need to be
paying for insurance to cover that auto body shop or that beauty shop.
I have a lot of beauticians, I would say to the gentleman from New
York. I have a lot of beauticians in my district. They have a lot of
beauty shops. They really do not believe that they ought to be
compelled by the Federal Government to take out insurance to insure
against terrorists. In fact, they may not be able to afford it.
But what this substitute does, it requires anyone that takes out a
commercial policy on any business, whether it is a beauty shop, a
barber shop, an auto mechanic store, a chicken house, a small grocery
store, it requires you to take out and insure against a terrorist act.
I have a lot of businesses in my district that quite simply are having
trouble paying for the insurance that they have. There is no opt-out. I
can insure against theft, I can insure against fire, I can insure
against vandalism; but I may not want to insure against terrorism. I
may own a small business. I may get a quote of $12,000 a year for basic
coverage and another $1,000 or $1,500 a year to insure against
terrorism. I may say, I don't want terrorism covered.
I would say to the gentleman from New York, it is my understanding
that his amendment, and correct me if I am wrong, but it is my
understanding that his amendment requires anyone who takes out a
commercial policy to protect their place of business, that they must
also insure against terrorism. I would stop right there and I would
reserve the balance of my time and ask the gentleman so we can have a
coherent discussion of this, is in fact he mandating that every
American that takes out insurance coverage on their place of business,
that they must insure against terrorism no matter what the cost of that
premium?
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time and let the
gentleman address that question.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I could have a colloquy with the gentleman
on his time, but I do not have time. If the gentleman wants to do it on
his time, I would be glad to have a colloquy.
Mr. BACHUS. I would say this to the gentleman. I will answer the
question and he can correct me if I am wrong. Section 11 of his
amendment, a requirement to provide terrorism coverage, and it says
that this coverage may not be eliminated, waived or excluded by mutual
agreement, request or consent of the policyholder or otherwise. That is
what it says. It says you cannot exclude coverage for that. It may not
be eliminated, may not be waived, may not be excluded from a commercial
policy even by mutual agreement or by request or consent of the
policyholder. That is what it says. It is the plain wording.
I would hope the gentleman did not intend to say that to every
American who has an insurance policy on a piece of property. There is
an option. The option is that you just do not get insurance. But I
think the gentleman from New York is saying if you do get insurance,
you will have to have terrorist coverage and you will have to pay for
that coverage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary to the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama, the LaFalce substitute spreads
the risk. What it simply does is it says that if you are a small
business, a chicken farmer, you need to make sure that insurance
companies around the world or in this Nation have the obligation to
insure you and protect you. That is what we are arguing about today.
That is why I rise today to support the LaFalce substitute and also to
say I would have liked to have supported a clean underlying bill. I
believe it is important to provide this kind of reinsurance for our
insurance companies, not for the institutions but for the people of
America.
I would also say to my colleagues, I wish I was debating resources
for those who are unemployed, particularly as we face some 500,000
individuals in the State of Texas. Additionally in my own congressional
district we have a company that is now teetering on the brink. I may
see tomorrow 3, 4, 6,000 people laid off. This House has failed in its
duty to provide unemployment insurance for those who are laid off. But
let us speak about the underlying bill and why the LaFalce substitute
is the right direction to go.
First of all, the bill that is before us denies victims' rights. It
in fact denies noneconomic damages, economic damages and punitive
damages. It indicates that if you are a plaintiff and you are impacted
by a terrorist act, you could not go into court and receive any
benefits or receive any coverage from your insurance company if you
were not physically injured. That means all the wives and husbands who
lost loved ones, who lost their husbands or wives on September 11 in
that heinous terrorist act could not recover for the pain and
suffering, for the loss of consortium. I believe that we have a better
direction to go. And in fact I am delighted that the LaFalce bill does
not have the tax provisions in it. I believe it is extremely important
that we find a way to engage the insurance companies but not give away
money.
The underlying bill provides assistance, Federal dollars, one dollar
past a billion dollars. In fact, the insurance companies said, We're
willing to pay $5 billion in losses. The LaFalce bill has $5 billion in
1 year and I think $10 billion after the 1 year. We are giving away
money in the underlying bill.
The substitute is a clean bill that directs its attention and its
energies toward the problem. What is the problem? We want to be able to
ensure that insurance companies will be able to insure Americans,
businesses, citizens of the United States in light of terrorist
attacks. And we want to do it fairly, and we want to do it
forthrightly. We do not want to deny individuals their access to the
courts where they cannot go in and secure recovery for those who have
maliciously not done their duty and therefore caused an enhanced injury
to someone such as, for example, a baggage handling company that did
not do the proper security so that something dangerous happened on the
airline.
I support the LaFalce bill because it is a straight-up answer to the
insurance problem, and it also provides for insurance for all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the September 11 terrorist attacks have devastated many
industries and sectors of the American economy, including the insurance
industry.
The legislation before us today, H.R. 3210, has been rushed to the
House floor because the insurance industry has stated that, while it
will be able to cover the estimated $40 billion in claims resulting
from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, any new and renewed policies will
not cover terrorist-inflicted damage unless the
[[Page 23370]]
government helps cover that unknown liability. This is an issue of
great concern to Congress and to the Nation.
While I cannot support this bill as it currently stands, I would like
to state, at the outset, that I join my colleagues in calling for swift
passage of a terrorism reinsurance bill. Such legislation is greatly
needed and Congress can make a great difference here, as we have done
in the past.
As we all know, Congress acted swiftly and deliberately in the recent
Airlines bailout plan in the amount of $15 billion to save this
important industry which was so severely devastated by the September 11
attacks. We can act with similar diligence and bi-partisan sensibility
to help this important sector of our economy as well.
This is not just an insurance industry problem. Rather, it is a
national issue because if the insurance industry cannot reinsure the
risk of further terrorist attacks, it will either increase premiums to
the detriment of consumers, or simply stop offering terrorism coverage
altogether. Furthermore, without adequate insurance coverage, lenders
will not be able to lend and new investments will not be made, creating
a credit crunch that could have devastating consequences for our
economy.
I applaud my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee in striking
provisions that would have provided preferential tax treatment on
insurance industry reserves, and instead called for a greatly needed
study of the issue. However, I am disappointed in the partisan fiasco
in the Rules Committee which turned this once bipartisan effort to
protect the insurance industry from terrorism claims into a partisan
``tort reform'' Trojan horse.
I join my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and those on the
Financial Services Committee who object to the inclusion of Section 15,
a tort reform provision, which would effectively ban punitive damages
in terrorism-related cases. This is absolutely unnecessary.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the bill applies to actions
brought against the insured and the insurer, or just the insurer. I
stand with those who support the position that such legislation limits
tort actions against the insurer, but not the insured.
We must also ensure that terrorism coverage is available and
affordable for all consumers and businesses, and avoid ``cherry
picking'' where companies insure ``good risks'' and leave other
segments of economy uncovered. To this end we can and should avoid that
problem by ensuring that terrorism coverage is required as part of
basic property and casualty coverage.
Finally, there is no need or justification for the tax provisions in
the bill, which unnecessarily provides the industry with a long-term
tax subsidy which could well exceed what it pays under the bill.
Instead, I lend my support to the LaFalce substitute. It includes,
for example, an industry deductible and requires each company to meet
its deductible before receiving federal assistance. It also requires
terrorism coverage as part of commercial property and casualty
insurance. It also does not limit tort actions or recoveries, and does
not contain the offensive tax provisions as does the underlying bill.
Also, it requires the Secretary of the Treasure, in determining
whether to establish a surcharge on policyholders, to consider the cost
to the taxpayer, economic conditions, affordability of insurance, and
other factors. And it includes studies on the impact of terrorism on
the life insurance industry and on the advisability of establishing a
terrorism reinsurance pool.
Congress can and must act to protect the most vulnerable sectors of
our economy, and those who most need assistance. The underlying bill
once held the promise of protecting the insurance industry and the
millions of Americans dependent on it. However, the version of the bill
before us today contains offensive provisions that I simply cannot in
good conscience support. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote against
the bill and to support the LaFalce substitute.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we received the answer to our question, and that
is that this amendment attempts to require all Americans who own
businesses to take out terrorist coverage and to pay for that coverage.
In other words, if you have got a beauty shop, the gentleman from New
York, his amendment if it passes, you will be required to take out
terrorist insurance. If you have got a restaurant, you will be required
to take it out and to pay for it.
So I think we have our answer there. As the gentlewoman from Texas
says, we want to spread the risk to people that even may not have any
risk, may not choose to need insurance. What we are basically telling
them is, Not only do you need it, but you'll pay for it, whether you
want it or not.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley) be permitted to control the remainder of my time for
consideration of this amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, there are several problems that I have with
the substitute that is offered by my distinguished colleague from New
York, but I want to touch on two of them in particular. One is the fact
that the substitute clearly removes from the committee bill several
vital tort reform measures which are in the base bill; and they are in
the base bill for a simple reason, for a variety of reasons, but mainly
to ensure that in the event that harm is done in a terrorist attack, we
want to see a greater share of the payment to the victims actually go
to the victims and not a huge windfall going to trial lawyers. That is
a big part of what this is about.
That is a serious flaw, but there is another one that I think may be
even a bigger flaw in this bill and that is the issue that was raised
by my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama. There is no
question, it is very clear, the substitute does impose a new Federal
mandate on business, large and small business, every business,
specifically by requiring that every commercial insurance policy carry
this terrorism provision whether or not the insured wants to buy this
provision. It is true that it only applies to commercial policies. You
could choose not to buy a commercial policy; but as we all know as a
practical matter, you cannot be in business in America today without
having a commercial insurance policy. So it really is a universal
mandate in that sense.
Think about this. At a time when thousands of businesses are losing
money, forced to lay off literally hundreds of thousands of workers in
the last several months, layoffs that are continuing today, this
substitute, if it were adopted, would force potentially unlimited
increases in costs in doing business for every business in America. It
says you have got to go out and buy terrorism insurance coverage
regardless of what kind of business you are in, regardless of where you
are located, regardless of whether or not you perceive yourself to have
any risks, and regardless of what it costs. This can only result in
more job losses.
I do not know how many folks here have actually gone through the
experience of taking their entire life savings, remortgaging their
house, borrowing money from family and friends and risking it all to
pursue the dream of owning their own business, whether that is a little
coffee shop on Tilghman Street in Allentown or a dry cleaner on
Chestnut Street in Emmaus or a bookstore in downtown Bethlehem, but I
know what that is all about. I have been through that. I think we all
know people who have been through that.
These are the people, the people who are willing to take that huge
risk to risk everything they have to launch that small business. These
are the people and their employees that I am concerned about, and I am
concerned about the adverse effect that this provision will have on
them. These are the people that are keeping our economy going. These
small businesses are the ones that are creating the few new jobs we are
creating in our economy. They are creating so many opportunities for so
many people. The cards are stacked already against the entrepreneur
starting a new business. It is the nature of a new business to have a
very risky period.
We have still a crushing tax burden on Americans. We have too much
regulation. My argument is let us not stack the deck further against
the people who are creating new businesses, running small businesses,
creating opportunity. Let us not impose this new costly mandate on
them.
[[Page 23371]]
Reject the substitute and support the underlying bill.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to support the
substitute because we wrote a very good bill in the House. Again, I
want to commend the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee as
well for the work they did. We worked very hard all day long to put out
a good bill; and I thought the approach was the right approach to take
in terms of the model, in terms of the deductible, in terms of the way
it worked. It combined the pooled premium structure, it protected the
taxpayers, it combined the deductible aspect that the administration
wanted, and it even had some liability reform, a collateral offset that
I was not particularly comfortable with but I thought was the balance
we needed because this was also a temporary measure that we were
passing, and in fact we made it as temporary as possible. Because I am
not very comfortable with us entering the marketplace right now, but I
do think it is necessary to get us into the next year so policies can
be rewritten, so we do not have the calamity that I discussed that I
think other Members are aware of. I know the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) was a securities lawyer before he was here, and he
understands how this works and the problems that can occur if we do not
do this.
But on the way to the floor, this bill was rewritten and I am left
with no choice but to support a substitute that otherwise quite
frankly, with all due respect to the gentleman from New York, I would
not support because I would support the underlying bill as it was
originally written.
I look at the litigation management section in this, and I see a
couple of problems. The first problem I see is the question on
noneconomic damages that are in here and there is no liability for the
defendant if the defendant actually has liability. What if you have a
spouse who does not work and is in a building that gets hit by a plane?
There are no damages that can be brought. That spouse's worth under the
court's eyes is zero dollars. I do not think any Member, whether you
are for liability reform or not, thinks that is a particularly good
idea.
{time} 1430
But the other problem in the haste to write this bill, if you read
the section on legal fees the way I read it, it applies to all
attorneys. So if defense counsel does their job and wins the case, they
can get no more than 20 percent of damages, and if damages are zero, 20
percent of zero, the last time I checked, was still zero. So if the PNC
company pays their counsel, which most counsel I know like to get paid,
they are not going to be able to pay them anything, or they are going
to be subject to fines or imprisonment. So there is a flaw in the bill.
I am sure somewhere down the line it will get worked out.
But the bigger concern I have is about this is the bill we ought to
pass for the good of the economy, and what this is going to do in the
name of ``legal reform,'' which is not what this bill started out
about, is it is going to get shot down in the other body and we are
either going to be here on December 23 trying to hammer this thing out,
or December 24th, or December 25th, maybe we will take the 25th off,
the 26th, 27th, trying to work this out, when we had a very good bill
in the first place, a bill that made it explicitly clear that the
taxpayers would not be on the hook for punitive damages or non-economic
damages. But if the defendant, the building owner, the airline owner,
was liable in any way for gross negligence, they had to step up to the
plate for that liability. That is what we should be doing.
As a result, I am going to have to defy my chairman and support the
substitute, because we are left with no other choice. I hope somewhere
rationale will prevail and we can get a real bill done.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that sometimes when we are
confronted with an issue, it is best for Congress to do nothing at
times. This is not one of those times. I think we are playing with fire
if Congress does not act on passing this legislation this year as soon
as possible.
The underlying bill as presented by the chairman is the right vehicle
to proceed with. Every day that passes creates more uncertainty, thus
more risk and more instability in our economy. It is not just the
insurance companies or the reinsurers; it is the very foundation of our
Nation.
For example, right now in midtown Manhattan, there is an office
project, a major one, being contemplated. It means jobs, it means
livelihoods, it means a better quality of life for so many people.
These developers right now are having discussions with their
insurance agents. Insurance agents say, we cannot give you this
insurance because of the risk associated with a potential terrorist
attack. If that does not occur, there may not be and very likely will
not be this development project in midtown Manhattan. Hundreds of
millions of dollars will stop. That is going to take place across New
York and across the country, unless something is done.
I would urge everybody in this Chamber and the other body to come to
closure on this as soon as possible, without raising the cost of
insurance unnecessarily to small and big business owners across the
country, to work cooperatively to do what is right for the American
people; not to put the taxpayer on the hook, but to play the vital role
that government should play in this capacity, and that is to protect
against any potential terrorist attack which, by definition, is random
and terrorist in nature. Put it aside, support the underlying bill, and
let us move forward.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the distinguished ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored
Enterprises.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I speak in favor of the substitute, and
it is for a very simple reason. There are three key elements developed
in the substitute that I think are important but, more so than being
important, I think they make the bill viable so we can get something
done.
The previous speaker just indicated that it is important to get
something done, and it is. We had something that could have been done,
and suddenly some of our friends have lobbed on things called tort
reform, or revision, as I call it, changing the whole civil procedure
and rights of victims in this country, and I think it caused
unfairness.
As my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) pointed out, it
seems to me to strip out any benefit or any recovery for non-economic
damages and leaves a major part of the victims of this country without
coverage.
Now, we are fighting here to make sure real estate can go on,
insurance can be sold, business can conclude; and we are going to take
care of large entities, big investments, because they are the targets
for terrorism. But the small victims, the individual citizens who do
not measure into the definition providing the limitations in this bill
for victims' recovery, they get nothing or are restricted in their
recovery. That is nonsensical.
First of all, it is not going to go anywhere. I plead with the other
side. This bill is not going to be the bill. The Senate and White House
are in the process of writing another bill which is going to be sent
over here, and we are either going to take it or not take it in the
waning days of this session.
We have an opportunity, by adopting the substitute that the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce) has presented, to handle the three key
issues. We do provide something the White House and the Senate has
indicated they want at all times, deductibility, and the insurance
industry did not say
[[Page 23372]]
that was bad. As a matter of fact, they were in favor of it, $5 billion
or $10 billion deductibility.
Two, doing nothing with these victims' rights or tort reform, it does
not belong here. We can have another vehicle, another debate, another
day, on that issue.
Finally, to provide insurance coverage for everyone, I am led to
understand the White House is in favor of that too, because we do not
want cherry-picking, we do not want favoritism, and we do not want to
lessen the base of those people who are going to stand behind the
premiums to pay for the terrorist occasion that occurs before it gets
to the taxpayers.
I say that we have a reasonable substitute here that, if we pass it
today, can be moved to the Senate very quickly and become the real
vehicle for reinsurance protection for terrorism in the United States.
Other than that, this is an academic, a political exercise, that will
absolutely go nowhere, and we are going to end up, if we do want
legislation, and I think it is vitally important, adopting the Senate
provisions when they are finally passed.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate the
gentleman's remarks.
Let everyone understand something. The Senate and the White House
apparently have been at this for quite some time and, literally, as we
speak, they still have not got their act together. The House of
Representatives is on the floor with legislation ready to pass in the
next hour, so we have done our job.
So you can talk all you want about what the Senate and White House
are doing. We are getting the job done for the people of this country
to make certain we have insurance coverage. I think we all should be
very, very proud of that.
Mr. Speaker I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox), a valuable member of our committee.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I
particularly wish to thank the gentleman form Ohio (Chairman Oxley),
the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for putting together such an
important bill for us to move quickly in response to the events of
September 11.
This legislation will ensure that victims are compensated after a
terrorist loss if another terrorist attack or round of terrorist
attacks should occur, quickly, fairly and fully. It will continue, we
hope, the opportunity for people throughout our country to have
insurance against terrorist risks by using the resources of the Federal
Government, of the U.S. taxpayer, as a backstop. But the bill is
carefully drafted so that it will not injure taxpayers in the process.
It asks a great deal from the industry. Indeed, it asks the insurance
industry to pay the money back, so that taxpayers will not be treated
as if they are Osama bin Laden, as if they are culpable for the next
round of terrorist attacks.
The substitute, unfortunately, unravels these taxpayer protections.
It asks far less of insurance companies than does the bill for which it
would be substituting. It asks much more of taxpayers and much less of
trial lawyers.
The bill that was so carefully crafted in our committee established a
Federal cause of action, to make sure that injured parties could
quickly get to court, just as we have already done in this Congress
with the victims of September 11, so they could get their money and not
have to go through an endless legal process. The substitute simply
repeals that protection so that the same-old-same-old will obtain, as
it has for the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hundreds
of plaintiffs have received, 8 years later, not one penny.
It puts the burden on the consumer in another way. It mandates that
consumers buy terrorist risk insurance, rather than offering consumers
a choice of high-quality coverage at a reasonable cost. Once the
Federal Government mandates that I must buy insurance, if I am the
insurer and I know the customer has to buy it, I can offer a lousy
product at a high price.
We want to put the consumers in the driver's seat. The whole point is
to make sure consumers are protected, and this substitute would repeal
that consumer protection.
It would also repeal the fair share rule that is in the bill, and
that is the protection for the innocent. If you are innocent, if you
are not a terrorist, you should not be treated as if you are one. Yet
under the legislation that would be passed in the name of the
substitute, the fair share rule would be repealed; and if you are named
in a complaint, along with Osama bin Laden who is not before the court,
then a jury in any State can say you pay the whole thing, even though
you might be only one-half of 1 percent responsible.
President Bush strongly supports the base legislation. His Secretary
of the Treasury came to the Hill and asked that we include the
litigation management provisions. It is our obligation and our
responsibility to pass the bill that was produced by the Committee on
Financial Services and by the Committee on the Judiciary staff, who
helped us with the litigation management procedures.
I urge strongly that we reject the substitute and its repeal of
consumer protections, and I urge us rather rapidly to put this bill
into law, the Oxley-Baker-Sensenbrenner base bill.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to answer a few of the issues that have come up so far.
First of all, what does the administration support or not support? I
do not really think they support the basic thrust of the bill that was
reported out of committee and is before us right now. Would they sign
it? Yes, because it is not an unreasonable approach. And that is why I
was willing to go forward with it, and that is why I am not offering an
alternative with respect to the underlying approach.
But it is not the best approach we could take. The administration, in
their statement of administration policy, points that out. They really
think that it could be an administrative nightmare. They do not like
this concept of coming up with what is basically a loan that will then
have to be paid back from dollar one. They do not like that at all.
The insurance industry does not like it. In Monday's paper there was
an op-ed piece by the chairman of the board of American International
Group, and they really denounced this concept. In that op-ed piece they
said we could handle a $10 billion deductible. That is what the
chairman of AIG said in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on
Monday. And you have no deductible.
We make it easy. We just have a $5 billion deductible for the first
year, going to a $10 billion the second year, which the insurance
industry has said we could accept and we can handle. For the life of
me, I do not know why you do not have that deductible provision.
With respect to the restrictions on victims' compensation, now, yes,
the administration does support that, and it supports it strongly. But
that is like throwing red meat at them. They have wanted to limit
victims' rights wherever and whenever they could. They want to do it
with respect to a Patients' Bill of Rights, they want to do it with
respect to product liability, they want to do it wherever and whenever
they can. And it is unnecessary here and it is wrong and it is harmful.
You come up with a euphemism. Your euphemism is case management. That
is nonsense. This has nothing to do with case management. This has
everything to do with denying victims their rights that they have been
entitled to under the laws of the several States from the time that we
created the Union to the present. You want to change it.
There is something else, too. The insurance scheme we come up with,
that is temporary. That is going to be for 1, 2 or 3 years. This
restriction or elimination of victims' rights, that, you have made
permanent.
{time} 1445
So we have a temporary insurance scheme. But as I understand the
Sensenbrenner approach, that goes in and
[[Page 23373]]
it is independent of the duration of time of the insurance scheme and
it effectively takes away victims' rights.
Now, with respect to mandatory coverage, reasonable people can differ
on that issue. Let me be the first to admit that. But the fact of the
matter is, right now virtually every property and casualty policy on a
commercial line that I am aware of includes terrorism coverage. So we
are not talking about something new. We are talking about basically, at
least in 99 percent of the cases, continuing the status quo so that we
can spread the cost so we would minimize it for the little guy, for the
small businessperson.
What small businessperson might need it? Well, since P and C includes
business interruption insurance, the ice cream parlor at an airport
might need it. The pizza store on Pine Avenue in Niagra Falls got the
first economic injury disaster loan in the Nation. It was $10,000. But
that business had closed its doors because of the terrorist attack in
New York City, and that business could have used terrorism coverage
immediately, et cetera.
If we do not mandate it, in my judgment, and I could be wrong; this
is a negotiable item. I understand that reasonable people can differ on
this. But I think that if we do not include this, what we are saying
is, if you are rich, if you are a big corporation, if you are a Fortune
500, if you are a big real estate developer of a $1 billion building,
you will be able to afford it and buy it and pass the cost along; but
if you are a little businessman, a small businessman, a mom and pop
businessman, you will just go without coverage; and the fact that your
business in Pennsylvania was never expected to be impaired, that will
have to go without coverage.
Now, I would inquire of the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, did I make a mistake on the permanency of the gentleman's
coverage?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Absolutely, the gentleman made a mistake.
Mr. LaFALCE. Okay. So it is contemporaneous.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is contemporaneous with the bill.
It is not here forever, but that is not the gentleman's only mistake;
and I will ask the gentleman from Ohio for a little time to talk about
those.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I stand
corrected on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, let me blow away the smoke screen
from the litigation management provisions of this bill.
Number one, it does not take away anybody's right to sue or anybody's
right to get compensation. If there is a cause of action and the
Secretary triggers the provisions in this legislation, suits would have
to be in one court, and that would prevent a race to courthouses all
around the country to see which judge could have the trial quicker and
whoever gets the quickest trial will end up exhausting all of the money
that is available; and in courts where things move a little bit slower,
if the money is exhausted, then the plaintiff would be out of luck.
Now, secondly, what the bill does is it prohibits punitive damages,
and this is exactly the way the Federal Tort Claims Act is. We are
talking about giving a limited key to the United States Treasury, and
we give the same protection to the taxpayer in this bill that we do
when there is a tort claim against the Federal Government. We also
limit attorneys' fees, also done in the Federal Tort Claims Act. So
this is existing law for claims against the Federal Government. Since
the Federal Government will be the ultimate reinsurer during this
period of time, we provide the taxpayers the same protections and the
plaintiffs the same limitations as we would if somebody got run over by
a postal service van or ended up falling out the window of a Federal
building because of a defect in construction there.
Now, it seems to me that when we are dealing with terrorism, we have
to look at the fact that people who buy terrorism insurance pay a
premium that is based upon the risk that the insurance company is
underwriting; and if they have unlimited liability when there is a
terrorist act, then those premiums are going to be so sky high as to
make that coverage either unaffordable or less affordable, particularly
to small business operators.
So, Mr. Speaker, these litigation management provisions protect the
taxpayers, protect the ratepayers of people who have to buy terrorism
coverage, and do not significantly limit the recovery that plaintiffs
could get.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
A couple of issues were addressed by the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary. First of all, he spoke about the
consolidation of the claims into one court. That is something that is
not unreasonable. As a matter of fact, it might be desirable to do
something like that. But then the question is, would you obliterate
portions of the laws of the many States?
What the gentleman does in his bill is he says that there should be a
Federal cause of action that shall be exclusive; and thereby he
obliterates the laws of the States, with this exception: he says in
applying the Federal cause of action, we shall look to the Federal
cause of actions in the States, but not the law of the States with
respect to damages. There, we shall just totally obliterate whatever
the laws of those States are with respect to damages and impose our
own. That is where we run into difficulties. Not that one cannot go
into court, but we just severely eliminate or restrict.
Now, we have proportionate liability as opposed to joint and several
liability. There we are obliterating the laws of the about half of the
States. We use the collateral damages as an offset; and, again, the
States are split on that; but, again, that goes to the issue of how
much economic damages an individual is able to collect. So it restricts
their rights there.
Now, with respect to punitive damages, the gentleman made the
argument, and I think it has some resonance, that the Federal taxpayer
ought not to pay for punitive damages. I can accept that. The gentleman
made an analogy to the Federal Tort Claims Act where one cannot bring
punitive damages against the Federal Government. Well, if the gentleman
would have retained within the bill the Bentsen amendment, which would
have precluded taxpayer money, that is, insurance under this scheme,
then the gentleman's argument would be true. But it is incorrect
because what the gentleman does is not just eliminate the ability to
collect damages against the Federal Government under any scheme, but
against anybody.
The gentleman eliminates the basic cause of action or possibility of
punitive damages, not just the insurance coverage for it. If the
gentleman is willing to talk about that, we might be able to come to
terms. If the gentleman's bill would do what the gentleman says it
purports to do or wishes to do, we might be able to come to agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
me this time.
The gentleman from New York has offered a well thought-out
substitute. However, I believe we simply have different beliefs as to
how the market should operate. I believe that we should allow the
market to work out problems as much as possible.
We are here today because the reality of a war on terrorism has
knocked out the commercial property and casualty insurance industry and
put them in a crisis. To stabilize that industry, we have drafted TRPA.
Unfortunately, the Democratic substitute goes farther than I think we
[[Page 23374]]
should on a number of points. I want to focus on the provision in the
substitute that would mandate that property and casualty companies
provide terrorism coverage. ``Mandate.'' That is the operative word.
It is our responsibility to ensure consumers have the options to
choose from, not mandate that they are forced to comply with. Terrorism
coverage will be more expensive to all businesses, but every business
should be able to make the choice of whether they should pay for it and
take the risk.
Let us consider the cost of this mandate for things like museums,
like schools, like hospitals. A hospital in California, a hospital in
New York, most hospitals in this Nation operate on a very thin
operating edge. They are on the very edge of solvency. A sudden
increase in premiums could plunge them into oceans of red, resulting in
closure. Schools. A flower shop in Buffalo, New York, ought to have the
ability to make that choice to take that risk if they choose, not be
mandated. A museum in Katonah, New York, should have the ability to
choose. Only these entities know what their risk is. Only these
entities know what their need is. These entities ought to not be
mandated to share a risk they do not feel they have.
Small business is the strongest bulldozer pushing our economy and its
growth. We all know the margins between profitability and failure are
razor thin with most small businesses. The cost of mandated coverage
could mean the difference between more or less employment or helping
these people keep their jobs. I urge that people defeat this Democratic
substitute.
This is just one of the many reasons the Democratic substitute should
be defeated. There are others.
Give our schools, hospitals and small business the choice and join
with me in voting against the Democratic substitute.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate rising. I know the
gentlewoman that has just spoken is a fine member of our committee and,
of course, she does not want to burden the homeowners and all of these
small business people and everything.
When we really stand back and analyze the argument, the argument is,
there is a free lunch. Now, we are talking about insurance. There is no
free lunch here. Insurance companies do not create money or assets.
They merely gather premiums, analyze what the proportionate risk will
be, the premiums cover that risk, and then they put out the money. If
we reduce the number of premium payers, we reduce the base and for the
remaining payers we accelerate the rates. It is as simple as that. It
is so simple that most States in this Union require terrorism insurance
as part of the main policy. We are not putting an extra burden on
people here. I will tell my colleagues what burden we are putting on:
if we do not have this premium base that spreads across the country for
terrorism insurance, we are going to have a 1,000 percent increase in
insurance in New York City and Los Angeles, the symbols of the country
where terrorism would attack.
Secondly, that is partially what the argument was originally in the
committee and the Secretary of the Treasury made and the White House
made when we started to put this bill together. They said, terrorism is
something that attacks America's symbols, and it is unusual and
impossible to identify liability; and maybe that is why the Federal
Government should stand in the place of that risk so that premiums do
not go crazy.
But I hope our friends from the other side are not sending a message
out to the American people that this substitute resolution is going to
increase premiums. Quite the contrary. We are not going to have any
effect on premiums, and premiums in this country on liability insurance
all over are going to go up and go up precipitously. And they already
have, for two reasons: not only September 11, but because the stock
market has gone down precipitously, and the earnings generated and the
income generated is no longer there, and now they have to increase the
premiums to effect a pool to pay the risk liability.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we treat the American people when we talk on
the floor like they are idiots, and I refer now back to the gentleman
from California who made the point that they are really worried about
the victims of the 1993 bombing because, gee, their cases are still in
litigation.
{time} 1500
It is unfortunate that it takes sometimes 7 or 8 years to get to
litigation in this country. There is a solution: do away with the right
of suing and collecting damages. From day one, they would not have had
a cause of action under this piece of legislation. So yes, we would not
tie up the courts or waste 7 or 8 years. The victim would not have a
cause of action.
I know that is not the intention the Members have. I know something
more than that. I know the Republican party historically has understood
the free market system and the basis of our civil process in this
country.
I cannot understand. Just after September 11, we are asking America,
and I do not have yet a position, but we are asking to throw away the
criminal code of the country, the protections of evidence, due process,
and go to military tribunals in the criminal sense.
Maybe I could justify in some areas that happening. Well, that tears
up 200 years of precedent and procedure in this country in the criminal
law area. Now they come on the floor and civilly they want to rip up
200 years of precedent and history because we had this one attack, when
in reality the insurance industry only came to the Congress and said,
look, we do not know how to set the rates for liability insurance. They
came to us and said, we do not know how to set the premium to create
the pool that is necessary to cover potential disasters like this. We
have no question that we can handle a $10 billion disaster without any
problem, but we would like to have something between there and $100
billion that we could not have a dysfunctional economy for a number of
years; and after that, we can solve the problem.
Everybody concedes that if the disaster is over $100 billion, the
United States is going to be there, just as it has been for every other
disaster in the country. I hope we do not let this argument fall to the
level that we are misspeaking or misrepresenting what the facts are and
what the true information is.
Neither this side of the aisle nor that side of the aisle wants to
see an increase in insurance premiums. That has already happened; it
has happened because of the economy, the stock market, and September
11.
All we are trying to do is provide a vehicle that this Congress can
pass within the next 10 days to provide a stability for the American
economy to help come out of the recession and not go further into
recession.
Everybody recognizes, all the free marketeers of the insurance
industry, that there is a role of government to be played here. We are
trying to provide that role with the least interference to the private
sector.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
time to me and commend him on the skill he used in bringing this very
complex issue to the floor. As I understand it, the other body is
deeply mired in controversy and struggling on this.
I also want to compliment the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), for his work, and particularly the staff.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue, and it is very,
very important that we pass this bill. The economic implications if we
do not get a bill signed into law before the first of the year could be
huge.
I want to just address the issue of the substitute which is at hand
right now. I certainly commend the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce) for his thoughtful attempt to work on this. It has, obviously,
some of the same features we have in our underlying bill.
However, the way it is currently drafted, I think it could force some
[[Page 23375]]
small businesses to pay higher premiums. It could erode the current
State regulation system. Very importantly, I think it would potentially
discourage insurance companies from using reinsurance, and I think that
would be a very bad feature of the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the sentiments expressed by the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), are very, very well taken. I think it really does have
the potential to encourage, in the event of another disaster, a rush to
the courthouse; that there could be winners and losers, whereas I think
the underlying bill clearly avoids that sort of thing.
I just want to underscore, if people want to sue Osama bin Laden,
there are no limits. People can go after Osama bin Laden and his assets
and take him to the cleaners, and the attorneys could walk away with 50
or 60 percent of the settlement, if that is in the contingency fee
agreement they have reached.
This is about, what are the U.S. taxpayers going to pay? I think this
is a very well thought-out bill. Vote no on the substitute and yes on
the underlying bill.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Several remarks by Members
during the course of this debate have prompted the Chair to remind
Members that it is not in order in a debate to characterize Senate
action or inaction. This prohibition includes debate that specifically
urges the Senate to take certain action.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that no matter how
much inaction there is in the other body, we still cannot talk about
it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman fails to state a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important at the close of debate on this
important substitute to go through quickly the elements that are of
concern to those of us looking for appropriate resolution on the
question of terrorism insurance.
First, mandatory coverage. Think about it for a moment. The property
and casualty premium will now include an undisclosed terrorism premium.
How do we know how that pricing was done? How will we make a judgment
as to whether or not it is appropriate, given the risk we think we
perceive to our business interests from a terrorist attack?
Under H.R. 3210, we have a separate pricing of the terrorism premium
so we can see it off to the side, as against the property and casualty
premium, which we can compare with last year's. And so we clearly
identify; we do not mandate. They can shop, the taxpayer can make the
decision, the consumer can make the decision, Where do I go, and
further, Do I really need terrorism insurance?
Second, with regard to the first $5 billion worth of loss, there has
been some suggestion that there is no deductible, no payment by the
industry under our approach, and that their approach, having a $5
billion deductible is somehow going to fix that problem.
There is no mechanism in the bill for distributing that $5 billion
worth of loss across the industry. So if there are two, three, four,
five big companies who take the $5 billion hit, they absorb that hit
unfairly against all other companies. There is no mechanism to
distribute the loss across all companies. Translation: small businesses
get hit.
They attempt to spread the risk, however, by having a complicated
process that equals 7 percent of gross premium collected. When we read
through it and understand what they are trying to do here, they do not
recognize that a direct insurance company who insures our business
turns around and lays off part of that risk to the reinsurance
industry. When we lay off that risk, we have to give them the premium.
But we are going to set the criteria by which they get taxpayer
assistance on 7 percent of the total premium.
To translate that: small business gets nailed. This is not a good
approach. It is not a sound approach. Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are
protected first, small businesses are protected second. We help the
claimants by making sure that liquidity is provided to the insurance
company to help the victims of a heinous act in a timely and prompt
manner. It is the only way in which we should proceed.
Finally, with regard to the contentious issue of liability reform, it
really is very simple: we are using taxpayer money to help avert an
economic calamity as the result of an act of terrorism. The modest
reforms contained in this bill limit the amount of money that will go
to the trial lawyer.
If we are trying to help people in times of real duress and crisis,
is that an unreasonable thing to do? Should we not make sure that
taxpayer dollars get to the pocket to which they were intended? I think
it highly appropriate to do so.
If Members want a bill that says that we are going to respond to a
crisis without creating unnecessary bureaucracy; we are going to do it
quickly; we are going to make sure if we extend the credit of taxpayer
dollars, that they get the money back; we are going to give the
Secretary of the Treasury the ability to administer the program to make
sure we do not disrupt a fragile economy by saying, If this does not
make sense, Secretary of the Treasury, you have the right to administer
to the best economic interests of the citizens of this country and
collect the repayment later, but collect it you must.
Now, if Members want a bill that will ensure that big insurance
companies, as opposed to small, get helped; that trial lawyers get more
money out of the taxpayer; and that there is no guarantee of taxpayer
repayment, the substitute is the plan.
But if Members want to help victims of heinous acts of violence in a
timely, prompt, professional, accountable manner in which taxpayer
resources will be repaid, in which only those who need it receive the
assistance, the underlying H.R. 3210 is a piece of work that is not
perfect, but it is good. We will be back next year to change it. I am
sure the market will tell us the changes we need to make. But failing
to act today is the most irresponsible act one could engage in.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just make a few points. First of all, I very much
want a bill. I think it is important. I have attempted to work in good
faith with the members of the opposition, with the administration, to
come up with a good bill. I look forward to working in good faith in
the days ahead. I hope it will be the days ahead, rather than the weeks
ahead, that we will be able to come to an accord.
Secondly, I do think that there should be a deductible, and there is
not one in the gentleman's bill; there is in mine. I think the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) inadvertently made a mistake. We
do have an assessment mechanism. No company would have to pay a
deductible above 7 percent of net premiums, and we use basically the
same mechanism that they use. That certainly is our intent.
With respect to the mandatory coverage, maybe I made a political
mistake in offering that, but I think that substantively I am right.
Why? Because I cannot get over the 8 years that I chaired the Committee
on Small Business. I cannot get over the 4 to 6 years that I was
chairman of a small business subcommittee, when I had countless
hearings on the problems that small business had with insurance.
Take product liability insurance. We had not an unavailability
problem; we had an unaffordability problem. There were periods when
product liability insurance was so unaffordable that it was tantamount
to unavailable. Therefore, the only way we can ensure that terrorism
insurance would not become so
[[Page 23376]]
unconscionably, astronomically unaffordable for the small business men
and women of America is to make sure that we continue in the future
what we have experienced in the past, that is, that terrorism coverage
has been part of all P&C policies. That is the way the world has worked
historically; we simply want to continue that. So I think that
substantively we ought to wind up there.
On the issue of victims' compensation, we have to resolve this. There
will be no bill if we go forward with the gentleman's provisions. But
there is a case for consolidation. There is a case to be made that the
taxpayers should not pay for punitive damages. If we could come to an
accord there, we can do what is necessary. We can remove that Damoclean
sword that is hanging over the head of the economy.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for the
remaining 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very good debate, and first
of all, let me thank members of our committee on both sides of the
aisle and their respective staffs for what I think will turn out to be
a historic legislative product that we have been able to put together.
The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baker), has done yeoman's work in this area and deserves a great deal
of credit. My friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), as
well as his ranking member, Mr. Kanjorski, have also performed
admirably.
Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment for a new committee. We have
faced issues like anti-money laundering and attended a bill-signing
ceremony at the White House just 3 weeks ago. Now we come to this
difficult issue, the reinsurance issue, something we did not ask for,
something that happened to America after September 11; but this
committee stepped up. We were asked by the Speaker to produce
legislation, and I am very proud of the product that we put together
over a difficult issue, and it is complicated.
{time} 1515
I am particularly pleased that the substitute that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce) offered has so much in common with the
underlying bill. The post-event assessment and surcharge systems are
largely the same. Both bills have a $100 million lower trigger, and the
idea to protect the taxpayers is clearly inherent in both pieces of
legislation.
I would, however, disagree with my friend from New York in regard to
the statement he made on the deductible. The summary of the substitute
provided to the Committee on Rules says that this 7 percent per company
deductible is based on net premiums. That is simply not true. The
substitute language actually bases the 7 percent deductible on
aggregate premiums. This, of course, penalizes insurers for using
reinsurance.
We do not need to be in the business of penalizing insurance
companies to provide reinsurance. That is how the system works. As a
matter of fact, if my colleagues can imagine a world on September 11
where domestic insurance companies did have not the ability to
reinsure, imagine what kind of losses the industry would have taken and
imagine what that would have brought to us today.
Indeed, this bill ultimately, when passed, will encourage the growth
of reinsurance, and it may be early on that these companies, these
domestic companies, will essentially have to reinsure themselves. They
cannot go offshore, but I guarantee my colleagues that it will not be
long before the reinsurance market offshore, the reinsurers offshore,
have to go into the largest market in the world. They cannot afford to
stay on the sidelines.
It is one thing on September 12 to announce that they are not going
to provide reinsurance coverage for terrorism, but my guess is the
American economy, the American people, the American insurance
companies, will find a way to provide the kind of coverage for their
consumers and their customers and their insurers. When they do that,
the reinsurance folks will be running back to try to get back in this
game, and that is what this bill is all about.
This is a temporary bill. This is not forever. Even the legal reforms
are not forever. They are part of this legislation. So let us defeat
the substitute, let us vote for final passage, and let us go on forward
to get legislation for the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the substitute
and in opposition to the base bill. I do so because the legislation was
hijacked by the Rules Committee, which turned a bipartisan insurance
relief bill into yet another vehicle to enact a one-sided ``tort
reform'' agenda.
First and foremost, the base text totally eliminates punitive
damages. If this passes, Congress would be saying to the future victims
of terrorism that the most outrageous acts of gross negligence or
intentional misconduct that lead to an act of terrorism are totally
immune from punitive damages. Thus, if a baggage screening firm hires a
known terrorist who allows a weapon to slip on board a plane, this bill
would protect that company from liability.
The base bill also federalizes each and every action involving
terrorism, throwing more than 200 years of respect for federalism out
the window. Even worse, the liability provisions bear little
relationship to the issue of insurance. As a matter of fact, they would
apply to cases where the negligent party may have no insurance coverage
whatsoever. The bill even takes away all judicial review relating to
the bureaucratic decision as to whether terrorism caused the injury, an
unprecedented and very likely unconstitutional limitation on victims'
rights.
The underlying bill also would limit the ability of the victims of
terrorism to collect non-economic damages. This says to innocent
victims that damages from loss of consortium can be ignored and damages
for victims who lose a limb or are forced to bear excruciating pain for
the remainder of their lives are not as important as lost wages. Why
Congress would want to prevent a grieving wife from obtaining monetary
relief is beyond me, but that is exactly what this bill does.
The bill goes on and on--comprising a veritable wish list of
liability limitations. It mandates collateral source offsets, forcing
victims to choose between seeking money from charities and pursuing a
grossly negligent party in court. It caps attorneys' fees without
providing any comparable limitation on defendant's fees. Amazingly, the
legislation would criminalize the fee cap, subjecting lawyers to jail
time. The bill also eliminates pre-judgment interest, which takes away
any incentive for negligent parties to reach pre-trial settlements. All
of these harmful provisions are being proposed in the complete absence
of hearings or any committee consideration.
If enacted, the tort provisions would constitute the most radical and
one-sided liability limitations ever. I urge the Members to vote
``yes'' on the substitute, and ``no'' on final passage.
Liability Limitation Provisions in H.R. 3210, the ``Terrorism Risk
Protection Act''
(Prepared by the Democratic Staff of the House Judiciary Committee)
Section 15 of H.R. 3210, the ``Terrorism Risk Protection
Act,'' proposes new and unnecessary tort reforms that would
be harmful to victims of terrorism. Specifically, the bill
federalizes all terrorism liability cases, prohibits judicial
review of decisions to federalize such cases, eliminates
punitive damages, limits the amount of non-economic damages
for which defendants (not just insurers or reinsurers) are
liable, mandates collateral source offsets, and imposes caps
on attorneys' fees. The following is a section-by-section of
H.R. 3210, Section 15.
Section 15. Litigation Management.
Subsection (a). Federal Cause of Action for Claims Relating
to Terrorist Acts.
Section 15(a)(1)--In General: provides that, if the
Secretary of the Treasury decides there has been one or more
acts of terrorism, ``there shall exist a Federal cause of
action, which, except as provided in subsection (b), shall be
the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of, relating to,
or resulting from such acts of terrorism.'' This is a
broadly-written provision that would limit victims' rights in
every conceivable civil action--state or Federal--involving
terrorism, even if the insurer is not a party to the action.
In addition, the critical term ``act of terrorism'' is
undefined within the text of the legislation and thus grants
too much latitude to the Secretary to deem an event an ``act
of terrorism'' and allow wrongdoers to benefit from this
section.
Section 15(a)(2)--Effect of Determination: provides that
the Secretary's determinations under section 15(a)(1) shall
not be subject to judicial review and shall take effect upon
publication in the Federal Register. This
[[Page 23377]]
provision raises two significant concerns. First, it is
likely unconstitutional because the Constitution has been
held to provide for judicial review of actions by the
Executive. Second, denying judicial review of the Secretary's
decisions would grant the Secretary wide latitude to make
determinations about what events would constitute ``acts of
terrorism,'' such that--as before--a hoax or practical joke
could be designated an ``act of terrorism.''
Section 15(a)(3)--Substantive Law: states that an action
under this section is governed by the law and choice of law
principles of the state in which the terrorism occurred.
Section 15(a)(4)--Jurisdiction: provides that the Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation will designate one court
and that court will have exclusive jurisdiction on all cases
arising out of a particular terrorist event.
Section 15(a)(5)--Limits on Damages: provides a number of
limits on damages in actions brought for damages in
connection with any type of civil action related to
terrorism, not just those pertaining to commercial property
and casualty insurance. These limitations on their face apply
in every conceivable action--state or Federal--involving
terrorism. In fact, the current version of the bill is worse
than that reported by the Financial Services Committee
because the earlier bill limited damages only in cases
involving commercial property or casualty insurance; the
current bill applies to any action related to terrorism,
regardless of whether an insurance claim is involved.
Section 15(a)(5)(A): would prohibit punitive damages and
pre-judgment interest. Punitive damages are monetary damages
awarded to plaintiffs in civil actions when a defendant's
conduct has been found to flagrantly violate a plaintiff's
rights. The standard for awarding punitive damages is set at
the state level, but they are generally allowed only in cases
of wanton, willful, reckless or malicious conduct. These
damages are used to deter and punish particularly egregious
conduct. Eliminating punitive damages totally undermines the
deterrent and punishment function of the tort law. The threat
of meaningful punitive damages is a major deterrent to
wrongdoing, and eliminating punitive damages would severely
undercut their deterrent value since reckless or malicious
defendants could find it more cost effective to continue
their callous behavior and risk paying small punitive damage
awards. This means baggage screening firms would be protected
from liability if they hired incompetent employees or
deliberately failed to check for weapons and a terrorist act
resulted.
Pre-judgment interest liability is an added incentive to
move the judicial process along because a delay would result
in a penalty of added interest to the judgment. Without the
threat of added interest payments, attorneys for defendants
may be prone to delay proceedings because the real dollar
value of a judgment amount would be reduced, making the
judgment the same no matter how long the process. Limiting
interest would unfairly affect the judgment award collected
by the victims and leave them vulnerable to a delayed
judicial process.
Section 15(a)(5)(B): provides that a defendant will only be
liable for non-economic damages in direct proportion to the
percentage of the defendant's responsibility for the victim's
harm and prohibits plaintiffs from recovering such non-
economic damages unless the plaintiff suffered physical harm.
This would alter common law rule of joint and several
liability between defendants. Under the traditional rule,
where more than one defendant is found liable, each defendant
is held liable for the full amount of the damages. The
justification for this is that it is better that a wrongdoer
who can afford to do so pay more than its share, rather than
an innocent victim obtain less than full recovery. Also, a
defendant who pays more than its share of damages can seek
contribution from the other defendants. By holding each
defendant responsible only for its percentage of
responsibility, this section would supersede state law by
eliminating joint and several liability for non-economic
damages in these actions. Also, the prohibition on non-
economic damages unless physical harm is suffered raises
significant concerns. Essentially, a spouse who suffers loss
of consortium could not recover any non-economic damages.
This is an unprecedented limitation on victims' rights.
In addition, this provision would shift non-economic costs
from wrongdoers to victims and discriminate against groups
less likely to establish significant economic damages, such
as women, children, minorities, seniors, and the poor. It is
unconscionable to put more value on the loss of a job than on
the loss of a limb, loss of the ability to have children,
disfigurement, or other forms of non-economic harms. Also,
eliminating joint and several liability for non-economic
harms would discourage settlements and thus increase case
loads and litigation costs.
Section 15(a)(6)--Collateral Sources: requires that, for
compensation of loss related to terrorism, a plaintiff's
recovery must be offset by any funds received pursuant to any
emergency or disaster relief program or any other collateral
source. There are two problems with this provision. First, a
reduction of a victim's award due to collateral source
compensation would result in wrongdoers escaping their
responsibility. This legislation subtracts any other
potential sources of recovery the victim may have from any
damages the wrongdoer should pay. Losses caused by negligence
or wrongdoing would be shifted from liable defendants to the
government, private insurers, or disaster relief
organizations who made the ``collateral source'' payment.
Second, the provision is too overreaching. The effect would
be to require any funding given to the plaintiff, whether it
be from health insurance payment or funds from a voluntary
organization, be used to offset relief payments made by
culpable defendants. Under this provision, funds received by
a victim from the Red Cross must be used to offset relief
payments and reduce a wrongdoer's liability.
Section 15(a)(7)--Attorney Fees: provides that attorneys'
fees shall be limited to twenty percent of either the damages
ordered by a court or any court-approved settlement under
this section. Any attorney who charges or receives fees in
excess of twenty percent shall be fined not more than $2,000,
imprisoned not more than on year, or both. Fee caps, which
apply only to victims, result in less access to justice for
lower-income populations. A payment ceiling or fee cap limits
the economic incentive for attorneys to take on complex or
difficult-to-prove claims under the contingency fee system;
in turn, this would make it much more difficult for lower-
income populations to secure good representation. Moreover,
the threat of imprisonment is without precedent and could
deter attorneys from providing assistance.
Section 15(b)--Exclusion: provides that nothing in section
15 shall limit the liability of a person who attempts to
commit, commits, participates, or is engaged in a conspiracy
to commit an act of terrorism.
Section 15(c)--Right of Subrogation: provides that the
United States has the right of subrogation with respect to
any claim it paid under this section.
Section 15(d)--Relationship to Other Laws: states that
nothing in section 15 shall affect either any party's
contractual right to arbitrate a dispute, or any provision of
the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of
2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-42).
Section 15(e)--Satisfaction of Judgments from Frozen Assets
of Terrorists, Terrorist Organizations, and State Sponsors of
Terrorism
Section 15(e)(1)--In General: provides that, in any case in
which a person obtains a judgment against a terrorist party,
the frozen assets of that terrorist party or of any agency or
instrumentality of that party shall be available for
satisfaction of the judgment. This provision removes foreign
sovereign immunity and is designed to ensure that victims of
terrorism receive the compensation they are owed, even if the
defendant is a foreign state.
Section 15(e)(2)--Presidential Waiver: states that the
President, on an asset-by-asset basis, can waive the
requirements of subsection 15(e)(1) for any property subject
to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This waiver
authority vitiates the protections for victims of state-
sponsored terrorism provided for in subsection 15(e)(1). If
the President can waive unilaterally any judgment for a
victim, then victims could easily receive no compensation for
their claims.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by aligning myself with the
statement of Chairman Oxley regarding the LaFalce substitute. The
LaFalce substitute has many of the same components of H.R. 3210 because
H.R. 3210 represents, in large part, the cooperative efforts of
Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member LaFalce, Mr. Kanjorski and me. However,
the differences in the substitute from H.R. 3210 demonstrate exactly
where Chairman Oxley and I diverge from our Democratic colleagues. The
LaFalce substitute includes provisions that we simply would not agree
to, which is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
First, the amendment is anti-consumer in that it mandates commercial
property and casualty insurers to include terrorism risk coverage on
all policies on the same terms and amounts as their other commercial
coverage. This precludes businesses from creating risk management
solutions that meet their particular needs. For instance, many small
businesses may not feel that their size, location or exposure merits
the additional cost of terrorism insurance--but they would have to pay
for it regardless under the LaFalce proposal. By further example, the
LaFalce plan would not permit a business to buy only standard
commercial property and casualty coverage from one insurer and
terrorism coverage from another if there is a pricing advantage in
doing so. The plan also denies the insured the ability to self-insure
for a certain amount of terrorism risk or to purchase multiple layers
of terrorism coverage.
In addition to the problems that mandated coverage creates for
consumers, it also unnecessarily preempts state law on form regulation
by having the Federal government mandate the terms and conditions of
coverage.
[[Page 23378]]
The certainty provided by the exposure limits in our Bill and the
assessment system in our Bill provides the proper incentives for
commercial property and casualty insurers to provide terrorism risk
coverage.
Another problem with the LaFalce substitute is that the insurance
mechanism that it creates does not effectively spread risk, prevent
gaming, provide adequate protections to small insurers, or encourage
the spreading of risk through reinsurance. While both Bills require
that industry pay the first $5 billion in losses due to terrorism in
the first year and the first $10 billion in subsequent years, the
LaFalce plan does not effectively spread this risk throughout the
industry. By having a $5 billion deductible with no provision of how
these losses are calculated or paid, his plan competitively
disadvantages small insurance companies who would not be able to absorb
the tremendous losses that would be incurred by those small insurers
before the industry assistance kicks in.
To try to respond to the small insurer disadvantage, the LaFalce plan
has an individual insurance company exposure limit of 7 percent of
gross premium--not net premium as stated in his summary. This is a very
important point in that gross premium numbers do not give credit to the
insurer for the reinsurance that it has purchased. Thus, before federal
assistance kicks in, the insurer would have to suffer losses equaling
over 7 percent of its gross premium even though it has already spread
much of the risk that it cannot cover to reinsurers. The result:
insurers are not able to write as much insurance and assistance will
not kick in for them until they have already been put into financial
duress.
Additionally, the LaFalce plan encourages gaming of the system.
Insurers will delay claims and loss reports for months or years so that
they occur after the industry deductible is reached. That way, they
avoid having to absorb any of the losses themselves. Our plan does
provide first dollar coverage once the triggers are met to prevent such
gaming; and while the LaFalce plan does not require the industry to
retain any losses after his proposal starts to provide assistance, our
Bill always requires that the insurer absorb at least 10 percent of the
losses at all times, regardless of federal assistance.
Finally, the LaFalce substitute strips out the sovereign immunity
provisions of H.R. 3210. Acts of terrorism give rise to very unique
sets of facts and a complexity of interested parties that is uncommon
in tort law. In the administration of the program established by this
Act, it is essential that there is consistency and timely response.
Multiple state forums awarding immense damage awards underwritten by
federally supported insurance companies would result in a patchwork of
inconsistent state court decisions all over the country that would
impede the effective and fair implementation of this program. The lack
of limited federal forums for claims would result in the kinds of
tragic delays in the prompt compensation of victims as we have seen in
other mass tort cases, such as the 1993 WTC bombing where cases are
just now coming to trial.
Equally as important are the prohibitions on punitive damage awards
and joint and several liability for losses caused by terrorist attacks.
Acts of terrorism differ fundamentally from other losses that the tort
system is designed to deal with in that the overwhelmingly culpable
party, the terrorists, will either not be before the court or their
assets will be limited or unreachable. To subject effected parties of a
terrorism attack and the United States taxpayer to punitive damage
awards for the acts of suicidal and maniacal terrorists is a poor
allocation of limited resources and simply unfair to the group of
victims as a whole. Furthermore, to suggest that an effected party that
is found to be 1 percent at fault for a negligent omission of some
minor sort could be held responsible for 100 percent of damages due to
a terrorist attack is beyond reason.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). All time for debate on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 297, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 222, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 462]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--222
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Combest
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
[[Page 23379]]
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Carson (IN)
Chambliss
Cooksey
Cubin
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Ford
Frost
Miller, George
Quinn
Rangel
Rothman
Wexler
Wolf
{time} 1541
Messrs. SIMMONS, THOMAS, SMITH of Texas, GUTKNECHT, and Ms. HARMAN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BERRY, OWENS, and PHELPS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to
show that I was right at the door when the vote closed. My colleague,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I were in a meeting with
the Director of OMB in the Cannon office building. Had I been present,
I would have voted no.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I too was in the meeting with the Director of
OMB. Had I been present, I would have voted no.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. LaFalce
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LaFALCE. Yes, I am opposed, and the National Taxpayers Union is
opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. LaFalce moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3210 to the
Committee on Financial Service with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Strike section 15 of the bill (relating to litigation
management).
At the end of section 6 of the bill (relating to federal
cost-sharing for commercial insurers), add the following new
subsection:
(g) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Secretary may not provide financial assistance
under this section to any commercial insurer unless the
commercial insurer provides to the Secretary such assurances,
as the Secretary shall by regulation require, that such
insurance company will comply with the regulations issued
pursuant to section 7(i).
At the end of section 7 of the bill (relating to
assessments), add the following new subsection:
(i) Prohibition of Pass-Through.--The Secretary shall, by
regulation, prohibit any commercial insurer from including in
any premiums or other charges for property and casualty
insurance coverage any amounts to cover any costs
attributable to any assessment under this section (including
the payment of any such assessment and costs of financing
such payment).
{time} 1545
Mr. LaFALCE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion
to recommit.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me make the following points. The National Taxpayers
Union not only requests a ``no'' vote on final passage of the bill,
they will be scoring final passage of the bill as it stands. I just
want to make Members aware of that.
Second, what is in the motion to recommit takes the House bill as it
is right now, two changes, one, a deletion. It deletes all of the tort
provisions. Number two, an addition. It would prevent the insurance
industry from passing through the costs of repaying the Federal
assistance granted under the bill to its customers. Those are the only
two changes. We cut out the tort provisions, and we prevent the pass-
through of costs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt) to speak to these issues.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the provision that was added by the
Committee on Rules last night which would limit relief for the victims
of terrorist attacks by immunizing wrongdoers in advance from the
consequences of their own negligence and reckless conduct, has nothing
whatsoever to do with stabilizing the insurance market, nothing to do
with ensuring that people would be able to secure insurance against
future acts of terrorism. It does not belong in the bill. The motion to
recommit, as the ranking member alluded to, would delete it; and it
would leave us basically with the bill reported out with strong
bipartisan support from the Committee on Financial Services.
If we are genuinely concerned about preventing an insurance crisis,
we should agree to this motion and pass a clean bill. Let us not try to
rewrite the fundamental rules of the civil justice system late at night
without thoughtful and considerate debate. Note that the Committee on
Rules' provision would prohibit the courts from awarding punitive
damages in cases arising out of terrorist incidents no matter how
outrageous the underlying conduct.
For example, even for private airport security contractors who
wantonly, recklessly, maliciously hired convicted felons, failed to
perform background checks, there would be no punitive damages. Even for
landlords who deliberately ignore safety codes and fail to install
escape routes in their buildings, there would be no punitive damages.
Nobody wants to hold parties responsible if they bear no blame, but
this provision lets them off the hook, even if they knowingly engage in
conduct that puts our fellow citizens at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the motion to recommit would prevail,
and I urge support for the motion.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), a member of the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recommit because
it is certainly in the first provision cleaning up the tort reform
provisions, which would go a long way in moving the process along to a
final conclusion.
A second provision in the bill allows, of course, for restrictions to
pass through. As I understand the concept, rather than allowing
insurance companies to keep their profit scales and just pass a rate
increase on to the customers, even though they have profits that could
afford the cost of those losses, they first would have to look at their
profits before there is a pass-through.
The purpose of this motion to recommit is to put a bill together that
is more tenable for action in the Senate and eventually to pass this
House. I urge my colleagues on both sides to reexamine their conscience
and put the real issue at stake, the need for reinsurance in this
country, a good underlying bill that was structured to accomplish that,
and to do it in a bipartisan way.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to striking the litigation management
sections, the motion to recommit imposes price controls on the
insurance industry. We
[[Page 23380]]
can attempt to regulate rates, but we cannot force insurance companies
to offer coverage; and States with rate regulation have less
competition and higher prices for consumers. Only if we want less
insurance availability and higher prices would we vote for this motion
to recommit.
Our bill, H.R. 3210, forces the industry, not the taxpayers, to bear
the ultimate cost of the terrorist attack. That is what this bill is
all about. The bipartisan bill passed out of committee on voice vote
allows insurers to price it into future policies.
The motion to recommit says that not only are insurers responsible
for spreading terrorist costs, but we are going to force them into
insolvency. Why should insurers be punished and not allowed to rebuild
their reserves? They should be allowed to reinsure themselves,
particularly in light of the fact that the reinsurance industry has
gotten out of the business.
These price controls proposed are bad for consumers, bad for
policyholders and bad for our national economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
motion to recommit which would strip from the bill vital litigation
management provisions. Without these provisions, the bill would
threaten untold numbers of businesses with the loss of capital and
credit simply because they might be named in a lawsuit related to a
terrorist attack.
Nearly identical litigation management provisions were passed by the
House by a vote of 286-139 to cover lawsuits related to the September
11 attacks. Without these provisions, anyone could be on the hook for
all damages caused by a terrorist attack, running into billions of
dollars, even when they share only 1 percent of the responsibility of
the losses and the terrorists share the remaining 99 percent.
If any defendant, even those just marginally involved in such a
minuscule portion of any injuries could be made to pay the full amount
of noneconomic damages caused by a massive terrorist attack, hundreds
of legitimate businesses would be thrown into bankruptcy.
Again, existing tort rules are designed to deal with the typical
slip-and-fall case. They may properly apply when the primary cause of
an injury is excessive water on the floor of a grocery store, but
surely that cannot be true when the primary cause is a suicidal
fanatic, motivated by the deepest hatred of America and using weapons
of mass destruction intended to kill as many innocent people as
possible. If anyone can convince me that a slippery floor is the moral
equivalent of a terrorist, I will vote for the gentleman's motion
myself.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has already recognized this in passing the
liability protection provisions governing lawsuits relating to the
September 11 attacks. Without the litigation management provisions, no
limits would be placed on the fees of attorneys bringing cases against
Americans and their businesses, even when the primary cause of injury
is a terrorist.
Without the provisions which allow courts the discretion to keep
attorneys' fees reasonable, a few war profiteers can turn attacks that
result in multibillion-dollar losses into private jackpots for
themselves, that are paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this motion to recommit and
ensure equitable compensation to victims while protecting the American
economy and the taxpayer.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the motion to recommit would
offer us the opportunity to fix this bill. I believe the bill is
flawed, and I will be voting against it. Unfortunately, minority
leadership staff has fouled up, in my opinion, the motion to recommit.
I will be voting against the motion to recommit, and voting against the
bill as well.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 243, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 463]
AYES--173
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--243
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
[[Page 23381]]
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Boehner
Boucher
Carson (IN)
Chambliss
Cooksey
Cubin
DeFazio
Ford
Frost
Greenwood
Johnson (CT)
Lowey
Miller, George
Quinn
Rangel
Rothman
Wexler
{time} 1618
Mr. ROEMER and Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 193, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 464]
AYES--227
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Boucher
Carson (IN)
Chambliss
Cooksey
Cubin
DeFazio
Ford
Frost
Lowey
Quinn
Rangel
Rothman
Wexler
{time} 1637
Mr. CROWLEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
AMENDMENTS OF 2001
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 717) to amend the Public Health Service
Act to provide for research with respect to various forms of muscular
dystrophy, including Duchenne, Becker, limb girdle, congenital,
facioscapulohumeral, myotonic, oculopharyngeal, distal, and Emery-
Dreifuss muscular dystrophies, with a Senate amendment thereto, and
concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate amendment:
Page 17, after line 6 insert:
SEC. 7. STUDY ON THE USE OF CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AT THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.
(a) Review.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of
Medicine for the purpose of conducting a study and making
recommendations on the impact of, need for, and other issues
associated with Centers of Excellence at the National
Institutes of Health.
(b) Areas of Review.--In conducting the study under
subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine shall at a minimum
consider the following:
(1) The current areas of research incorporating Centers of
Excellence (which shall include a description of such areas)
and the relationship of this form of funding mechanism to
other forms of funding for research grants, including
investigator initiated research, contracts and other types of
research support awards.
(2) The distinctive aspects of Centers of Excellence,
including the additional knowledge that
[[Page 23382]]
may be expected to be gained through Centers of Excellence as
compared to other forms of grant or contract mechanisms.
(3) The costs associated with establishing and maintaining
Centers of Excellence, and the record of scholarship and
training resulting from such Centers. The research and
training contributions of Centers should be assessed on their
own merits and in comparison with other forms of research
support.
(4) Specific areas of research in which Centers of
Excellence may be useful, needed, or underused, as well as
areas of research in which Centers of Excellence may not be
helpful.
(5) Criteria that may be applied in determining when
Centers of Excellence are an appropriate and cost-effective
research investment and conditions that should be present in
order to consider the establishment of Centers of Excellence.
(6) Alternative research models that may accomplish results
similar to or greater than Centers of Excellence.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which
the contract is entered into under subsection (a), the
Institute of Medicine shall complete the study under such
subsection and submit a report to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and the appropriate committees of Congress
that contains the results of such study.
Mr. TAUZIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I
certainly shall not object as the sponsor of this legislation. I just
wanted to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin) and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for
their hard work and cooperation on this issue, along with expressing my
thanks to the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), as well as to my
principal cosponsor, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly say that this legislation left this
House with a unanimous vote and 310 cosponsors, and it will authorize
the Centers of Excellence at the National Institutes of Health as well
as an epidemiological survey at the CDC for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
and other forms of childhood muscular dystrophy.
I have to say that I cannot think of a better Christmas present
during this time between Thanksgiving and Christmas for the tens of
thousands of parents whose children suffer from this lethal disease.
Duchenne muscular dystrophy, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) knows, is the most common and most lethal form of childhood
genetic disease. By the passage of this legislation tonight, we are
giving honest, real hope to the parents of these children and to the
entire American people who want to fight this disease. My appreciation
goes to everyone.
I have been a strong supporter of NIH and all of the scientists and
dedicated professionals at the National Institutes of Health. I want to
thank them for their cooperation for helping us write a better bill
than I had originally offered. I am grateful to everyone, and my hat is
off to the Duchenne muscular dystrophy parents who have actually made
this possible.
With those words of thanks and appreciation, I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana under my reservation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to commend the gentleman for his extraordinary work in this area.
Not only will this bill, because of his great work, authorize NIH to do
extensive new research on Duchenne muscular dystrophy, but also other
forms of childhood muscular dystrophy. What we have learned is when
they do extensive research in these areas, very much of it is genetic
research and that genetic research yields all sorts of information on
other diseases, such as Friedreich's ataxia, which is a disease of my
culture, the Cajun culture. We learn a great deal every time we do
extensive research into these genetic disease areas and as the
gentleman said, not only tens of thousands of parents whose children
suffer with these disease, but countless tens and perhaps hundreds of
thousands of families who may get an answer to diseases comparable or
similar to these may come out of this research.
I want to thank the gentleman for his great work on it; and again, I
think not only many families will receive this as a great Christmas
gift, but future generations are going to be grateful for the work he
has done on this bill.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation, I
thank my chairman. I will simply conclude by saying it is not often
that we are surprised with this legislative business, but I think the
speed with which this legislation swept through the House of
Representatives and also the other body has taken my breath away. My
hat is off to the leadership of the House and to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 717.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
ACCESS AND OPENNESS IN SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ACT OF 2001
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks, and include therein
extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today to introduce
the Access and Openness in Small Business Lending Act of 2001, a bill
that I hope will dramatically improve lending practices that benefit
women and minority-owned small businesses.
This legislation will amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
require depository lenders such as banks, credit unions, and thrifts to
collect race and gender information for small business borrowers. But
while the Access and Openness Act requires depository institutions to
keep such records, it does not require borrowers to disclose race and
gender information if they do not want to.
The Access and Openness Act will effectively eliminate the Federal
Reserve's regulation B, which prohibits lenders from collecting data
regarding an applicant's gender and race.
The guiding principle behind this bill is time-tested and simple:
sunshine is the best disinfectant. Without the specific knowledge of
the demographic composition of small business borrowers, including
those that apply but do not get approval, we will never be able to
unmask discriminatory lending practices or systematically monitor
programs that advance women and minority business ownership.
The Access and Openness Act is modeled after the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act, which requires banks to report demographic data on home
mortgage lending. It is my hope that this bill will move banks to
operate as effectively in the women and minority small business lending
market as they have in the home mortgage market where the collection of
demographic data has opened lending to underserved communities.
Mr. Speaker, I will include at this point in the Record the following
supporting material:
Access and Openness in Small Business Lending Act of 2001
supporting organizations
National Women's Business Council, a federal commission,
Association for Women's Business Centers, Women's Business
Development Center, Milken Institute, National Community
Reinvestment Coalition, Hispanic Economic Development
Corporation, and Alternatives Federal Credit Union.
[[Page 23383]]
Southern Rural Development Initiative, National Congress
for Community Economic Development, Cabrillo Economic
Development Corporation, Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment
Group, Chelsea Neighborhood Housing Services, Rural
Opportunities, and Greater Holyoke Community Development
Corporation.
Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley, Texas
Community Reinvestment Coalition, Charlotte Organizing
Project, Common Wealth Development, Wisconsin, Western New
York Law Center, and California Reinvestment Committee.
Rural Housing Institute, National Neighborhood Housing
Network, Vermont Slauson Economic Development Corporation,
Los Angeles, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
Coastal Enterprises, Inc., and Mon Valley Initiative.
____
National Community
Reinvestment Coalition,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2001.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McGovern: The National Community
Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) strongly supports ``the Access
and Openness in Small Businesses Lending Act of 2001'' as
essential to the efforts of lending institutions, community
organizations, and local public agencies to increase access
to capital and credit for women- and minority-owned
businesses. NCRC's 800 member organizations--community groups
and local public agencies--around the country also commend
the leadership of Representatives McGovern and Morella in
sponsoring this bill.
The Access in Small Business Lending Act of 2001 would
amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require
banks, thrifts, and credit unions to report the race and
gender of the small businesses from which they receive
applications and to which they make loans. This data is to be
disclosed regardless of whether the application is made in
person, over the phone, or received via mail or the Internet.
This data disclosure requirement promises to greatly
increase access to credit for minority and women-owned
businesses. Working together, community groups, lending
institutions and local public agencies would analyze publicly
available small business data and identify the small business
owners and neighborhoods that remain underserved. Stimulated
by data disclosure, these types of community-lenders
partnerships are a win-win: bankers seize upon untapped
markets and find additional profitable lending opportunities;
community organizations and small businesses receive more
access to private sector credit with which to revitalize
their neighborhoods and expand their commercial base.
An amendment to HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) data in
1990 to require the reporting of race and gender of
applicants unleashed a tremendous increase in lending to
traditionally underserved populations. From 1993 to 1999, for
example, the number of conventional home purchase loans
increased 119 percent for African-Americans, 116 percent for
Latinos, and only 42 percent for whites.
Unfortunately, the state of affairs is not as sanguine in
the small business area. The truncated CRA small business
data (which only reveals the census tract in which a loan is
made) suggests that much progress needs to be made. From 1996
to 1999, the number of small business loans increased 39
percent overall but only 8 percent in low-income census
tracts. As a result, the percent of small business loans made
in low- and moderate-income tracts declined from 21 percent
to 18 percent, despite * * *
____________________
WORLD AIDS DAY
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for asking us to really speak out
on this worldwide issue. In fact, we have an opportunity to speak out
on this issue 2 days before what we call World AIDS Day. As this day
approaches, we are faced with the grim statistics about the spread of
HIV/AIDS. From the rural South in my area of North Carolina to South
Africa, greater efforts have to be made to fight the spread of AIDS. We
hear these statistics. They do not even prick our consciousness. We
have got to find a way to make sure that these statistics do not become
just sheer rhetoric.
A recent story on the AP wire reports that the AIDS epidemic is
spreading across eastern Europe, with HIV infection rates rising faster
in the Soviet Union than anywhere else in the world. I would like to
submit this article for the Record.
There has been more than 75,000 new cases of HIV in Russia as
compared to 56,000 cases last year. Here in the United States, HIV
infections among U.S. women have increased significantly over the last
decade, especially in communities of color.
We must do more. We have an opportunity to do more. The United States
must provide more resources for the global AIDS fund of the United
Nations. We can do this by providing the resources and being a leader.
We must develop long-term strategies to make sure that we rid the world
of HIV infections.
Report: AIDS Sweeping Eastern Europe
(By Mara D. Bellaby)
Moscow (AP).--The AIDS epidemic is sweeping across Eastern
Europe, with HIV infection rates rising faster within the
former Soviet Union than anywhere else in the world,
according to the latest U.N. report on AIDS, published
Wednesday.
The combination of economic insecurity, high unemployment
and deteriorating health services in the region are behind
the steep rise, which shows no signs of abating, said U.N.
officials, in Moscow to launch the report.
Worldwide, ``HIV/AIDS is unequivocally the most devastating
disease we have ever faced, and it will get worse before it
gets better,'' Peter Pilot, executive director of the Joint
U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS wrote in the report, which is
updated annually ahead of Worlds AIDS Day, held every Dec. 1.
In Russia, more than 75,000 new cases of HIV infection were
reported by early November, compared to 56,000 new cases last
year.
``That works out to about 10,000 new cases every month,''
said Gennady Onishchenko, Russia's first deputy health
minister. ``This is our reality. . . . It is a very serious
problem.''
Ukraine has the highest HIV prevalence rate in the region,
with an estimated 1 percent of adults infected. In the small
Baltic nation of Estonia, 1,112 new cases of HIV infection
were recorded in the first nine months of this year, compared
to only 12 in all of 1999, officials said.
The U.N. report said that in Eastern Europe, as in the rest
of the world, AIDS affects a disproportionate number of young
people. The main method of transmission in the former Soviet
Union is through injecting drugs.
``It is a teen-age epidemic--teen-agers experimenting with
drugs, teen-agers experimenting with sex,'' Piot said.
Officials in Eastern Europe have blamed the epidemic's
increase partly on the sudden opening of borders, the growth
of organized crime and weakened social services following the
collapse of communist rule a decade ago.
Many young people, bored and unsure about their future,
turn to drugs or unprotected sexual encounters, officials
said.
Since the first clinical evidence of AIDS appeared 20 years
ago, more than 22 million people have died. AIDS is the
leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, which has been
hit hardest by the epidemic.
This year, African nations will experience 3.4 million new
infections and 2.3 million deaths--losses that not only drain
national budgets but also put future generations at risk,
depriving children of parents and local economies of their
work force, officials said.
U.N. officials predicted that some of the most affected
African nations could lose more than 20 percent of their GDP
by 2020 because of AIDS.
The U.N. report said unsafe sex was on the rise in high-
income countries such as the United States and some European
nations, subsequently triggering a rise in sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV.
``All the emphasis is put on treatment, which has had a
major impact, but prevention has been neglected and education
has been neglected,'' Piot said. ``The price that we will
have to pay for that neglect is very high.''
The report found a bright spot in Cambodia, where
prevention measures have had a significant impact, but
officials also warned about the deteriorating situation in
China and in the Caribbean, which continues to be the second
most affected region in the world.
Last June, the U.N. General Assembly held a special session
on HIV/AIDS, winning pledges from governments to pursue new
preventive actions and contribute more funds to the fight.
The United Nations estimates that some $10 billion will be
needed every year to fight AIDS in low and middle-income
countries.
____________________
{time} 1645
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, and under a previous
order of the House, the following Members will be recognized for 5
minutes each.
____________________
[[Page 23384]]
JUMPERTOWN QUILT PROJECT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, ever since the events of September 11,
people in communities large and small have looked for ways to show
their support for the victims of terrorism and to express the pride
they have in this great country.
I rise today to share the story of an inspiring, patriotic project
undertaken in a community in Mississippi's First Congressional
District. The students and residents of Jumpertown, in Prentiss County,
Mississippi, chose a unique way to share their words of support and
patriotism by including them in a quilt. I was honored to be asked to
deliver it to President Bush.
Mrs. Nancy Johnson, a teacher at the school, conceived the idea,
which quickly became more than a school project. It was
enthusiastically embraced by the entire community.
Mrs. Betty Sue Geno started the process by cutting cloth squares,
which were then distributed to each class, kindergarten through 12th
grade, in the 365-member student body at Jumpertown School. The office
staff and lunchroom ladies also participated. Each group was given the
opportunity to create and decorate the individual squares.
When all pieces were completed, Mrs. Penny Padgett designed and sewed
the quilt top. Then the squares were turned over to a group of ladies
in the community who met at the Barksdale Parents Center for an old-
fashioned quilting bee.
The ladies who put it all together were Mrs. Ruby Smart, Mrs. Sue
Nell Searcy, Mrs. Mary Odle, and Mrs. Louise Robinson. They were
assisted by teachers and staff members from Jumpertown School,
including Lisa Cousar, Eleshia Jumper, and Martha Mitchell.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be part of a patriotic ceremony on
November 12, the day after Veterans Day, to present the quilt
officially. The entire school assembled in the gymnasium, along with
many people from the community, to pay tribute to Prentiss County
veterans and to celebrate this very special project.
Prentiss County superintendent of education Judy Perrigo and
Jumpertown principal Kenneth Chisholm took part in the program. It
included patriotic musical selections from students Kayla Robinson and
Megan Downs and teacher Norma Jo Jones. Sixth-grader Channing Durham
also read a poem he had written.
In her remarks, Mrs. Johnson said, ``Much as our Nation has come
together, our community has pulled together on this quilt. We are
sending this to the President with the hope that he knows that in
Jumpertown our prayers, our thoughts, and our support are with him and
the country.''
This project in Jumpertown, Mississippi, Mr. Speaker, is a reflection
of the American spirit which has sustained our Nation during these
difficult times. I proudly accepted this quilt on behalf of the entire
United States Congress, and I look forward to taking it to President
Bush at the White House.
____________________
BORDER POINTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening after returning from a
day and a half visit with the Canadian parliamentarians and government
leaders in Ottawa, I spoke briefly about the importance of our mutual
trade and our mutual concerns about terrorism.
It is important when we are discussing antiterrorism efforts on our
north and south borders that we not forget the importance of trade. The
trade crossing just the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and
Detroit, Michigan, equals all U.S.-Japan trade.
That said, Americans as well as Canadians and Mexicans are concerned
about the movement of terrorists and other illegal activity along our
borders. It is not just about terrorists and possible terrorists. Most
Americans have been aware of the narcotics problems along the U.S.-
Mexican border over the last decade. Andean cocaine and heroin move
into the U.S. through Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The northern border
does not have the fences and patrols that we have along the south
border.
Now, as drug patterns change in the United States, Canada has become
a major narcotics conduit to the United States, as well: Ecstacy,
coming mostly from the Netherlands, across into the U.S. from Canada;
ephedrine and chemical precursors for methamphetamines, meth, for
Ecstacy and other synthetic drugs are moving through Canada. These are
in fact our fastest growing drug problems.
Furthermore, potent marijuana from British Columbia, called B.C. Bud,
and from Quebec, called Quebec Gold, have potencies similar to cocaine.
In fact, Quebec Gold sells for about the same price as cocaine in New
York City. But it is important for Americans to understand two basic
points: one, it is our consumption that has resulted in our hemispheric
neighbors turning into transit and drug-producing nations; and, B, in
the case of Canada, the drug-trafficking, like the movement of
terrorists, goes both ways.
This does not change the need for border control. The borders are
often our best chance to catch drug traffickers and terrorists before
they lose themselves within our free nations; thus, we have to work on
border control.
So how can we keep our trade, tourism, and shared work forces moving
with relative ease, and also protect our nations? It is not a matter of
Canada, Mexico, or the U.S. dictating to the other nations about what
must be done, but this is a fact: the United States is toughening its
laws. If our neighbors do not, as well, trade will suffer.
Changes must include numerous things, including more shared
intelligence information among trained professional personnel. The
personnel has to be trained so we do not have compromises when we share
information, like happened with the Mexican drug czar who was living in
an apartment that was owned by the cartel.
The ability to collect intelligence information. We have to have laws
that are flexible enough to allow us to gather the intelligence, or we
cannot allow the movement across the borders as free as it has been in
the past.
The ability to arrest, detain, and prosecute violators, and to keep
track of high risks. This is what we are doing in our terrorism bill;
and this is what we need from our neighbors, if we are not going to
have tighter controls on the border.
The ability to extradite criminals to the U.S. This has been a
sticking point for many years with numerous countries, for example, in
Colombia where the drug-corrupted President would not allow
extradition, and it became a place for them to hide out. It became a
process where we in fact cut off trade and assistance to Colombia. It
is now a problem with al Qaeda members from Spain, which does not want
to send them to us because of our death penalty.
Extradition of those who murder Americans is essential for justice,
but also for defense and for protection and deterrence. Terrorists and
drug lords would rather face soft justice than U.S. justice.
In Holland, narcotics traffickers find cover. If someone in Holland
attempts to escape or escapes from prison, there is no penalty. It is
assumed that that is a natural thing, to want to escape from prison. Is
it any wonder that people try to hide in Holland, with those kinds of
laws? No wonder drug lords and terrorists try to hide out in other
nations that do not work with our extradition.
We need also passenger manifest lists, as our Customs Director, Mr.
Bonner, has insisted; and we need them now. We cannot have open
airports if we do not know who the passengers are coming in, and it is
something that needs to be done immediately, to the degree that we can
all, including the U.S. And we, the U.S., after all, missed the
September 11 terrorists, and they were here, not at the other places.
So this is not just about pointing fingers while we live in a glass
house. We know we need to make the changes, but so do our neighbors.
We in the U.S. are building a different house. It is not dramatic,
but it
[[Page 23385]]
is going to have major adjustments. If our neighbors do so also, and
Canada clearly is working rapidly to do so as we speak, because they
are moving their antiterrorism and immigration packages in the next 2
weeks, we can make this.
The laws will be different but similar, with our neighbors devoting
resources to their own airports and borders not adjacent to the U.S.
For example, the southern border with Mexico and Central America, if we
are sure about that border, then we do not have to be as careful on our
border; or if the airports coming into Vancouver and Halifax have
protections similar to ours, then we do not need to be as tight on the
north border.
Furthermore, we need to work towards joint efforts with Canada and
Mexico on our joint borders. For example with Canada, we can look for
cooperation on truck sites. We can look for shared border crossings
where we do not need as much. I believe we can accomplish this with
both countries by working together.
____________________
ON WORLD AIDS DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, December 1, marks
the commemoration of World AIDS Day. In my district, I will be holding
a special event in support of this occasion.
As our distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt), stated at the World AIDS Day briefing held earlier
today in the Capitol by the African Ambassadors Group and the
International AIDS Trust, the issue of HIV/AIDS, he said, is the
``moral issue of our time.'' It affects everyone and everything.
Mr. Speaker, we must leave no stone unturned to bring an end to this
pandemic. We must find a way to create an endowment of funding to
assist the war against the spread of this disease, both domestically
and internationally.
We must increase and accelerate our financial support to the U.N.
Secretary General's AIDS Trust Fund, and we must champion our own
colleagues in their quest to craft a comprehensive approach to help
alleviate the appalling suffering in Africa, as represented by the bill
of my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee), to establish a Marshall Plan for Africa.
Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important that we focus on ways and means
to strengthen infrastructures and services that can help combat the
impact of AIDS. HIV/AIDS, after all, is a multidimensional issue that
has long-range development implications. It is not just a matter of
clinical treatment and curative measures. We must address the issues of
poverty and debt relief, so that the poorest countries can apply more
of their revenues to the basic human rights and human needs of their
people.
We must help and encourage greater gender equity, so women and men
can address their sexual dialogue on a more equal basis. We must
achieve greater understanding of the cultural values and modes of
behavior that undercut safe-sex practices that lead to the spread of
this pernicious disease.
Finally, we must increase our financial support to develop activities
and programs that can lay a more sustainable foundation for community
empowerment and economic livelihood.
Only on this basis will communities around the world, through NGOs
and public-private partnerships, be able to find the will to wage this
war against AIDS. Our local event will bring together researchers,
doctors, and other health professionals, as well as heads of
foundations and pharmaceutical companies, together with community
leaders to continue to raise support for combatting HIV/AIDS in the
37th district and in the region.
It is our hope that similar commemorative activities across America
and around the world will highlight the leadership being brought to
bear on this critical concern of our time. Just as we are building a
powerful coalition to fight terrorism on a global scale, we can do no
less when it comes to HIV/AIDS. Forty million people living with this
dreadful disease is one too many.
____________________
COMMEMORATING WORLD AIDS DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week we will commemorate,
celebrate, embrace, and share love on World AIDS Day, December 1, 2001.
Today I had the pleasure and honor of being with the African
Ambassadors Group and the International AIDS Trust to commemorate that
for the House and Senate.
It is important that policy leaders stand up and be counted as we
move forward to continue the fight against the devastation of HIV/AIDS
worldwide.
Let me thank Sandy Thurman and, as well, all of the African
ambassadors, and Ambassador Sheila Suzuli of South Africa, who gave
very eloquent comments and remarks about the waging of the war in sub-
Saharan Africa.
Let me also acknowledge my friends with the Names Project in Houston.
I will join them tomorrow in celebrating and commemorating the loss of
lives, and as well, the lives of those who are still living with AIDS.
As we do that tomorrow evening at the de Menil Museum, we do it
together, embracing and noting the wonderment of the lives that are no
longer with us but recommitting ourselves to fighting against the
devastation of HIV/AIDS.
{time} 1700
I say congratulations and my best wishes to the NAMES Project of
Houston and all the other fighters in my community who are advocating
against HIV/AIDS and working to provide prevention dollars and
treatment dollars throughout the entire city, which includes of course
the Donald Watkins Foundation.
September 11 will live forever in our hearts and minds as one of the
most tragic and horrific acts of terrorism on our country. We have all
joined forces to fight back against this terrible evil. Foreign
countries have also responded and lent their support to help combat
terrorism. It has proven that by joining together, any challenge can be
overcome.
While we have focused our attention to addressing the immediate needs
of the survivors and families who lost loved ones, increased security,
and the economy, we must refocus our attention as well to the global
pandemic that has claimed over 29 million lives. The same strategy we
apply in our fight against this terrible, terrible dread of terrorism,
we must continue the battle, however, in our fight to beat HIV/AIDS
around the Nation. This is a global issue and everyone's problem,
nationwide and worldwide.
The Global Health Alliance released a report yesterday, entitled
``Pay Now or Pay More Later: An Independent Report on the Response to
the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic.'' Today, the African Ambassadors Group
and International AIDS Trust sponsored a briefing on refocusing and
reaffirming our commitment to AIDS. As we approach World AIDS Day on
December 1, we must stand strong and continue to fight and raise
awareness.
Forty million people around the world live with HIV/AIDS or will be
living with it by the end of 2001, adults and children, 28 million of
which live in sub-Saharan Africa alone.
Since the first HIV case 20 years ago, over 60 million persons have
been infected, and over 20 million have already died from AIDS. The
spread continues, especially in poor and developing countries.
In Africa, there are an estimated 11,000 new infections per day; and
during 2001, 2.3 million Africans will die from HIV/AIDS. Only 10
percent of the world's population lives south of the Sahara, but the
region is home to two-thirds of the world's HIV/AIDS. We must not
tolerate such devastation, and it has suffered more than 80 percent of
all AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.
[[Page 23386]]
I traveled to the South African region in 1999 and this year, and
what I witnessed was unbelievable. First, I would like to commend the
indomitable spirit of those who are fighting HIV/AIDS. The leadership,
the government, the social agency, the NGOs, the people, they are all
fighting unified together. It was a life-changing event to see and meet
people infected by this deadly virus but also to meet those who were
standing alongside of them, committed to defeat this deadly disease.
What affected me most was witnessing the thousands of orphan children
whose parents had died from AIDS. Currently there are approximately 14
million children orphaned by HIV/AIDS, with a projection of 40 million
children by 2010 if no action is taken. Every minute, an African child
dies of AIDS. These orphans are more likely to be poor, deprived of
education, abused or neglected.
Who cares for them when their parents die? HIV/AIDS also decimates
the family support system, and when I went on one of my earlier trips
to Africa, I saw a 4-year old who was left to be the only healthy
individual in a family taking care of dying adults, dying from HIV/
AIDS.
A teacher who works near the Chinakas and the Kasongos described how
15 of his 42 students have lost one or both of their parents. He sees
thousands of children just sitting around, wanting to be left alone. He
also noticed that some of these orphans come to school without shoes or
without a sweater in the winter. Either their step-families put them
last on the list, or their grandmothers could not scrape together
enough money.
It is important to note the impact of HIV/AIDS in the United States.
Non-Hispanic blacks represent 33 percent of reported AIDS cases in our
Nation, and throughout 1994 more than 80,000 of 146,285 African
Americans reported to have AIDS have died.
We must work together to fight AIDS worldwide around this country,
because if we do not we will stand to lose the talent, the spirit of
those who are infected. We must fight it around the world; otherwise we
will lose as well. Cases in Hispanics, among women, African American
and children, this is a challenge for us all.
As we look toward World AIDS Day on December 1, let me simply say
that we must look toward it with a commitment that we will stand
alongside of those battling that disease, and we will not let the
funding diminish nor will our spirit diminish nor will our fortitude
diminish this fight, and we will win.
Mr. Speaker, September 11 will live forever in our hearts and minds
as one of the most tragic and horrific acts of terrorism on our
country. We have all joined forces to fight back against the evil.
Foreign countries have also responded and lent their support to help
combat terrorism. It is proven that by joining together, any challenge
can be overcome.
While we have focused our attention to addressing the immediate needs
of the survivors and families who lost loved ones, increased security,
and the economy, we must refocus our attention to a global pandemic
that has claimed over 29 million lives. The same strategy we apply in
our fight against terrorism, we must also utilize in our fight to beat
HIV/AIDS. This is a global issue and everyone's problem.
Just yesterday, the Global Health Alliance released a report entitled
``Pay Now or Pay More Later: An Independent Report on the Response to
the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic''. And today, the African Ambassadors
Group and International AIDS Trust sponsored a briefing on Refocusing
and Reaffirming our Commitment to AIDS''. As we approach World AIDS Day
on December 1, we must stand strong and continue to fight and raise
awareness.
Forty million people around the world live with HIV/AIDS, twenty-
eight million of which live in the Sub-Saharan African region alone.
Since the first HIV case 20 years ago, over 60 million persons have
been infected, and over 20 million have already died from AIDS. The
spread continues, especially in poorer countries.
In Africa, there are an estimated 11,000 new infections per day, and
during 2001 approximately 2.3 million Africans will die from HIV/AIDS.
Only 10 percent of the world's population lives south of the Sahara,
but the region is home to two-thirds of the world's HIV-positive
people, and it has suffered more than 80 percent of all AIDS deaths.
I traveled to the South African region in 1999 and this year and what
I witnessed was unbelievable. It was a life-changing event to see and
meet with the people infected by this deadly virus. But what affected
me the most was witnessing the thousands of orphaned children whose
parents died from AIDS. Currently, there are approximately 14 million
children orphaned by HIV/AIDS, with a projection of 40 million children
by 2010 if no action is taken. Every minute an African child dies of
AIDS.
These orphans are more likely to be poor, deprived of education,
abused or neglected. Who cares for them when their parents die? HIV/
AIDS also decimates the family support system.
A teacher who works near the Chinakas and the Kasongos described how
15 of his 42 students have lost one or both of their parents. He sees
thousands of children just sitting around wanting to be left alone. He
also noticed that some of these orphans come to school without shoes or
without a sweater in the winter. Either their stepfamilies put them
last on the list or their grandmothers couldn't scrape together enough
money.
In the West, meanwhile, the HIV death rate has dropped steeply thanks
to powerful drug cocktails that keep the disease from progressing. But
that is not the case in African-American communities.
Non-Hispanic blacks represent 33 percent of reported AIDS cases in
our Nation. Through December 1994, more than 80,000 of the 146,285
African-Americans reported to have AIDS have died.
While AIDS related deaths have begun to decline, there has been a
dramatically greater decline among whites, 21 percent than among
African-Americans 2 percent and Hispanics, 10 percent.
African-Americans and Hispanics have been disproportionately affected
by the AIDS epidemic. Although 52 percent of reported AIDS cases
occurred among African-Americans and Hispanics, these groups represent
only 13 and 10 percent respectively of the total U.S. population.
Among women and children with AIDS, African-Americans and Hispanics
have been especially affected, representing approximately 75 percent of
reported cases among women and 80 percent among children.
In my District, reported AIDS cases in Blacks increased from 24 to 40
percent within the last 5 years. While reported AIDS cases in Whites
decreased from 64 to 44 percent. From 1990 to 1998, the percentage of
Blacks in Houston/Harris County diagnosed with AIDS increased from 27
to 53 percent.
The key to fighting this virus must involve a comprehensive approach
that includes prevention, education, and support of a health care
infrastructure. HIV prevention efforts must take into account not only
the multiracial and multicultural nature of our society, but also other
social and economic factors, such as poverty, underemployment, and poor
access to the health care system, that impact health status and
disproportionately affect African and Hispanic populations.
We, as Members of Congress, must continue to fight the struggle and
persist in obtaining increased funding of the global AIDS response.
This is one of the great challenges of our time and of this generation.
____________________
REMEMBERING THE LIVES OF REVEREND CHARLES H. SHYNE, JR., AND HIS WIFE,
MRS. VERLENA PRUITT SHYNE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, there were 16,653 alcohol-related
fatalities in the year 2000, 40 percent of the total traffic fatalities
for that year. Driving under the influence of alcohol continues to be
one of our major domestic problems and issues and we must continue to
work towards finding lasting solutions to this major problem.
About a week ago, a driver under the influence of alcohol smashed out
the lives of two of my community's most beloved citizens, Reverend
Charles H. Shyne, Junior, and his wife of 54 years, Mrs. Verlena Pruitt
Shyne. Reverend Shyne, at the time of his death, was serving as pastor
of the Hamlet-Isom Christian Methodist Episcopal Church on West
Division Street in Chicago. Mrs. Verlena Pruitt Shyne was a retired
teacher who had worked for the Chicago public schools and other
districts, who at the time of her death
[[Page 23387]]
was serving as first lady of Hamlet-Isom and providing voluntary
leadership to many local church initiatives and programs as well as
denominational activities and functions.
Reverend and Mrs. Shyne were both college educated, he at Grambling
High School, Central State University, Roosevelt University in Chicago,
and received his seminary training at Payne Theological Seminary in
Wilberforce, Ohio. Mrs. Shyne also attended Grambling High School and
graduated from Roosevelt University with a degree in early childhood
education and taught for 15 years in the Chicago public school system
and retired in 1999.
She was the first lady of Hamlet-Isom CME Church and served on the
missionary and stewardess boards. She was past president of the
Ministers Spouses of the Chicago District. Mrs. Shyne is survived by
two sisters, Ida Mae and Mildred Gipson, and one brother-in-law, Mr.
Clarence Mamone. She loved and was loved by children and devoted much
of her life and work to them.
Before coming to Hamlet-Isom, Reverend Shyne served as pastor of
Beede Chapel CME Church in Ripley, Ohio; Cleaves Temple in Omaha,
Nebraska; and Central CME Church in Detroit, Michigan, where he also
served as pastor of Bray Temple and director of Bray Temple Daycare
Center. He was subsequently appointed presiding elder of the Chicago
District, Southeast Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin Conference in
1985.
After several years of service in that capacity, he was pastor of
Jubilee Temple. He retired in 1999, but agreed to serve as supply
pastor at Hamlett Isom, where he remained until his untimely and tragic
death.
He is survived by one brother, Joe Shyne of Shreveport, Louisiana,
and three sisters, Ozeal Brown of Washington, D.C., Mildred Bennett of
Grambling, Louisiana, and Florence Bowers of Washington, D.C., and
three brothers-in-law, Reverend Arlester Brown, Benny Bennett, and the
Honorable Judge Shelli F. Bowers.
The lives of Reverend and Mrs. Charles H. Shyne, Jr. will be
cherished by all of us who knew them, and especially their seven loving
children, five daughters and two sons: Gregory Shyne of Arlington,
Virginia; Sharon Bowman of Detroit, Michigan; Jacqueline Robertson of
Southfield, Michigan; Charlotte Shyne of Chicago, Illinois; Howard
Shyne of Fairfax, Virginia; Robin Reddick of Memphis, Tennessee; and
Rosalind Curry of Chicago.
Also cherishing their memories are one son-in-law, Michael Robinson,
husband of Jacqueline; 11 grandchildren, Nicole White, Tracy Bowman,
Leslie Bowman, Damien and Jason Shyne, Jessica Curry, Jennifer and
Janis Robertson, Iris, Rose and Samuel Roddick; three great
grandchildren, Elijah Herron, Dylan, and Donovan White, and a host of
nieces, nephews, and other relatives and friends.
Mr. Speaker, here is another example of where two outstanding
citizens who have devoted their lives to serving others have had their
own lives cut short as a result of overuse of alcohol while operating a
mechanized vehicle, an individual driving without any concern for the
safety and welfare of others.
We must all join together to find more effective solutions to this
problem of people driving under the use of alcohol.
We commend the Shynes for their outstanding work on behalf of
humankind.
Mr. Speaker, another subject, I too just want to acknowledge that
today is indeed World AIDS Day. I join with all of those who have
spoken relative to the tremendous need to make sure that every effort
is made to continue to supply resources, come up with programs and
activities to make sure that we combat this deadly disease.
Mr. Speaker, as we recognize the 13th anniversary of World AIDS Day,
it is noted that the theme for this years Day is; I care. Do you? Mr.
Speaker, yes, we care. World AIDS Day emerged from the call by the
World Summit of Ministers of Health on Programmes for AIDS Prevention
in January 1988 to open channels of communication, strengthen the
exchange of information and experience, and forge a spirit of social
tolerance. Since then, it has received the support of many notable
organizations world-wide. Notably, the AIDS campaign started on
September 1, 2001, and ends on December 1, 2001, which is World AIDS
Day.
Every single day more than 8,000 people die of AIDS. Every hour
almost 600 people become infected and every single minute, a child dies
with the virus. World-wide, the AIDS epidemic has become an extremely
difficult battle to combat. While many nations' health care systems lag
behind the increasing demand for the supply of drugs that treat AIDS
and the virus associated with the disease. Many of the infected cannot
afford the drugs or may not be able to obtain insurance that will
assist during the treatment of the disease. We must continue to visit
the issue with extreme importance and caution. Before the terrorist
attacks, we were making progress to develop strategies to combat and
control the spread of AIDS. We must continue to work with that same
passion while balancing the importance of our country's security.
Today, more than 40 million people are now living with the virus. A
vast majority of these victims are from sub-Saharan Africa, where the
spread of AIDS is moving at an alarming rate. Other countries such as
Asia, Eastern Europe and parts of the Caribbean have experienced the
hardship of the disease's progression.
As the spread of AIDS grows, the importance of treatment must be made
a top priority. Now more than ever, more pregnant women are carrying
the disease affecting their unborn children. The future of the World's
children depends on how precise we are in our judgment, our prognosis
and our preparation in the fight against AIDS. Over the past 20 years,
AIDS have claimed the lives of 58 million people, killing 22 million of
them. ``Safe-Sex'' messages are simply not enough. A combined effort of
education, realization and information is the only answer to detour the
spread of the disease.
I urge that we spare no effort to combat this dreadful nuisance.
____________________
JUMPSTARTING THE ECONOMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to engage in a discussion
about the economic situation we find ourselves in, the state of our
economy and what it is that we are going to do about it, what we have
done about it in the House, what needs to be done by the other body.
I would like to begin by just summarizing, reflecting briefly on
something I hope we all understand, I hope we all appreciate, and that
is the very difficult situation that we find ourselves in today. The
fact is our economy had been in a slowdown mode. We had been slowing
down the rate of growth of our economic output for over a year prior to
September 11, 2001, and certainly since September 11 the downturn has
accelerated. It has gotten to the point now where we know by various
experts, government and private sector economists, that we no longer
have economic growth that we can talk about. Today we are experiencing
economic contraction.
The consensus is almost a half, four-tenths of a percent, anyway, of
actual economic contraction in the third quarter of this year. There is
very little reason to believe that the fourth quarter is going to turn
around and show growth. Many believe that we started the contraction
back in March. In any case, in all likelihood we are in a recession
right now, and we are going to be in a recession for some time going
forward.
Now, of course, one of the very most unfortunate, tragic things about
a recession is the job losses that always result. Unemployment now is
at a 5-year high, about 5.4 percent. Our Nation has lost literally
hundreds of thousands of jobs since September 11 alone, when this
downturn accelerated. Consumer confidence fell for the fifth straight
month. It is now at its lowest level since 1994.
The bottom line is, the translation of all of that is people are out
of work. People who want to be working and productive and supporting
their families have lost their jobs and they are wondering how they
will get back to work. Layoffs are impacting just about everywhere in
our country and, as best as I can gather, certainly hitting my
[[Page 23388]]
district. Good solid companies that have provided great jobs for years
have had to lay off workers, and I know they do that reluctantly. And I
hope those openings will come back, those jobs will come back. But for
now, folks have been laid off at Kraft, at Rodale, at Lanco, at Pabst,
Agere, all across my district. Good companies. Jobs have been lost.
Nationally there are all kinds of job losses, Gateway, IBM. Boeing
announced huge losses of jobs. Solid companies laying off thousands of
workers, hundreds of thousands of workers all across the country.
So the question is what are we doing about this? What are we doing
about this in the House? What have we already done about it in the
House? What are our colleagues in the other body going to do about it,
if anything?
I think we have got a responsibility to create an environment that
maximizes the opportunity for our constituents to get back to work, for
this economy to pick up steam, for companies to begin to hire back the
people that they have laid off.
I think most of my colleagues share that view that that is our
responsibility. I think one of things that divides us, one of the
points on which we disagree, unfortunately, is how do you go about
that. How do you best encourage that economic growth? And to simplify
things a bit, but I do not think it is unfair, I think it is a
reasonable simplification of the debate that has been carried on in
this town, there are two schools of thought, maybe two major
philosophies about how we ought to go about getting this economy moving
again and getting people back to work.
One is the school that says the way you do this is government
spending, big government spending program, new program on all kinds of
things helps to get the economy going again. Some would describe that
as priming the pump. There are lots of other expressions, but some
think that is the way we ought to go. That has been proposed.
Especially it had been advocated by the leadership of the other Chamber
as the main thrust of how we ought to go forward here.
There are others who believe that there is an alternative that is a
better, more effective, more constructive way to get the economy moving
again, and that is major immediate tax relief, and that that would be
much more effective both in the near term and in the long term than
even more government spending.
{time} 1715
So let us take a look at these alternatives. Let us discuss this a
little bit. On the side of those who favor more government spending, it
seems that that is the traditional approach taken by those who hold the
Keynesian economic view, the demand-side model for how an economy
works. And one of the ways to look at the premise behind that
philosophy is that, in a way, it holds the view that the slowdown, an
economic slowdown, is generally caused when a demand for goods and
services is just too low; there is just not enough demand. That is what
it is called the demand-side model sometimes. But this is a Keynesian
idea. And if the demand is too low, then the way to solve the problem
is to increase the demand. And the easiest way to increase demand is to
flood the economy with money, so that people can go out and spend it.
That creates demand. And we hear people talking about getting money out
in the people's pockets as a way to get the economy going again.
Of course, for many who subscribe to this theory, they would, rather
than have individuals have more money in their pockets to spend, they
would rather just have the government do the spending. Because the
government is part of the demand; government expenditure contributes to
the total demand in the economy. So a lot of folks will say, just
short-circuit the whole process, go right to a big government spending
program, and that will get the economy going again.
Now, it is interesting to note that this, of course, is a convenient
theory. It can be used to justify and rationalize some other objectives
that some people might have. For instance, some people would like to
redistribute income, to a very large degree, in our society. They like
to take money from some people and give it to others, and they like to
be in control of that process. Well, you can justify that a little bit
better if you argue that this is all good for the economy too. And so
often this becomes a convenient theory for those who really have
ulterior motives.
But without getting into motives, because I do not want to dwell on
that, I want to look at the question of whether this is really the best
thing for the economy. Is a wave of government spending going to
increase the demand? Is that going to solve our problem? Well, I
suspect not, and I suspect not for several reasons, the most simple of
which is that this model, this way of viewing the economy, just has not
held up very well. The bottom line is I think that there has never been
a strong correlation. I do not think anyone has been able to prove a
correlation, much less a causation, between increases in government
spending and economic growth and prosperity. The correlation does not
exist. So that ought to give us some real pause.
Now, there are specific periods in times in history where we can look
at this and examine what has happened and what has not happened. One
case that comes to mind is the whole stagflation of the 1970s. Now,
under the Keynesian model, high inflation and high unemployment are
supposed to be impossible to occur at the same time. You could have one
or the other, but you would not have both. And the reason is because of
the idea that inflation is a manifestation of excess demand. If there
is too much demand for products and goods and services, then everybody
must be working to provide those products and services so unemployment
would be very low. Of course, we know in the 1970s that was not true.
Unemployment was quite high.
Now, conversely, if you have high unemployment, that supposedly is a
manifestation of inadequate demand. And if there is inadequate demand,
then there is nobody out there bidding up prices for things, or
certainly not a sufficient amount of that, and so we would have very
low inflation. If we have high unemployment, we would have to have low
inflation. That was not true. As I said, we had both. I think the real
reason we had both is we had a weak dollar, which gave us inflation,
and we had way excessive taxes, which caused an economic slowdown and
huge unemployment.
In any case, whatever you think the cause was, the Keynesian model
cannot explain what we know happened as a matter of historical fact in
the 1970s. And there are other periods of time when we have seen huge
government spending increases that have not resulted in economic
growth. The chart that I have here to my left just touches on a few
periods.
I will cite the very first here. In the 1930s, government spending
tripled; massive government spending beginning in the 1930s. But yet
during that very same decade, gross domestic product fell by 27 percent
in the first 5 years; and by 1940, 10 years later, unemployment had
doubled. Obviously, government spending did not solve the problem in
the 1930s. Probably because a lack of government spending was not the
cause of the problem we had in the 1930s, but rather protectionist
barriers to trade and an increase in taxes probably had a lot more to
do with the problems that we had in the 1930s.
It is interesting to take a look at what has happened in recent
years. From 1992 to 2001, government spending has grown by 41 percent,
and at the end of that period we have entered into a recession here.
So, clearly, there is not a strong correlation between increases in
government spending and an economic slowdown. But when we think about
it, it makes sense. If government spending were all it took to get out
of a recession, we would never have one. We would just ratchet up
spending a little bit and sail along on our merry way.
As this evidence points out, we certainly would not be facing a
slowdown now, because in recent years we have had a massive increase in
government spending. As soon as the surpluses arrived, we lost the
fiscal discipline that got us to that point in the first place,
[[Page 23389]]
spending took off; and yet here we find ourselves in a recession.
There is another great example that I want to touch on, and then I
will recognize some of my colleagues who have come to join me in this
discussion, but the Japanese economy is a fascinating example of how
this whole Keynesian demand-side, government-spending approach has not
worked.
Beginning in 1991, the Japanese proceeded with this approach to
dealing with a recession. Fact is they were 10 years into a terrible
recession despite excessive waves of massive government spending.
Arguably, they have had 10 different stimulus packages, largely based
on public infrastructure spending, massive government spending, which
has added up to trillions and trillions of yen, a quarter of a trillion
U.S. dollars equivalent, a huge percentage of their economy, and where
are they today? They are mired in a serious recession that continues
well into its 10th year.
So, clearly, excessive government spending, an increase in government
spending, is not the solution. But I will pause at this point and
recognize my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones), for any comments he may want to share with us.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I want to first thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan), who has just joined us, for their leadership, both of them, in
the area of reducing spending and also reducing taxes. And that is what
I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about.
As my colleagues know, we have had several conversations about the
capital gains tax. I represent the Third Congressional District of
North Carolina, which is a great district to represent; and we have a
lot of retirees that have moved into our district. We are more than
happy to have them living in the third district. Recently, with the
downturn of the economy and what has happened in the stock market, I
have had many of those retirees say to me, Congressman, why can you all
not, in this stimulus package, reduce the capital gains tax?
Now, I realize that that would not in the short-term be the answer,
but I think, and I would like to have my colleagues' comments, as to
the benefit not only for our retirees but primarily those who have
retired that are dependent on their investments that they worked 20,
25, or 30 years for.
And before I yield back to my colleagues for their answers, many
times the other side, the liberals, when we start talking about the
capital gains tax, they think we are talking about the rich of America.
I am talking about middle-income people who have worked all their
lives, and some that really are not middle income but are close to
being middle income, who have worked their whole lives, they have
invested, and now they are in their retirement years; and they are
concerned, and rightly so, as to how they are going to live.
Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for mentioning
the capital gains tax, and our colleague from Wisconsin may want to
comment on especially the job creation aspect of lowering this tax, but
if I could follow up on one quick point.
The gentleman's point is exactly right. There just cannot be any
question that the capital gains tax is really an irrational tax. In the
first place, it is a punishment for saving and investing. Now, what
society really wants to punish people for saving their money and
investing it in the future? But that is what this tax does.
I think it is particularly unfair, especially to the those folks the
gentleman is referring to, in the sense that if someone makes an
investment in a stock, in a small business, in a piece of property,
anything one can invest in, and that investment grows in value, but
only maybe by the rate of inflation, a couple of percentage points here
and there, but just pretty much tracks inflation, so that the
individual has not really made any money, they have only kept pace with
the general price structure of our economy, well, after 10 or 20 years,
that is a significant amount of increase in the nominal value of that
asset because inflation adds up to a lot over 10 or 20 years. But the
individual has not really made a dime in terms of any real gains. All
that person has done is kept pace. Yet, if they sell that asset, what
do we do here in Washington? We attribute the entire increase to a
capital gain and we take up to 20 percent of that, despite the fact
that the person has truly made no money.
That strikes me as egregiously unfair. But maybe our colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), would like to share his thoughts
on it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Absolutely. When we take a look at the family
farmer, who purchased an asset, or maybe inherited the family farm in
their early years, went on to sell it later on, they are going to face
a capital gains tax in excess of 20 percent, sometimes nearing as much
as 100 percent, because they are taxed on that inflated gain on that
asset.
As we take a look at what we can do to get this economy going again,
because a lot of people have lost their jobs and a lot more are losing
their jobs, the jobless rate is the highest rate of growth it has been
since 1981, 1982, we know we need to get people back to work. And when
we sit here in Congress trying to figure out how we can grow jobs and
retain jobs through growing the economy, we look at what works and what
does not work.
I notice my colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about what did
the second largest economy in the world do; what have they been trying
to do; what have we tried to do in our Nation's history. Look at Japan,
and like the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, 10 different stimulus
packages of federal infrastructure spending and rebate checks, and just
as many recessions. They have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 130 percent. They
have spent themselves deeply into debt. Their long-term interest rates
are about 1.2 percent, their short-term rates are about zero. They
cannot cut interest rates any more. They cannot increase their money
supply. They do not have an economy where they can even save. And what
did they get from it? A huge debt.
Many around here are talking about doing the same thing the Japanese
did: more public infrastructure spending, more rebates. Well, what we
learned just 2 days ago from the NBER statistics would show us that we
are technically in a recession as of March of this year. And they show
us that it was not consumer spending that went down, it was not
consumer income that went down, it was investment that dried up. It was
business investment that dried up. Venture capital. That seed corn of
entrepreneurial activity is down 72 percent.
Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time for just a moment, the gentleman is
pointing to and getting exactly right to the crux of the problem here.
What we are talking about is the difference between massive government
spending and private sector investment.
I have had colleagues and I have constituents say, well, what
difference does it really make, as long as somebody is doing the
spending? If it is the government or the private sector, a dollar is a
dollar, and the dollar does not really know who is spending it. Right?
There is a huge difference for a lot of reasons, and I just want to
touch on one.
If we stop and think about it, we all know what drives government
spending is politics. What drives government spending is the political
system we have, and whose political bed gets feathered by some spending
is a big part of what does it. But there is no market force driving
political spending or government spending. There is no competition
within government over this, whether it is the Department of Housing
and Urban Development or any other Department. It does not have a
competing Department down the road that it has to outperform. So,
basically, the money just gets spent as politicians see fit.
Whereas, in the market, it is a totally different mechanism.
Consumers do not buy anything unless they think it is something
worthwhile, something of value, something they want to have.
[[Page 23390]]
Investors do not invest in anything unless they think it is a process,
a business that is providing goods or services that people want. So we
have a private sector mechanism that ensures that money goes to where
it is needed and where it is wanted. And we have a public sector, a
government system, that goes to where politicians want. And that is a
big part of the reason why one is much more effective than the other.
I will yield back to my colleague from Wisconsin, but I want to say
one more thing quickly, because I think all three of us agree on this
issue, which is that there is a huge amount of government spending
which is absolutely critical. In fact, right now I think we all agree
that we need more government spending on intelligence gathering, on
defense, and on homeland security. We need to increase spending there.
There is no question. That is something only the government can do, the
government must do. But I think it argues for even more restraint in
the other areas, especially when we know those other areas are not
terribly effective.
And did the gentleman from Wisconsin want to say something else?
{time} 1730
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman hit the
nail on the head. That is, if we thought more government spending was
the answer to our economic ills, we would not be in a recession. We
have the most spending we have had in the history of the Federal
Government today. We have been increasing spending at a rate greater
than inflation. If we thought more spending was the answer, why is
Japan mired in a 10-year-long recession?
We know that when we see business investment dry up, job losses take
place, we know that is where we need to focus; focus on getting people
back to work and getting businesses back up and running. And that is
not filtering money through Washington by keeping taxes higher and
spending more, it is letting people keep more of what they earn so they
can reinvest as they see fit.
When we look at the risk that is out there in the marketplace, when
we look at the cost of doing business, government has a negative bias
against investment. We have a bias in our Tax Code against saving and
investing. If you make money and spend it, the Federal Government
leaves you alone. But if you make money and save and invest it for your
family and business, the government penalizes you with a high tax.
We can reduce the price of saving and investment by reducing the tax
on it. Every time in this country in the last century when we cut the
capital gains tax or cut income tax rates, we have grown the economy
and encouraged more economic growth and activity. We have grown more
revenues coming to those lower tax rates.
I think we see before us a plan that is not necessarily even based on
ideology, but based on what works and does not work. Higher taxes and
more spending has proven to be utterly useless. Lower spending and
lower taxes has worked.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1995 with
Mr. Gingrich. We became the first majority House and Senate in 40-some
years. We came here to reduce the size of government, and as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has said and as the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has said, we have not done the job. There is
more that needs to be done.
I hope sincerely that the American people understand that this is
their government and they need to speak through their elected officials
in Congress and in the Senate to let people know that we need to return
the money to the people, whether it be through capital gains tax, other
tax reductions. But the whole key is what has been said; this
government is growing too fast, is too large, and we need to do a
better job of reducing the size of government so Americans can keep
more of their money.
I thank the gentleman for taking the leadership on this Special
Order. I will continue to work with the gentleman and my colleagues to
do our very best to make sure that we reduce the size of government and
we reduce taxes on the American people.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope that we will be
able to move on to the discussion that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) introduced, the idea, which is the historical fact, that
when taxes are excessively high and they are lowered, we get economic
prosperity and growth and new jobs. There is a reason why. I would like
to discuss why that works and why it has historically worked. But
before I do that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for taking the lead
in having this discussion about economic stimulus. I think it is
something that this Congress needs to act on, and we need to act
relatively quickly. It is my hope and expectation before we recess for
Christmas that we will complete a stimulus package, including many of
the items that my colleague has talked about.
In particular, one of the items that I think is very important to a
number of manufacturing companies in my district, and that is about the
accelerated depreciation that was included in the House-passed economic
stimulus package. It is not actually a tax reduction, it simply delays
some of the taxes that corporations will pay and allows and encourages
them to invest, to invest in new equipment, new products, new
investments which will increase their productivity, make them more
globally competitive, and it gets corporations buying again and
investing, which is good for all of us, and it is good for their
employees especially.
In Michigan, some have said this economic stimulus package is tax
breaks for corporations, but it is tax breaks for corporations that
kind of piggyback on the larger tax reduction package that we put in
place this year which is all targeted at individuals and personal
income taxes, so I think it is a very good balance. The end result is
that it is corporations, and some corporations in my district have had
to lay off 20 to 25 percent of their employees. It is our hope and
expectation that if we can pass the accelerated depreciation, get
corporations buying again, it will enable these corporations to put
these workers back to work.
The specific provision that we are talking about here is modeled
after a provision that was put in place in the early 1980s. The impact
in the 1980s was when we provided this accelerated depreciation, it
spurred corporate spending, it spurred corporate investment and was
really one of the things that enabled us to have the prosperity during
the Reagan years. And as we all know, during the Reagan years the level
of government revenues accelerated very, very quickly. It is good for
all of us when we cut tax rates. Most importantly, it is good for
American families because it puts workers back to work.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) for that observation on this particular provision in the bill
which the House has passed, and the House has acted to try to lower the
tax burden and get this economy moving again. It is our colleagues in
the other body who refuse to do a thing about this, which I think is a
disgrace given the level of unemployment we have.
The gentleman's point is right; when a business has the opportunity
through an incentive in the Tax Code to have greater depreciation or
even expensing of a capital item, it benefits the workers who are able
to increase their productivity and hold on to their job because that
business remains competitive. The other folks that it helps are the
consumers. Who do people think pay taxes, corporate taxes? Corporations
pass those costs on to the consumer through the form of their prices.
When we lower that burden, we lower the cost of doing business for
that company. We enable them to hire more workers and lower their
prices and benefit consumers and help accelerate transactions.
[[Page 23391]]
This gets into another theme, but at this point I yield to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I thank the gentleman for coming
here, and salute the gentleman for all of the great work he has been
doing to help lower the tax break for American people.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments I would like to
make. When I talk to my constituents in Arizona, they are not clamoring
for a few more months of unemployment or health care, they are
clamoring to get their jobs back. The best way to do that is to
recognize that we do not have such a problem with spending, as my
colleague from Wisconsin pointed out very effectively. If the problem
was spending, we would not have a problem. Government has grown over
the past 6 or 7 years at the rate of, I think, an average of 6 percent
a year. When we increase the baseline every year, that amounts to a
whopping amount of spending. That is not the problem.
The problem is investment for the most part. We penalize investment,
and we should not do so. What we need to do is lower the tax burden.
The President has said a number of times, and the administration has
indicated through a number of people, that the best thing to do is to
cut marginal rates. In the President's tax package, we did that. We cut
the marginal rate. The problem is that a lot of those cuts do not take
effect for a number of years, particularly the rate cuts at the top
end.
As our distinguished colleague Senator Gramm on the other side of the
Capitol likes to say, I never got a job from a poor man. We have to
recognize that class envy simply does not cut it. We have to recognize
that we cannot begrudge those who are making more than we are. We ought
to encourage them to make more and invest more. We can do that by
cutting the marginal rate at all levels; the top one at 39.6,
accelerate that cut, and cut the lower rates as well. That is the first
order.
The second thing has also been mentioned, cut capital gains. It has
been noted earlier, that is one of the quickest ways to spur stock
market, spur increased investment.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has touched on something which
is worth discussing. I have heard people suggest that if we cut the
capital gains tax rate, it might be bad for the stock market. People
might think the capital gain is lower so I should sell stock now while
I enjoy a lower tax rate. I have heard people suggest if we ever cut
the capital gains rate, we could have a collapse in the stock market.
That strikes me as exactly the opposite of the likely effect. First
of all, we have cut capital gains tax rates before, and the stock
market has gone up. We cannot ignore the fact that we have historical
evidence on this. We have seen this happen before. And the reason why,
if we were to lower the capital gains rate tomorrow, we would
immediately increase the value of every asset in America. Because what
is the value of an asset? It is its ability to appreciate in value. If
you diminish the amount that the government is going to take of that,
it is worth more. So why would the stock market collapse when every
company in America became more valuable?
The gentleman points out if we cut the capital gains rate, in fact it
would help the stock market. That is counterintuitive to some people,
for the reason I just mentioned, but it is exactly right.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, we have to look at history. It has been cut
before, and the result has been an increase in asset values and more
investment. People are not going to take that out and stick it under a
mattress. They are going to invest again. There is a compounding
effect, and it is beneficial for the entire economy. That is extremely
important.
Congress needs to recognize that we have to stop the class warfare.
We have to stop saying let us get on this populist theme of spend more,
and get money in people's pockets. Let us make sure that Americans can
invest. That is where we need help.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's points are very well taken.
Regarding class warfare, the gentleman from North Carolina made the
argument that lowering the capital gains burden helps low-income and
moderate-income people. It is a job-creation engine. It has nothing to
do with class warfare.
As we move on in this discussion, I want to just touch on an issue
that is raised sometimes. I think sometimes it is not obvious to see
the connection between lowering taxes and economic growth. Why does
that happen? How does it really generate economic growth? One of the
ways that I think is useful to think about this is the fact that there
are a lot of transactions that could be occurring in our economy,
transactions on the margin, one more home being sold, one more car
being built, and a few more services being provided. These are
transactions that are not happening because buyer and seller cannot
agree on a price. There are not enough buyers who can quite afford the
price that the seller needs, or there are not enough sellers who can
lower their price to the point that the consumer can afford. So there
is this inability to get the transaction done.
What is one of the biggest costs to every producer, every potential
seller of goods and services? It is their tax burden.
{time} 1745
What is one of the biggest costs of every consumer that takes away
their disposable income? It is the tax burden. So if you lower taxes on
producers and you lower taxes on consumers, producers are suddenly able
to pass on the lower costs in the form of lower prices and potential
buyers have more disposable income so they can afford more, and all of
a sudden you have these transactions that start occurring that cannot
occur today. If that just happens on the margin with just a small
percentage, it can have a huge impact on economic growth.
I think the gentleman from Wisconsin wanted to comment on that.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I just wanted to ask the gentleman a question.
What you are basically saying is that the government actually controls
to a large extent the price level of jobs, of retirement, of economic
activity. The government through its taxes actually can control the
price or the activity of job growth, investment, people's retirements,
their take-home pay. So if we lower that price, we get more of it. Is
that what you are saying? If we tax more of it, we get less of it; and
if we tax less of it, we get more of it?
Mr. TOOMEY. That is absolutely another way to describe it. Another
way that I think about it is there is this barrier between buyers and
sellers, between consumers and producers. The barrier is the cost
imposed by government. It is not only taxes. It is regulation, it is
tariffs, it is litigation that is encouraged or tolerated by the
government, but taxes are the biggest part of it. That is why it is not
just a coincidence that when we lower taxes, we see economic growth. It
is because when we lower taxes, we allow more economic transactions and
economic activity to take place. That is why every time in our history,
as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, that we have had a
significant tax reduction, what have we seen without fail? Prosperity,
economic growth, people getting back to work, people getting a raise,
people having more disposable income. It helps all Americans.
I have on this chart a couple of examples from our history. We have
really only had a few major, sweeping, across-the-board tax relief
bills enacted in our Nation's history and it was in the 20th century.
We have really had three prior to what we did earlier this year. The
1920s was the first. That is not on this board, but the 1920 tax cuts
initiated by Treasury Secretary Mellon ushered in an era of
unbelievable prosperity in the twenties. That era started to wane when
taxes were raised and a trade war began.
But let us look at some other tax cuts. In the 1960s, President
Kennedy had the good sense to realize that you lower taxes, you
generate more economic output. Sure enough in the 1960s, gross domestic
product grew by 50 percent. Staggering growth. The 1980s was the other
great tax relief act of the
[[Page 23392]]
20th century. President Reagan pushed through a tax reduction. What
resulted? Nothing less than the longest peacetime expansion in our
history. And, as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out as we all
know, a tremendous increase in revenue to the Federal Government.
There were deficits in the eighties, no question about it. It was not
because we cut taxes. Cutting taxes caused revenue to double. It was
because spending was out of control. Spending tripled. That was the
problem that we had in the 1980s.
But further to that point or any other point he chooses to bring up,
I would like to recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the distinguished member of
the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me first compliment the gentleman and his colleagues for this
important hour discussing these issues. I want to touch on a point the
gentleman just raised. It seems that the debate right now has our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that any tax cut is
being done just to benefit the so-called rich. But I would like to put
the lie to that by history and talk about it in terms that the average
American can understand. I would just ask the gentleman a question. Was
it not President Kennedy, a Democrat President, who cut taxes in 1960?
And is he not the one who said in his famous phrase, a rising tide
lifts all boats? And was that not a reference to the fact that if you
cut Federal Government taxes when they become excessive that you
stimulate the economy and the reference to a rising tide lifts all
boats was that it did not just help some, it would help everybody. It
is not just going to help the rich or those who are currently employed,
it is going to help everybody, at every sector of our economy. And that
is our goal. And specifically to help those who are unemployed.
I have close friends in Arizona, a close friend who has been
unemployed now for quite some time. He does not want unemployment
benefits. He wants his job back. And stimulating the economy. That is
why I think it is so important. But is my history correct? Was it not
President Kennedy that made those points?
Mr. TOOMEY. That is exactly right. Reclaiming my time for just a
moment, when the President, President Kennedy at the time, made that
observation, he was correct. He initiated a round of tax cuts that
generated this prosperity. It is interesting that you pointed out,
quite rightly, that lowering taxes really only works when taxes are
excessively high. If we had extremely low taxes right now and an
appropriate level of government spending, then I do not think we would
be advocating for even further tax reductions. But right now we are at
a record high. The Federal Government has not consumed as large a share
of our total economic output as it does today since 1944.
Mr. SHADEGG. That was a war year, was it not?
Mr. TOOMEY. In 1944 there was a good reason. At this point we are not
at that level where the expenditures justify that, that level, and
certainly the taxes cannot be justified at this level. You are exactly
right. I would make one other observation before yielding back to the
gentleman from Arizona about the Kennedy tax cut which is the fact that
the Kennedy tax cut was much larger than the tax relief that we passed
this summer. The Bush tax cut plan which was originally $1.6 trillion,
we ended up at about $1.3 trillion, as you know, over 10 years which we
should not even be talking about that number, we never talk about
spending over 10 years but we sometimes talk about tax cuts over 10
years. The fact is as a percentage of the economy, the Kennedy tax cut
was much bigger.
Mr. SHADEGG. It was almost half again as big or even more, I believe.
Mr. TOOMEY. I think that is correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. It seems to me that this is an important concept for our
colleagues and for the people across America to understand. The bottom
line is that a stimulus package is not really a stimulus package if it
just extends unemployment benefits. If that is all it does, it is not
going to boost our economy. It may help people temporarily while they
are out of a job, and perhaps we need to do that, but if we do not go
beyond that, if we do not stimulate the economy by reducing taxes,
those people are not going to get their jobs back. At the end of the
day, the bottom line is unemployed Americans want to go back to work,
and that is why it is called a stimulus package.
Mr. TOOMEY. If I could reclaim my time for a moment on that point, as
the gentleman from Arizona and my other colleagues know very well, the
bill that we passed in the House contained a measure to expand and
extend unemployment benefits and even health care benefits through the
States. It was $12 billion. This is probably very appropriate. It is
probably an appropriate and necessary thing to do, but we ought to
recognize it does not have anything to do with economic stimulus. That
is a different thing. As the gentleman from Arizona pointed out quite
rightly and others have, too, the people who have lost their jobs that
I talk to, that I know of, they do not want to know how long can I stay
out of work, they want to know how quickly can I get back to work. That
is why while it is appropriate to make sure that there is an
unemployment system that is going to be there to help people get a
transition to regain their job, the most important thing is that they
get that job back quickly.
Mr. SHADEGG. Just to comment a little bit further, President Bush's
economic stimulus proposal would, according to a study by the Heritage
Foundation, create 211,000 new jobs next year. It seems to me that is
what a stimulus package ought to be about. The key elements of that are
acceleration of the personal tax rate reductions, the tax package we
passed earlier in the year. Let us move those dates up. The average
American understands that that bill passed but that the rate reductions
do not occur for years down the line. And a reduction in the capital
gains tax. That is a reduction that would affect every American. It
does not favor business; it favors every single American because we are
all in an investing economy right now. It seems to me as the Senate and
the House and our negotiators begin to go at this issue, it is not just
critical that we pass a stimulus bill, it is critical that we pass a
stimulus bill that will actually stimulate the economy and create the
job growth that will put America back to work, which is where people
want to go.
I compliment the gentleman and appreciate his efforts.
Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from
Arizona and just to point out, as we all know, I think all of our
colleagues need to be reminded, here in the House, we have passed a
bill that does those two things. It lowers the capital gains rate.
Okay, not as much as I would like to see, but it is a movement in the
right direction, and it accelerates the reduction in personal income
tax rates that we already passed last summer. It makes some of it go
into effect immediately. Okay, I would like to see more of it go into
effect immediately, but still this is progress. This can only help the
economy. But yet our colleagues in the other Chamber continue to do
nothing. This is just not acceptable.
Mr. SHADEGG. They not only do nothing, but what they are demanding is
pieces of this bill, large portions of it, their latest demand is that
half of it not go to stimulus at all and the other half go to stuff
that will not actually stimulate the economy. We do not need a stimulus
bill that does not stimulate the economy.
Mr. TOOMEY. Even at that, they refuse to put even a proposal such as
that on the Senate floor for debate.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan for his
comments on this.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. Just building off
the points, we maybe ought to start taking a look at this a little bit
differently. Maybe we ought to listen to
[[Page 23393]]
what the other body is saying. In the House bill, we had a pretty
balanced approach. We put in the extended unemployment benefits. We put
in the protections to ensure that more people would be able to keep
their health care. That, I think, is the right thing to do, to provide
the protection for these people in our districts who have been
unfortunate and have lost their jobs. But our belief is that by doing
the proper tax provisions and the proper incentives, we will stimulate
the economy. But we ought to maybe just say, if you want to do some
more of that spending or put some more of these government programs in
place, put them in place, but give us the stimulus package, because we
will recognize that if the stimulus package kicks in, the 13 or the 26
weeks of unemployment benefits will not be needed. And we know that if
we got to next summer and they were needed, we would probably vote them
in and through, anyway. Let us not be worried about an artificial
number because the other thing that we saw in the eighties and again we
saw with revenue growth in the nineties is that if the economy grows,
what happened during much of the nineties, the economy grew so well,
the biggest beneficiary was the Federal Government. And as surprising
as it may sound, we could not spend it fast enough.
Mr. SHADEGG. I think the gentleman makes an excellent point. Both the
1960s tax cut and the 1980s tax cut stimulated the economy. Maybe we
ought to agree, okay, we will expand the size of the unemployment
benefits because as long as you will also give us the tax cuts because
then we can stimulate the economy and at the end of the day those
unemployment benefits will not be needed because America will go back
to work. Historically it has proven true. It is the direction we need
to go.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. The best thing for America is to get the stimulus
package in place and get Americans back to work. It is the best thing
for individual American families. It is the best thing for communities.
Some of our communities are really hurting. If they have got some of
their largest employers losing 20 to 25 percent of their employees, the
whole community feels the pain. Our States are feeling the pain at the
State level because of decreased revenues. We are not going to bail our
way out of this by more government spending. But if the other body
believes that that is the crutch that they want to build it off, we
ought to maybe just say, fine, but what we want is we want the tax
portions that will stimulate the economy because when we stimulate the
economy, we will not need these programs so we may not in effect end up
spending that money and we will get back to where we were in terms of
before the recession hit and before the war hit, where we will be in a
position that we will have a growing economy, people at work, we will
lead globally, and we will be back to the position where we were which
is paying down public debt and reducing taxes so that we can sustain
this growth into the future.
Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the gentleman. I think it makes perfect sense. We
have already demonstrated in the House that we fully recognize, our
society wants to be there for people who lose their job and who are
making every effort to find another one. Unemployment benefits
occasionally need to be extended. If that has to happen, that is fine.
I do not think any of us object to that. I think we all voted for the
bill that would do that. But how much better if you never need to use
them? Sure they can be there.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. But failure to act by the other body means that we do
not get a stimulus package plus that our unemployed do not get the
extension in unemployment benefits and they do not get the access to
health care. So their inaction is hurting those that are out of work,
short-term and long-term.
Mr. TOOMEY. Ironically, their inaction can guarantee a longer period
of time when people are out of work while they have not done anything
to help even those people. It is absolutely unacceptable.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to echo
some of the comments that have been made. My colleague from Arizona
pointed out that the most important thing about a stimulus package is
that it provide some stimulus. I am reminded of my growing-up years. I
grew up on a ranch in Arizona; we often used when we had particularly
ornery critters if we could not get them through the chute, we would
use a cattle prod. It worked quite well, it stimulated them quite
nicely and they ran up ahead. Sometimes by the end of the day the
batteries would wear a little thin and we would be left with an
instrument that did not do much. It might scare them the first time,
but once you laid it on them, they would not move. It is much like the
stimulus package. Once the batteries are gone, once that charge is out,
once the incentive to invest, these items are out, you might as well go
back to a 2 by 4 because the stimulus is not there. You can call it
what you want. As my colleague from Michigan says, you might want to
provide these other things, but do not call it a stimulus package. Do
not assume that it is going to rev up the economy because it is not,
because the items simply are not there to do it.
Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, I would also observe that we have
already engaged in a massive spending program very, very recently. By
some accounts, we have spent over $105 billion of additional moneys
just since the September 11 attack, emergency supplementals, victims'
compensation, airline assistance, additional discretionary spending.
Mr. SHADEGG. It is not as though there is not any spending going on.
Mr. TOOMEY. No, it has been a staggering massive increase. And I
think most of us feel it was necessary. These are areas that it was
appropriate. But has it gotten the economy out of this recession? No.
{time} 1800
Mr. SHADEGG. For those of you who have been here a little less time
than I have, I came in the 104th Congress and joined this body in 1995,
and for years after that we grew the economy at three and four times
the rate of inflation, grew the size of government at three and four
times the rate of inflation, year after year after year. We were
spending at 8 and 12 percent, year after year, and that did not
stimulate the economy.
Indeed, that government spending, as you point out in your chart,
from 1992 to 2001, if government spending was going to stimulate the
economy, we would have a booming economy.
The reality is, to stimulate the economy in this kind of
circumstance, you have to put some cash back into it. The way
government can do that is by cutting taxes.
Mr. TOOMEY. Well, I thank the gentleman. At this point we are running
low on time and I will probably wrap up with a few concluding thoughts
if I could.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have about 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. TOOMEY. Anybody who has any further points they would like to
add, by all means, let me know.
I think we have had a good discussion here about the fundamental
flaws in the premise of the other side, the fundamental flaws in the
belief that by government spending, we are going to get out of this
problem.
Now, we recognize there is spending we need to do right now, in
intelligence gathering, in defense, in homeland security. It is
critical. It is increases. We all voted for it and we are going to keep
voting for it. But that is all the more reason to be cautious on the
other areas that have nothing to do with the threat to our Nation, with
the attack that we suffered.
We need to be cautious there and rein in the excessive tendencies, so
we can at some point in the near future get back to balancing this
budget, get back to retiring some debt. But, most of all, in the
meantime, we have got to get this economy going. We have too many
people out of work, and that is our obligation.
Our responsibility is to create an environment where folks can get
back to
[[Page 23394]]
work, where our economy can flourish, where businesses can hire new
workers. We started that process. In the House we passed a bill that
will move us in that direction. The President supports our bill. The
President, in fact, called for doing more than we did in the House. I
wish we had. But at least we moved in that direction, significantly.
And, yet, in the other chamber, we have not a bill on the Senate floor,
we have no meaningful progress. It is really a disgrace.
I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I think
that last point is the most important. We need to do a stimulus
package, and the inability of the other body to even consider in debate
a package is very disappointing. We do not help the workers that are
unemployed today. We do not put in place a package of stimulus items
that will help ensure that this is a short downturn and not a very deep
downturn. And the third thing, I think, is that it is difficult to
factor in, but it will send a psychological message that we are ready
to move on, and that we are about focusing on domestic issues, as well
as waging a war on the other side of the world; that we have not
forgotten about the issues at home.
So, these three items coming out of the House and moving forward, I
think, speaks well for our ability. It may not be a perfect bill, but
it is a whole lot better than doing absolutely nothing and not even
being willing to bring a bill to the floor for debate.
If our bill is not perfect, let the other body develop its own
version and move forward and bring it to conference, so that by
Christmas this President, this country and the American people will
have a stimulus package. That is the way the process is supposed to
work. But the shear inaction as our economy struggles is totally
unacceptable.
I thank my colleague for inviting me here.
Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan very much for
participating in the discussion tonight and everything he added to
that.
Mr. SHADEGG. If I could just briefly as we summarize here kind of
reiterate an important point in this debate, because too often things
get politicized and we miss the issue, some people have pointed out
that we have already agreed in the House bill there needs to be an
extension of unemployment benefits and health care benefits. We need to
take care of people who have already lost their jobs.
But the other debate that goes on is a rejection of any kind of tax
relief. I think it is important for the listening audience to remember
that under both Democrat and Republican presidents, President Kennedy,
a Democrat in the sixties, President Reagan, a Republican in the
eighties, when we cut taxes, when they had become excessive and we cut
taxes, we stimulated the economy, and, as President Kennedy, a
Democrat, said, a rising tide lifts all boats. It put all Americans
back to work. It stimulated the economy for all Americans.
Every time I hear this phrase that tax cuts are just for the rich or
tax cuts for the rich, it enrages me, because the reality is the way to
stimulate this economy is to give all Americans some tax relief. That
is what we were proposing to do, that is what will stimulate the
economy, and that ought to be a part of the package and will benefit
every single American, not just one sector, as President Kennedy said.
Mr. TOOMEY. Well, the gentleman is exactly right. I would just
conclude with one other thought. You know, many of the fundamentals for
our economy are actually quite hopeful. There is reason to believe that
we could come out of this and we could have a return to some real
prosperity relatively soon if you look at some of those fundamentals.
Inflation is extremely low, our dollar is strong, and it is very
clear that all around the world people have enormous confidence in the
dollar. Our productivity levels are at an all time high. Never before
have American workers been so enormously productive. Our national debt
as a percentage of our GDP has declined dramatically, from 50 percent
of our economic output around 1995 down to about a third today. It has
also declined in absolute dollar terms.
So these fundamentals are strong. If we lower this tax burden now,
resist the urge for wasteful, excessive and inappropriate spending, and
lower the tax burden that is acting as a barrier between people who
could get this economy moving again, we will do that exactly, and the
folks who are out of work today can get back to work.
We have done our part in the House. We have taken an important and
enormous step forward. I am urging my colleagues in the Senate to do
likewise. It is long past time. It has been over 11 weeks since the
terrible attack that accelerated the decline in our economy. It is
overdue to have the kind of economic stimulus that we all need.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). The Chair will remind all Members
that it is improper in debate to characterize Senate action or
inaction.
____________________
FAST TRACK PROFITEERING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I will be joined today by several
Members. I am so far joined by my good friend the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who in his several years in Congress has been a
leader on trade issues and fighting for American jobs and American
workers and raising labor standards and environmental standards, both
in this country and throughout the developing world and in other
nations around the world.
Before we talk about fast track, and that is what this special order
is about, as some of us just could not resist listening to the last
speakers who, already in the space of 11 months of a Republican
administration with a Republican House of Representatives and formerly
a Republican Senate, have already, through their huge tax cuts for the
rich, have already brought on to our government a deficit. We had
several years of positive, good budget situations. We are now already
spending back into deficit because of these huge tax cuts for the rich.
Second, we are already in a recession. We have had a Republican
President since January 20th. There are 1 million fewer jobs,
industrial, manufacturing jobs in this country than there were a year
ago. And when we talk like this, talk about tax cuts for the rich, my
Republican friends love to say we are engaging in class warfare. But
the fact is that every day in this chamber as Republicans try to cut
spending on unemployment compensation, on health care, on Medicare
cuts, on cuts that people in this country that need help would benefit
from, that they make those cuts, at the same time they cut taxes on the
rich, they commit class warfare in this society; when they are hurting
working people and hurting the poor and helping their wealthiest
contributors and wealthiest friends, whether they are the drug
companies, or whether they are some of the wealthiest people like
Rupert Murdoch and others that they seem to care so much about. So in
other words, Mr. Speaker, they so often commit class warfare every day
in this body. All we do is point out they are doing it, and they just
seem to bristle from it.
Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 11, several gas stations in
my district and around Northeast Ohio and other places around this
country raised their prices to $4, $5, $6 a gallon. Many of us in this
body simply called that as it was, war profiteering, that people would
take advantage of the events of September 11 to put a little more money
in their pocket.
Unfortunately, over the last 8 or 9 weeks, something not much
different has occurred on Capitol Hill. Many of us have called it
political profiteering. First, Congress passed a bailout bill that gave
the airlines $15 billion in cash and loan guarantees. No sacrifices
were required of airline executives, few
[[Page 23395]]
restrictions were placed on companies that received that money; nothing
was provided for airline security; no assistance was given to the
140,000 industry workers who were laid off as a result of the September
11 attacks.
Then, in the name of stimulating the economy, this chamber passed new
tax cuts and accelerated others for the richest people and the largest
corporations in this country. IBM will get a check from the Federal
Government under the Republican plan for $1.4 billion. Ford will get a
check from the Federal Government for $1 billion. GM will get a check
for $900 million. United and American Airlines, as if they did not do
all right with the airline bailout bill, will get several hundred
million dollars more from the Republican tax cut for the rich, while
they are ignoring unemployed workers.
But now the political profiteering has reached new heights. In the
past few months, Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration's Trade
Representative, Bob Zoellick, sought to link the trade negotiation
authority known as fast track to our Nation's anti-terrorism efforts.
He went further by claiming that people like the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and me and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and many of the
others that will be joining us tonight, that because we oppose fast
track, we are indifferent to terrorism, and maybe a little bit less
than patriotic.
According to Mr. Zoellick, free trade is the way to combat terrorism
around the world, and, if you do not support free trade, if you do not
want to do it Mr. Bush's way and Mr. Zoellick's way, if you do not
support free trade and do it their way, then you do not really support
American values.
Earlier today, Republican leadership took a similar route until
support of fast track. They stated that trade is directly related to
our battle against the enemies of the United States and the values we
hold dear; that fast track is essential to our war effort.
In Qatar are, where the World Trade Organization ministerial was
recently held, a place chosen by the leaders, the trade ministers, the
administration, the people who support free trade, in Qatar, the people
do not have freedom of speech, they do not have freedom of assembly,
they do not have freedom to publicly worship anything in any other
religion but Islam, they do not have freedom of association, they do
not have free elections. Yet the World Trade Organization ignored these
abuses of personal freedom in selecting Qatar as the host of the
ministerial.
Qatar's human rights record is not in line with American values by
any measurement, but it is familiar territory for many of America's
corporate trading partners.
Supporters of fast track say interaction with the developing world
spreads democracy. But as we engage developing countries in trade and
investment, democratic countries are losing grounds to dictatorships
and authoritarian governments.
Democratic India is less desirable for investors from the West than
totalitarian China. Democratic Taiwan is losing out to autocratic
oligarchic Indonesia. In 1989, 57 percent of developing country
exports, of poor country exports to the United States, came from
democracies. Since then, that number has fallen 22 percent. Today, 65
percent of developing countries exports come from authoritarian
countries.
The fact is, Western investors want to go to places like China and
Indonesia, which are dictatorships, by and large, because they have
pliable workforce, because they have authoritarian governments, because
they have a docile workforce that cannot organize and bargain
collectively, and they are very predictable for Western business.
They do not want to go to India, they do not want to go to Taiwan,
they do not want to go to South Korea, and, all too often, they do not
want to stay in this country, because these countries have strong
environmental laws, strong worker safety laws, labor unions that can
organize and bargain collectively, and free elections.
Instead, Western corporations, as they lobby this body, as the
corporate jets pull into National Airport and Dulles and BWI, and they
fan the halls of Congress going to office after office after office,
begging us for fast track, begging us last year, as the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I worked hard against PNTR for China,
these companies want to invest in countries that have nonexistent
environmental standards, that have below poverty wages, that have no
worker benefits, that have no opportunities to bargain collectively.
Understand that. Western investors do not like to go to democracies
where workers can organize, do not like to go to democracies where they
have good environmental laws and worker safety laws. They like to go to
China. They like to go to Indonesia.
{time} 1815
They like to invest in Burma. Countries where workers cannot talk
back, countries where workers cannot vote in elections, countries where
workers do not have any kinds of rights. That is the way they like it.
That is why they want fast track.
Our trade agreements, Mr. Speaker, go to great lengths to protect
investors and property rights. These agreements do not include the same
protection for workers or the environment. So in other words, fast
track provides protections for property rights, protections for
investors, but no protections for the environment, no protections for
workers.
The call for an absolute trade negotiation authority in the name of
patriotism must be recognized for what it is. When Mr. Zoellick says he
has to have trade negotiating authority, trade promotion authority to
combat terrorism and to fight this war, recognize it is pure and simple
political profiteering.
We have all watched with pride the indomitable spirit of so many
Americans in response to the events of September 11. The right response
to defend the jobs of these Americans and especially the values of
these Americans is a ``no'' vote on trade promotion authority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of another issue in the last 5 years that
I have debated on this floor, and we have had some hot issues, that I
feel more viscerally about, and I think the gentleman from Ohio would
agree with me, he has been here longer than I have, than the subject of
trade. We who oppose fast track do not oppose trade. It is a given. And
simply put, what we have asked for on every issue since 1997 when there
obviously were not enough votes to bring it to this floor at 3 o'clock
in the morning one day in the fall, what we simply asked is that every
trade agreement be a reciprocal trade agreement. What is good for one
side is good for the other. But what does that mean?
To my friends who want to give away the store, I recommend that they
read the Constitution of the United States. Many times, people stand on
the floor of this great House and talk about what the Constitution
says. We talk and refer to the Constitution on guns, we talk about the
Constitution in terms of who has war powers. Well, the folks back in
the eighth district in New Jersey sent me to uphold this Constitution,
not just some parts of it. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution
says that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes and
duties imposed and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare, et cetera; to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several States, et cetera.
I did not come here, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, to surrender
my responsibilities and obligations under the Constitution, because if
it is trade today, what will it be tomorrow?
We need to protect that responsibility as defined in article I,
section 8. There is no consistent administration policy on trade
besides lower tariffs and cutting quotas. There is no structure; there
is no plan. It deals with Vietnam, it deals with the Andean countries,
the WTO, Pakistan, our newly found friends, all of which do not take
into account the wishes of the
[[Page 23396]]
American worker. Cost-benefit analyses just are not there.
Congress cannot allow this administration to craft trade laws without
our input under the Constitution. The only reason for fast track is
that they want to add things they know that the Congress and the
American people do not want. We are patriotic Americans. We are loyal
to the President. We are loyal to the commander in chief. To question
the loyalty of Members of this Congress for being opposed to fast
track, to me is shameless.
We are the people's House. We are directly elected by the people. We
hear from those out of work, and we must respond to their needs.
Americans want us to keep our voice. We must keep our voice. This job
belongs to us. The only way our leverage will be felt is to oppose fast
track.
Despite overwhelming evidence, the current trade policies have
resulted in massive trade deficits. No one on any side of the argument
denies that. Job losses. Just take a look at what NAFTA did to jobs in
this country. In my State of New Jersey, we have lost 84,749 jobs. That
is according to the Department of Labor. This is not anything that was
made up. That is not an illusion. Under two free trade administrations
we have lost that many jobs. Imports have risen between 1994 and 2000
by 80.5 percent, and exports went up 60 percent. We have a huge trade
deficit.
An example of the impact our Nation sees under these disastrous trade
laws as we surrender our rights one after the other, just look at the
VF Corporation, the well-known jeans producer. They are cutting 13,000
jobs worldwide. They are closing plants in the United States and,
according to their own release, to cut costs, they will increase
offshore manufacturing from 75 to 85 percent. They are certainly glad
we do not require labor standards for our trading partners. In fact, as
the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, it is quite interesting to see
what our trade ambassador had to say about that.
Apparently the trade ambassador, who appeared in the WTO meeting at
Doha, says that labor rights should not make it into the negotiations
on trade. Have we lost our way? Are we not a country of free
individuals? Labor and environment are not just social issues. They are
issues that bind humanity. They are issues that we feel are no less
important than any other.
Two weeks ago, 410 House Members voted to ask the United States Trade
Representative to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce
rigorously its trade laws and should ensure that United States exports
are not subject to the abusive use of trade laws by other countries.
Not even this important antidumping mandate was needed at the Doha
conference.
I want to conclude at this point, Mr. Speaker. Recently Secretary
Powell, who all of us in this Chamber have the greatest amount of
respect for, he stated some very powerful words I am about to quote. He
said, ``Fast track is going to be viewed internationally as a test of
the President's leadership at a time when there is all sorts of events
going on.'' A better test is his ability to do what is right for
working Americans. The real test of leadership is to make bipartisan
policy to help our unemployed brothers and sisters. Do not let this
scare tactic fool anyone. The President can show leadership by working
with the Congress, not taking them out of the equation, not usurping
article I, section 8, as if we did not exist.
Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing on the floor last session when
Bill Clinton was the President. This is a bipartisan attack on our very
rights as Members of the United States Congress. I do not accept it. I
am prepared to fight day in and day out to make sure we begin the
process of protecting jobs in the United States of America. This
Constitution either is meaningful or we will selectively decide what we
will adhere to, and then we will become less of a democracy.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman from New Jersey very much for his very well thought-out
remarks.
We are joined also by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an
old friend, who first established his trade predictions during the
first fight against NAFTA when we almost defeated that trade agreement
which has been shown to be dangerous to this country. We also have a
new member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), an iron
worker himself who understands trade from all aspects; and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) from the other end of the State.
They will be joining the discussion in a moment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment before yielding to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). The gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell) mentioned current trade policies and what happened in
Doha and the steel industry. When we see that this Congress voted 410
to 4, as he said, to tell them, to instruct President Bush's trade
representative in Qatar not to mess with U.S. dumping laws, he
immediately put it on the table for negotiations. It is not difficult
to understand why LTV, where many people in my district work, and the
rest of the American steel industry, is in trouble when we pass these
kinds of trade policies, and the President has not moved fast enough on
section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act. The President has refused to support
and this Congress has not passed 808, the Steel Revitalization Act,
which is absolutely necessary to save this industry, and now these same
free traders are pushing more of the same, as if our trade policy has
worked. It has not worked. Our trade deficit is almost $370 billion. So
the President's answer and Trade Representative Zoellick's answer is
let us do more of it. That simply makes no sense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank my colleagues for appearing here with us tonight. I especially
appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on
this issue and the compassion of the gentleman for the working men and
women throughout our district in Ohio, and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has always been an expert on these issues.
To just pick up a little bit on what the gentleman had said on these
trade initiatives and the WTO rules on antidumping, basically what it
says is Congress instructed the Trade Representative, when you go to
Doha next week not to give up on antidumping laws. We need them. We
have other countries illegally dump their product in this country like
they are doing right now with steel. It was very, very specific. But if
we go to the text of the agreement that was in Doha this past week and
go to paragraph 28, and I am quoting now, they are going to clarify and
improve WTO antidumping and subsidy rules, an agreement not to use
antidumping measures on the same issue once the case has been rejected.
The total disregard for Congress's instructions on this issue, even
after over 400 Members of Congress said do not give this up, do not
give this up.
So we can see while they are saying, we need the authority to
negotiate, give us your authority, Congress, because only you can
approve it, but give up the authority under fast track, and we will do
the best agreement possible and all you have to do is come back here
and say yes or no; we cannot amend under fast track. We just give them
instructions: over 400 Democrats and Republicans say do not give this
up, and they gave it up.
{time} 1830
So now they want to come with a fast track legislation. If you just
take a look a little bit at what is going on and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) is correct. We were here and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Strickland) was here in 1993, 1994; and a lot of us thought NAFTA,
the North American Free Trade Agreement, would be a horrendous thing
for this country.
I am talking a little bit about my own northern Michigan district. We
have lost manufacturing jobs, agriculture jobs, timber, steel. We are
here with a letter. They say even if you lose your job because of
foreign imports, we have this trade adjustment assistance. It will help
you out, extend your unemployment and do all these things.
[[Page 23397]]
I have a letter right here, November 27, to the Honorable Elaine
Chow, Secretary of Labor. It was sent to her because we have been
waiting since June 9 for a decision, June 9, almost 6 months. One
hundred workers from the Besser Company in Alpena, Michigan are at the
end of their state unemployment. The State has cut back unemployment.
In Michigan we are down to $300 a week now. That is what they have to
live on. That is $1,200 a month to try to support their family. That is
true unemployment, and we are running out.
Everyone agrees they lost their job because of the flood of imports
in the lumber company, in the lumber industry; therefore, they should
get trade adjustment. It was a no-brainer case, and here we are still
waiting, still waiting for a decision on trade adjustment. We have this
letter here. We will make some more phone calls tomorrow. Hopefully, we
can move this along.
It was NAFTA, TAA. That was one of the big selling points. Do not
worry if you should lose your job. We will take care of it. I think the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was correct on Congress giving
up its right underneath the Constitution to approve, amend any
agreement before us. Under Fast Track we cannot. That is a good reason
not to vote for it.
Let us talk a little bit about steel because I know that has been a
big issue lately. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and all of us have been working
hard on the steel caucus to try to come to grips with the steel
industry since the last 3 or 4 years has just been plagued with this
flood of imports on the hot road end, on cold steel, on rod, on wire.
You name it, they have been doing it.
As we sat there yesterday in a meeting with Secretary Evans and we
will give the Bush administration some credit. Secretary Evans and his
assistants have come up and met with us often. They have investigated.
The ITC, International Trade Commission, says they are dumping
illegally in our country. We must do something and we will.
But if we take a look at it, and I said, I have been hearing this
since 1998. I am sort of frustrated. You have 232, 232 trade orders out
there; 131 relate to steel. Sixty percent of the trade orders issued by
the U.S. Department of Commerce said stop. You are doing this
illegally, 131 times; and we have no relief.
What about putting countervailing duties on imports coming in? We
have 45 countervailing duties in this country; 28 are related to steel.
So we are slapping duties on it. We have 131 trade violations, and we
are still losing every 9 days a steel mill or an iron ore mine, like I
just lost up in northern Michigan just before Thanksgiving, LTV. They
are restructuring their situation. They are 25 percent owner in the
mines in northern Michigan. There is only eight iron ore mines left in
the United States; two are in my district. LTV is a 25 percent owners
in the Empire mine. They are also a big customer of those iron ore
pellets. You need iron ore to make steel.
They announced just before Thanksgiving 770 miners will lose their
job by the end of the month; 120 salary workers are gone. That is 890
jobs in my little community of Palmer, Michigan, up in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan.
We know they will have trouble getting their TA benefits if Besser is
any idea. You go back to them and I say we have 131 orders out there
saying you cannot dump steel, but they are still doing it. We have 28
countervailing duties that they cannot do this. They are still doing
it.
What is our relief? We are finally going to have a 201. I have
testified before the ITC, and I know all of you have too, on that, and
saying, look, we need strict, drastic measures. You have all these
duties. You have all these trade orders. It is time to put in quotas.
It is time to put in tariffs and you have to act now. The President
will get that 201 remedy situation or remedy order on or about December
10. He then has 60 days to make up his mind. We urge him to move
quickly. Every 9 days we lose a steel mill. Every 9 days another mine
goes out. There is going to be nothing left.
I believe we have 27 steel mills right now in bankruptcy. Banks are
not lending them money. They cannot keep their mills going. They are
shutting them down. And then we just take a look at NAFTA and what has
happened after NAFTA. I have been just talking about steel.
In the State of Michigan we have lost over 152,000 jobs. And there is
a list here, Table III. They talk about agriculture, mining,
construction. Let us just go to manufacturing. Lumber and woods
products. I have the mines and I have timber. In lumber and wood
products we lost 118,000 jobs since 1994 under NAFTA. Paper and allied
products, again paper industry big in my district, we lost over 33,000
jobs since 1994.
Stone, clay, glass, concrete products. We make concrete up in my
district. Great limestone mining, 84,000 jobs. Primary metal products,
23,000. Blast furnaces, basic steel products, over 107,000 jobs in the
last 6 years.
Motor vehicles and equipment, probably what Michigan is known most
for, over 200,000 jobs. The administration comes to us and tells us,
give us Fast Track Authority. We will negotiate. We will make sure our
trade laws are enforced. That is what we heard in NAFTA. Here are the
end result.
We have all of these trade laws, 131 violations on our books; and we
cannot get any relief. Where do we go with this?
We must monitor the authority we give any U.S. Trade Representative
and ensure that certain special interests such as brand name
pharmaceuticals that we have not even talked about yet tonight, they
will not gain further concessions at the expense of American workers
and the American consumers. No matter what it is, pharmaceuticals,
manufacturing, mining, construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, we
have lost. And once again they tell us, trust us. We will take care of
it. The last opportunity we had for trust was Doha last week. We said,
no more antidumping. Do not give in to that. Over 400 of 435 Members
said, do not do it. They did it.
How can we now turn and say let us support Fast Track Authority when
a trade representative who we said not to do it just did it to us?
American people, Members of Congress, we have to wake up. We are not
protectionists. We are not isolationists. We believe in trade, but it
is has to be fair. When you have 131 orders on the books, that is not
fair. When our mines are shutting down, our steel mills are shutting
down and our hands are tied and we cannot do anything, is that fair? I
say not. And I say bringing forth a proposal such as Fast Track
Authority for this President to continue trade negotiations is just
unconscionable, especially in these economic times. We are in a
recession.
We are in a recession. And you can blame September 11. It was well
before September 11. But just take a look at what happened. And I
believe the state of mind we are in right now and the state of our
economy is due to these trade laws, is due to the layoffs in the steel
industry, in the mining industry, the lumber industry, the furniture
industry. You name it.
I certainly want to join my colleagues here tonight and I look
forward to hearing their comments. I will stay in case there are other
comments that maybe we can go back and forth on some of these issues.
I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
He has been a stalwart in helping out here. And between WTO and GATT
and NAFTA and NTR or whatever you want to call them. The bottom line is
the American people, our hard-working men and women in the districts we
represent, are not protected with these countervailing tariffs, with
these steel orders, with trade adjustment. When it comes right down to
it there is nothing there for the American worker. We should not give
up our right as Members of Congress to modify and demand tough
enforcement issues, especially since last week when we told us not to
do it and they sold us out at Doha.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for
his 9 years of leadership against bad trade issue and for fair trade
and better
[[Page 23398]]
working conditions and environmental safeguards for Americans and for
people around the world.
One thing that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said that was
particularly important, and I will then yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), we should think about this. When he said, we
in this Congress on behalf of American people, 410 votes in support for
said to our negotiators in Qatar said that we wanted to stand strong on
our steel antidumping laws. And we demanded that on behalf of the
American people. Those demands were totally ignored by the
administration.
The administration now says, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
said this, the administration said, give us Fast Track. You can count
on us to protect American workers with Fast Track. You can count on us
to be fair. You can count on us to protect the environment and workers
and all that around the world.
Well, the fact is can we count on them to do that when we saw already
the kind of betrayal from our trade negotiators. Not to mention that
this President does not seem very concerned domestically about
environmental laws, does not seem concerned domestically about food
safety, does not seem concerned domestically about labor standards.
This is the same President that tried for 10 months tried to weaken
arsenic laws, and tried to allow the mining and chemical companies to
allow more arsenic in the drinking water, and we are going to trust
them to protect the environment all over the world and in this country?
I do not think so. And that is really the reason, as the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said, that Fast Track is really a betrayal of our
values.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch),
who already in his couple of months in Congress, he came here in early
October, I believe, late September, and he has already jumped in the
trade fight because he knows that is important to the people of
Massachusetts and the people of our country.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and all others, including the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), for the great work they have done.
I am new to this debate. I am new. I have watched the work done by
all of the Members here, both in this debate and in previous debates
over NAFTA. I commend you for living up to your constitutional
obligation to represent the people of your districts.
As I said, I am new to this debate; but I am not new to this issue.
In my own life prior to the privilege of my office now, I was an iron
worker for 18 years; and over that 18 years I worked at the Quincy
shipyard just outside of Boston. And I saw that job go away with
thousands of others from that shipyard because of foreign competition
and the fact that the American shipyards were paying their workers
well. And companies could go offshore to exploit low-wage labor.
I also worked at the General Motors plant out in Framingham, which is
closed now and they are making those cars down in Mexico now.
I worked in Michigan in some of the auto industry plants there as
well, and I understand those plants have closed and many of them have
been relocated in Mexico. I also worked in a couple of the steel mills
in Indiana and in Chicago, the Inland Steel and the U.S. Steel plants
which I now understand are closed. There is a pattern developing here;
and at this rate I am afraid that at some point there will be my
counterpart in Mexico City taking my congressional responsibility as
well.
The point made by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) needs
to be emphasized. And that is that the United States Constitution says
that Congress shall, not may, not might, it shall have the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations; and it shall have the power to
make all necessary laws proper for carrying out those powers.
This fast track mechanism, and this is just a procedural rule, would
obligate us to abdicate our responsibilities on behalf of our
constituents. Basically, what we would do we would give up those rights
and those responsibilities to the very people who sent us here. I need
to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others who have said that I can say also
that my constituents did not send me here to give away their rights and
responsibilities, to walk away from a job just because it is complex.
It is difficult. It is hard. We knew that that was the job we were
taking when we ran for office.
This bill is counterintuitive. It flies in the face of our
responsibility both under the Constitution and as a moral obligation to
the people who we represent.
Another part of this fast track framework that is poorly designed is
the fact that while the obligation under the Constitution is given to
us as Members, also many of the other responsibilities and procedures
that are set up around the Congress guarantee an open and honest debate
around trade matters. The Constitution requires that we publish a
journal of the actions taken here in the Congress.
If you look at Fast Track, Fast Track allows these negotiations to be
done in secret, if they are given to the U.S. Trade Representative.
{time} 1845
These are secret negotiations and they are done in a back room,
without the direct representatives of the people being in those
negotiations.
It just is an unseemly process that we initiate by supporting a Fast
Track-type procedure, and we do not need to look far to see examples of
the flaws of that process. We can look directly at NAFTA. We have
evidence now to see how this Fast Track procedure plays out.
We see it in the fact that there are no enforceable labor standards
in NAFTA nor in the bill before us to expand NAFTA to 34 other
countries. There are no firm mandatory or enforceable labor standards
in this bill. There are no firm and mandatory and enforceable
environmental standards in this bill. Those have been left out.
There is language in here, very fluffy language, that raises the
issue of labor standards, raises the issue of environmental standards,
but does not allow us in negotiations on these trade matters to require
other countries to respect their workers and to respect the environment
in those countries.
We can look at what NAFTA has done for Maquiladora, the workers
there. Although there was the great promise of the raising the buying
power of the average Mexican worker, we still find in Maquiladora that
the autoworkers in the Maquiladora are making an average of 67 cents an
hour.
I do not have any U.S. autoworkers in Massachusetts anymore. Those
jobs are all gone over the border. The U.S. autoworkers today, those
left in Michigan and other places across the country, should not be
made to compete with workers making 60 cents an hour, living in
substandard conditions, with no working conditions, with no right, no
voice in their workplace. This bill is completely absent any
enforceable standard.
The American worker should not be required to compete with 67-cents-
an-hour workers or slave labor or child labor in these other countries.
Yet that is exactly what this bill allows. That is exactly what Fast
Track and the ministerial directive that came out of Doha, that is just
exactly what is allowed here.
The American public should not be faced with the risk of trucks
coming over the Mexican border without the safety requirements and the
regulatory obligations of the trucks that we have in this country that
are registered in any of the 50 States, and we should not allow
produce, food products, to come into this country that do not meet the
regulatory standards that we have set up in this country.
We have seen examples of that. I know that in Michigan just recently,
we had an incident where 200 people were affected by eating
strawberries that had been contaminated with the
[[Page 23399]]
hepatitis A virus and that were allowed into the country because they
did not have to undergo the FDA process and the sanitation process that
products here in the United States are required to go under. We should
also realize that of the 4.4 million trucks a year that come in from
Mexico into the United States, we have the ability right now to inspect
2 percent, about 88,000 trucks out of 4.4 million. We do not have the
ability to check the licenses, the qualifications of those drivers, the
safety mechanisms on those trucks, and there is just a complete lack of
accountability. That is the bottom line.
This Fast Track bill takes away the accountability. We are unable to
oversee or guarantee that the American workers and the American public
are being protected, and we need to do whatever we can to recapture the
power and the accountability on behalf of the American people.
I think the easiest way to do that would be to defeat this Fast Track
proposal.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Lynch) points out something very important about democratic values. At
the beginning of this Special Order we talked about political
profiteering that some people, the President, the White House and the
Bush administration, have said that we need to have Fast Track to wage
this war against terrorism. Yet as the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Lynch) so deftly pointed out, much about trade negotiations and
much, not just writing these trade agreements, but actually some of the
appeals in front of the tribunals and the three-judge panels at the
World Trade Organization and the NAFTA tribunals and all are conducted
in secret.
We talk about American values. How can we talk about American values
and then turn over our sovereignty on issues of public health and
issues of water, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) in his
district, which borders three of the Great Lakes, how can we turn over
those decisions on environment, on food safety, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) said; on constitutional issues, as the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said.
We are turning those issues over to panels who are people we do not
elect, who are making decisions in secret, and then often do not have
to publish their findings. And that runs exactly counter to our
government, to our way of life, to our values, and to our beliefs as
Americans.
I would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), who many years ago during the NAFTA debate used to join
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who could not be here tonight, used to join us
on these Fast Track issues. I would add that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who is a candidate for Governor of Michigan,
will be leaving this body at the end of 2002 and has been the real
leader on trade issues. He said he could not be here tonight, but he is
in there fighting against these bad trade agreements on behalf of
Michigan workers and on behalf of all of us.
So I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland),
from the other end of Ohio, from southern Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we do represent common
areas of our Nation, areas where there has been strong manufacturing in
the past and where people are now losing their jobs and where there is
great distress. Sometimes I wonder how long the American people are
going to be willing to put up with us as they watch what is happening.
It seems that the decisions that we make in this Chamber so often favor
other countries and other peoples rather than our own country and our
own people.
It really bothers me that we would make decisions in this Chamber
that would put the American worker at a disadvantage to workers
elsewhere in this world. That really troubles me, and I am wondering
how long the American people are going to put up with it.
Now, we are going to be facing a decision rather soon and the
pressure is building here in Washington, D.C., the lobbying is taking
place, the administration is sending people up here to try to twist
arms and to convince people that they need to support this Fast Track
authority. And we are going to be making a decision, and it is my hope
that as the American people observe what is happening, that they will
let their voices be heard.
And how can they do that? Well, the old-fashioned way. They can call
their representatives. They can send e-mails. They can send letters.
They may arrive 2 or 3 weeks late, given the current circumstances.
They can call their Representatives and their Senators and ask for a
personal meeting in their offices, in their States, in their districts,
because unless the American people express themselves, I am afraid this
will be pushed through this House and through this Congress, and that
once again the American people will be placed at a great disadvantage.
I am the son of a steelworker. I grew up in a family of nine kids. My
dad had a fifth-grade education, but he worked in a steel mill and he
was able to support us. That steel mill is closed today. There is not a
single man or woman or family that is being supported by that steel
mill, because it does not exist.
Even today as we met in our Steel Caucus, we heard the fact that if
something is not done, over the next 12 months the American steel
industry will be decimated, will cease to be a major industry in this
country. Yet we are on the verge of being forced to take a position
that will extend this, what I would call obscene trade policy that we
currently have in place.
When are we going to stop and say what is best for the American
worker, the American family? When are we going to do that? When are we
going to have an administration that is willing to put Americans first
when it comes to these kinds of issues?
We go to a union hall and it is very common in my district when I go
to a union hall to have union members stand and pledge allegiance to
the flag. We are urging American school children across this Nation to
be loyal to our Nation and to express that loyalty by pledging
allegiance to the flag. Sometimes I think we should request that these
corporate board members who belong to these multinational
organizations, who have no particular loyalty to a country or a set of
democratic principles or a political philosophy, maybe they should be
asked to pledge allegiance to the flag as well.
I am just really getting increasingly concerned about the fact that
over the years, in an incremental manner, we are more and more giving
up the power that we have within this Chamber to protect our
constituents, to make sure that when we cast a vote, when we make a
decision, it is in the best interests of the people of southern Ohio or
northern Ohio or the upper peninsula of Michigan. We cannot give up
this authority. We ought not to. I believe it is a violation of our
constitutional responsibilities and our oath of office to just
relinquish this responsibility to an administration. And I am not just
being critical of this administration because, quite frankly, I think
we were critical of the past administration when it came to trade
policies and the willingness to stand up for the American worker.
We have got a responsibility as elected representatives to do the
right thing, but I am afraid we will not do the right thing if the
American people do not make their voices heard. It is my hope that in
the next few hours and days, that the American people will call and
write and request visits with their Congresspersons and their Senators
so that we can stop this and we can once again start reasserting
ourselves as the legitimate spokespersons for the people who send us
here to represent them.
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his attention
on this issue for many, many years, and he is very knowledgeable about
it, as is my Congress friend from the great State of Michigan. I live
in a district where the steel mill is already gone. Some of my
colleagues live in districts where there is still hope to maintain
[[Page 23400]]
the jobs, and we will not be able to do it if this Fast Track
legislation passes.
We will see more and more jobs going to other countries where those
functions are performed by people who earn little more than slave labor
salaries, where children are abused, where the environment is raped,
where there are no protections in terms of worker rights. How can we do
that and say that we are representing the United States of America? I
do view this as a patriotic issue and one that calls upon me to oppose
this effort to take away and to strip from us our legitimate right as
representatives of the people to stand up for them.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this time and for
giving me a chance to express myself.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize something the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said. As this debate winds down
into next week when the Republican leadership has said it will be
scheduled for a floor vote, we have seen the kind of strong-arm
lobbying from the President, from the President personally, from
administration officials, Cabinet members, up and down the
administration, throughout the administration, promises, all kinds of
promises, everything from highway projects to support of legislation,
to jobs, to all kinds of things that some of these people promise.
We have also seen strong-arm lobbying from America's largest
corporations. Every time there is a trade vote here, people at National
Airport used to tell me they saw more corporate jets at that airport
than anytime during the year, as corporate executives know that these
trade agreements mean they can move more jobs overseas, make more money
as they hire low-wage workers with no environmental laws, with no food
safety laws, with no kind of worker safety laws.
{time} 1900
Mr. STRICKLAND. I would just like to point out that many of these
corporations are in fact multinational in nature. They have no loyalty
to this country in particular or to any set of democratic principles or
anything else, except the bottom line, and we allow these multinational
corporations to influence American domestic economic policy. It is just
absolutely wrong.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, one CEO of a major corporation
said a couple of years ago, ``I wish I could locate my corporate
headquarters on an island that is part of no country.'' He does not
mind being an American when he comes to this institution for subsidies,
for tax cuts personally or corporate tax cuts, but when it comes time
to employing American workers or living under the sovereignty of this
Nation, he seems a little bit less interested.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I, a moment ago, and for
years, actually, but a moment ago were talking about food safety. And
food safety is a particularly important issue. We have legislation with
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and some others because we
are concerned about country-of-origin labeling; we are concerned about
inspections, as more and more fruits and vegetables come into the
United States.
Because of budget cuts, and because of increased imports, and because
of poor trade laws, only seven- tenths of 1 percent of food coming into
this country is inspected at the border, much less than that inspected
anyplace else. That means one out of every 140 crates of broccoli, one
out of every 140 crates of fruit, one out of every 140 boxes of any
kind of food gets inspected at the border. It is a serious problem, and
the gentleman from Michigan will tell us more about what all of this
means with Fast Track.
Mr. STUPAK. Well, with Fast Track, if we take a look at the proposed
legislation, H.R. 3005, the legislation that is going to be proposed,
when we get to environmental standards or inspection, it is all
voluntary. And when we have voluntary negotiating on objectives, on the
environment, on food safety, it usually means nothing will happen. If
anything, when we look closely at H.R. 3005, it is a step backwards. We
do not have an opportunity to enforce the laws that we have because
they are all subject to negotiations. Under H.R. 3005, when it comes to
inspections, that is subject to negotiation. Even our laws which
prevent adulterated or bad food that does not meet our standards or
uses pesticides not allowed in this country, that is subject to
negotiation. It is voluntary under these proposals.
The gentleman from Ohio talked about food coming into this country,
that seven-tenths of 1 percent is ever inspected. Well, when they do
broccoli, they just take a crate and drop it on the ground. If bugs
come out, they impound it. If no bugs come out, it goes on. For years,
we have asked for sophisticated inspection of food coming into this
country. Let us not just drop the crates. Let us do a quick chemical
test to see what pesticides are in it that we are consuming. Let us put
the country of origin on this food. Let us have inspectors there and be
able to impound the food for some time so we can have an opportunity to
do a proper inspection.
All that is happening is a quick check, and then we are sending the
truck on. By the time they do a sophisticated check, that truck is
already hundreds of miles into the United States and has probably
dropped its load. They do not know where it is because they do not have
the order there in front of them. How do we recall it then? It is
consumed.
We had that in Michigan with Guatemalan strawberries and our hot
lunch program, and hundreds of kids were ill. Well, it is too late
then. And guess what? It was really a U.S. company that imported the
food. The U.S. company was supposed to inspect it, but they never did.
Tainted water had been used to grow the crops, and that is what we
have. We do not even have inspections overseas where this food comes
from.
It is amazing. We have worked, as the gentleman said, for a number of
years, and we have the bill again this year; but it is frustrating when
we see that less than 1 percent is ever inspected. It is wintertime
now, and where will most of our fruits and vegetables for our salads
come from?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. When the gentleman and I started this conversation
3 or 4 years ago, 2 percent of food was inspected. This Congress
continues to cut the budget on food inspection.
And understand it is not just the adulterated food coming in. The way
the trade law works on food safety, there are certain pesticides in the
United States that are banned for use. It is illegal to put them on
fields. It is not illegal to make them. So in many cases, American
manufacturers manufacture these pesticides, sell them to Guatemala to
spray on the strawberries or on the raspberries. Those products then
come back into the United States with pesticide residues, making the
farmers sick that apply the pesticides, and then coming across the
border.
We do not spend the money at the border to detect either adulterated
food, anything from fecal matter to other kinds of contaminants, nor do
they detect any kinds of residues from pesticides. And that is one of
the reasons that in this country, and it is not all foreign food, but
in this country 5,000 people a year die from food-borne illnesses and
300,000 people go to the hospitals with food-borne illnesses.
Not blaming it all on foreign food by a long shot. We should do a
better inspection job with domestic food. But foreign food is a part of
it, and food coming from abroad is a growing problem because we are
importing more. That is why we get vegetables and fruits in the winter,
because we are importing them. That is a good thing. It makes Americans
healthier. But give Americans the confidence that our food will be safe
by passing trade legislation that upgrades food safety standards
everywhere, rather than pulling our standards down to the weaker
standards of other countries.
We have about 3 minutes, so I will yield to my friend, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to say quickly that I think the American
consumer deserves information. When they go to the grocery store, as a
consumer
[[Page 23401]]
they deserve the right to know where that food has come from.
I was talking with one of my constituents over the weekend; and he
said to me, you know, I would pay a little more for a television set
that was made in America by American workers if I could find one. It is
just unconscionable that we have reached this place.
But in terms of country-of-origin labeling, that is so basic. And if
we cannot give this kind of information to the American consumer, then
we will have failed them.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Just give more information to people.
In closing, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Lynch), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is here on the
other side of the aisle, who has always been a strong opponent of bad
free trade laws.
I would close by saying, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland)
said, corporate CEOs, the President, cabinet officials will all be
lobbying this institution big time in the next week. I hope that coming
out of this Special Order tonight that people will understand better
what our trade policy does to our values and our way of life, and that
the American people will rise to the occasion and continue to push
Members of Congress to do the right thing next week when we vote down
Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority.
____________________
THE WAR ON TERRORISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we have been told on numerous occasions to
expect a long and protracted war. This is not necessary if one can
identify the target, the enemy, and then stay focused on that target.
It is impossible to keep one's eye on a target and hit it if we do not
precisely understand it and identify it.
In pursuing any military undertaking, it is the responsibility of
Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike
any time in our history, the enemy and its location remains vague and
pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was
known and clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and
contradictory. Today, our policies relating to the growth of terrorism
are also confused and contradictory. However, the precise enemy and its
location are not known by anyone.
Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately
targeted or vanquished. The terrorists are no more an entity than the
Mob or some international criminal gang, such as the Mafia. It is
certainly not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is
obviously a strong sympathizer of bin Laden and his henchmen, but how
much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan?
Probably not much.
Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policies of
almost every Nation throughout history. Economic gain and a geographic
expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often
drives the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years,
we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desires
for hegemony and influential allies affect our policies, and they in
turn incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored.
The target will be elusive and ever-enlarging rather than vanquished.
We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly
4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia;
and they have paid a high price. They are all dead. So those most
responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one
encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with
others, without the help from anyone else, no further punishment is
possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance
is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove
that individual to perform such a heinous act.
The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so
simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning,
and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly
involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans
thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even 100 could have done
it; but there is no way thousands of people knew and participated in
the planning and carried out the attacks.
Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a
different matter and difficult to determine. Those who enjoyed seeing
the United States hit are too numerous to count and impossible to
identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring
war against an idea or sin. The predominant nationality of the
terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet, for political and economic reasons,
even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi Government, we have
ignored that country in placing blame.
The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of
course, is closely tied to bin Laden and the al Qaeda, but so are the
Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of
the Taliban's rise to power. And as recently as August of this year, we
talked pipeline politics with them. The recent French publication of
bin Laden, ``The Forbidden Truth,'' revealed our most recent effort to
secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban.
According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the
U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the
Taliban. It has been known for years that UniCal, a U.S. company, has
been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan. But it
has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We
should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the
U.N. to nation-build in Afghanistan is a logical and important
consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those
interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of
Afghanistan.
Since we do not even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan; and since
other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on
this Taliban target remains suspect by many. Former FBI Deputy Director
John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the
Taliban in our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as head of the
World Trade Center's security and, ironically, was killed in the 9-11
attack.
The charges made by these authors in this recent publication deserves
close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation and not just
for the historical record.
To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a
comment in the ``Hindu,'' India's national newspaper, not necessarily
to agree with the paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand
what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin
put on the war by our five major TV networks.
This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on
October 13, 2001: ``The world today is being asked to side with the
United States in a fight against global terrorism. This is only a
cover. The world is being asked today in reality to side with the U.S.
as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither
acceptable nor will it be allowed. We must forge together to state that
we are neither with the terrorists nor with the United States.''
The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we are going to
avoid letting this war get out of control. It is important to note that
in the same article the author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on
Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio Free Europe. He
said, ``We, the United States, view oil as a security consideration,
and we have to protect it by any means
[[Page 23402]]
necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values.''
{time} 1915
This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration
in 1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf
War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the
issue later on. For various reasons, the enemy with whom we are now at
war remains vague and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts
should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock, not with vague declarations
with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60
countries.
If we are not precise in identifying our enemy, it is going to be
hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the
war will spread and be needlessly prolonged. Why is this definition so
crucial? Because without it the special interests and the ill advised
will clamor for all kinds of expanded militarism. Planning to expand
and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries against worldwide
terrorist conflicts with the notion that at most only a few hundred
ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.
The pervasive and indefinable enemy, terrorism, cannot be conquered
without weapons and U.N. nation-building. Only a sensible pro-American
foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to avoid
a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities. It was said that
our efforts were to be directed towards the terrorists responsible for
the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not
to be part of the agenda.
Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted
it toward building a pro-Western, U.N.-sanctioned government in
Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and Washington,
D.C., what should one expect to happen once the U.S. and the U.N.
establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops? It
seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.
Since we do not know in which cave or country bin Laden is hiding, we
hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain, Saddam
Hussein, guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked
are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, just for starters.
But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against
terrorism cannot be won in this manner. The drum beat for attacking
Baghdad grows louder every day with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol,
Richard Perle and Bill Bennett leading the charge.
In a recent interview, the U.S. Deputy of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
made it clear, ``We are going to continue pursuing this entire al Qaeda
network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan.''
Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the
pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray
that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want
us to take on Iraq. The argument that we need to do so because Hussein
is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all
herrings. I sincerely doubt he has developed significant weapons of
mass destruction.
However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all the
countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them, countries
like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India. Iraq has been
uncooperative with the U.N. world order, and remains independent of
Western control of its oil reserve, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and
Britain.
Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
In 1996 after 5 years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent
bombing, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our ambassador to the U.N.,
Madeleine Albright, a simple question: ``We have heard that half a
million children have died as a consequence of our policy against Iraq.
Is the price worth it?''
Albright's response was, ``We think the price is worth it.'' Although
this interview won an Emmy Award, it was rarely related in the U.S.,
but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America
is despised in this region of the world.
Former President George Bush has been criticized for not marching on
to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then and stands
by its explanation today a superb answer as to why it was ill advised
to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. There were strategic
and tactical as well as humanitarian arguments against it. But the
important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was
political. The coalition in no uncertain terms let it be known they
wanted no part of it. Besides, the U.N. only authorized the removal of
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The U.N. has never sanctioned the continued
U.S. and British bombing of Iraq, a source of much hatred directed
towards the United States.
The placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim Holy Land in
Saudi Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was
trying to avoid, the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung
together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and
religious Arab Muslim nations within individual countries has
intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of
every puppet pro-Western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to
Kuwait.
Many of the same advisers from the first Bush administration are now
urging the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every
reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true
today, if not more so. It has been argued that we needed to maintain a
presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the
Saudi Government from Iraqi attack. Others argue it was only a cynical
excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared
were our oil supplies.
Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia
was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any
effort by Saudi fundamentalists from overthrowing his regime. Expanding
the war by taking on Iraq at this time may please some allies, but it
will lead to chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will
incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater
danger. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster.
Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move, nor will our
European allies. It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein. That is
the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban.
That is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist
that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how
good of an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why not insist that
our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing as well as
impose our will on them. Talk about hypocrisy. The mere thought that we
fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home
with no cultural similarities should insult us all. Of course it does
distract from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern
Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily
distracted.
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any
of our military effort in that region be justified? Since none of it
would be related to American security, it would be difficult to
justify.
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with
serious renal disease. Would he not do everything conceivable for his
cause by provoking us into expanding the war and
[[Page 23403]]
alienating as many Muslims as possible? Remember, to bin Laden
martyrdom is a noble calling and he may be more powerful in death than
life.
An American invasion of Iraq would please bin Laden because it would
rally his troops against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be
supporting the United States. It would prove his point that America is
up to no good, and oil and Arab infidels are the source of all of the
Muslims' problems.
We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the
bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event awakened
a sleeping giant. Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of
that comment, but I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between
the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. Hardly are we
the same Nation we were in 1941. Today we are anything but a sleeping
giant. There is no contest for our status as the only world's only
economic, political and military superpower. A sleeping giant would not
have troops in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in
every conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.
The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain,
the U.N. and NATO since World War II inspired and have now awakened a
long-forgotten sleeping giant, Islamic fundamentalism. Let us hope for
all of our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this very complex
war.
The President, in the 2000 Presidential campaign, argued against
nation-building, and he was right to do so. He also said, ``If we are
an arrogant Nation, they will resent us.'' He wisely argued for
humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or
declaring war against Saddam Hussein or even continuing the illegal
bombing of Iraq is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote
peace.
As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install
a new government sympathetic to the West and under U.N. control. The
persuasive arguments as always is money. We were able to gain
Pakistan's support, although it continually waivers in this manner.
Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild
all that we destroyed in Afghanistan and then some, even before the
bombing has stopped.
``Rumsfeld's plan,'' as reported and quoted in Turkey's Hurriyet
newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey's
support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the norther
Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline
running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a
generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds,
while we punish the Iraqis for the same thing, this plan it to divvy up
wealth in the land of Kurds is hardly a surprise.
It seems that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign
interventions continuously get us into more trouble than we have
bargained for, and the spending is endless. I am not optimistic that
this Congress will anytime soon come to its senses.
{time} 1930
I am afraid that we will never treat the taxpayers with respect.
National bankruptcy is a more likely scenario than Congress adopting a
frugal and wise spending policy.
Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely define our target
in this war and keep our eye on it. It is safe to assume that the
number of people directly involved in the 9-11 attacks is closer to
several hundred than the millions we are now talking about targeting
with our planned shotgun approach to terrorism. One commentator pointed
out that when the Mafia commits violence, no one suggests we bomb
Sicily. Today, it seems we are in a symbolic way not only bombing
Sicily, but thinking about bombing Athens; that is, Iraq.
If a corrupt city or State government does business with a drug
cartel or organized crime and violence results, we do not bomb city
hall or the State capital. We limit the target to those directly guilty
and punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples?
It is difficult for everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper
perspective, because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing
the utter horror of the events of that day.
We must remember though that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World
Trade Center attacks were just slightly more than the deaths that occur
on our Nation's highways every month. Could it be that the sense of
personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out
justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks?
Otherwise, the numbers do not add up to the proper response.
If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the
tragedy of 9-11 will pale in the death and destruction that could lie
ahead. As Members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to
mete out justice, provide security for our Nation and protect the
liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at
the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The
price is too high and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus
on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, we have not done any better keeping our eye on the
terrorist target on the home front than we have overseas. Not only has
Congress come up short in picking the right target, it has directed all
its energies in the wrong direction. The target of our efforts has,
sadly, been the liberties of all Americans.
With all the new power we have given to the administration, none has
truly improved the chances of catching the terrorists who were
responsible for the 9-11 attacks. All Americans will soon feel the
consequences of this new legislation.
Just as the crisis provided an opportunity for some to promote a
special interest agenda in our foreign policy, many have seen the
crisis as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws which, up
until now, were seen as dangerous and unfair to American citizens.
Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions
have prompted many takers to line up for the handouts. There has always
been a large constituency for expanding Federal power, for whatever
reason, and these groups have been energized.
The military industrial complex is out in force and is optimistic.
Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the
opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers,
already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS,
which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in
Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax
dodgers.
The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now
can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. Extremists who
talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias
or participate in non-mainstream religious practices, now can be
monitored much more effectively by those who find their views
offensive.
Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans, not just
terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and
identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with
them. Even before the passage of the recent Draconian legislation,
hundreds had already been arrested under suspicion and million of
dollars of al- Qaida funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will
deal with uncooperative foreign entities, like the Saudi government,
which chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who
financed the terrorist operations. Unfortunately, the laws will affect
all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to thwart terrorism.
The laws recently passed in Congress in response to the terrorist
attacks can be compared to the efforts of anti-gun fanatics who jump at
every chance to undermine the second amendment. When crimes are
committed with the use of guns, it is argued that we must remove guns
from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to
[[Page 23404]]
buy them. The counterargument made by the second amendment supporters
correctly explained that this would only undermine the freedom of law-
abiding citizens, and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the
criminals or to reduce crime.
Now we hear a similar argument, that a certain amount of privacy and
personal liberty of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to
root out possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being
lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist attack.
The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are
illegal, will still be able to circumvent antiterrorist laws. To
believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain. That is what I
believe the Congress has done.
We know from the ongoing drug war that Federal drug police not
infrequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy
property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the
new laws will encourage even more mistakes by Federal law enforcement
agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United
States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility,
not that of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government's policing powers have just gotten a giant
boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive
orders. Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his
position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive
Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access
to Presidential documents from previous administrations and a ``need to
know'' had to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to
demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of
history. Ashcroft's position is that Presidential records ought to
remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues
that government deserves privacy, while ignoring the fourth amendment
protections of the people's privacy.
He argues his case by absurdly claiming that he must protect the
privacy of the individuals who might be involved, a non-problem that
could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public.
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a
consequence of the 9-11 attacks, yet their names and charges are not
available, and, according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once
again, he uses the argument he is protecting their privacy.
Unbelievable. Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret
government is winning out over open government. This is the largest
number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR's
internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Information regarding these arrests is a must in a constitutional
republic. If they are terrorists or accomplices, just let the public
know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are
not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing
freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse
circumstances.
The administration has severely curtailed briefings regarding the
military operation in Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a
longtime tradition in this country. One person or one branch of
government should never control military operations. Our system of
government has always required a shared power arrangement.
The antiterrorism bill did little to restrain the growth of big
government. In the name of patriotism, the Congress did some very
unpatriotic things. Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups
that committed the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have
undermined the liberties of all Americans. ``Know your customer'' type
banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years, have now
been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will the regulations
affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but all businesses will be
required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with a
total of the transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be
required to spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S.
Government.
Financial service consultants are convinced that this new regulation
will affect literally millions of law-abiding American citizens. The
odds that this additional paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote.
The sad part is that these regulations have been sought after by
Federal law enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have
served as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American
people.
Only now are the American people hearing about the onerous portions
of the antiterrorism legislation, and they are not pleased. It is easy
for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that
the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such
assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the
constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums
of money from the Federal Treasury.
The history of the 20th century shows that the Congress violates our
Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of
our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the World
Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was
conceived at a time of great crisis. The founders intended its
provisions to place severe restriction on the Federal Government, even
in times of great distress.
America must guard against current calls for the government to
sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement. The
antiterrorism legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how
well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in the rush to
respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully
studied by Congress, nor was a sufficient time taken to debate the
bill, despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy
experts or from other fields outside of law enforcement. Normal
congressional committee hearings processes were suspended. In fact, the
final version of the bill was not even made available to Members before
the vote. The American public should not tolerate these political
games, especially when our precious freedoms are at stake.
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than
potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of terrorism
for Federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded. A person could
now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-Constitution group,
a citizen's militia or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests
against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans
under Federal surveillance.
Similarly, Internet use can be monitored without a user's knowledge,
and Internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to
law enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance
tools, including wiretaps, search warrants and subpoenas. Probable
cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some
circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed
without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In
fact, the FBI and the CIA now can tap telephones or computers
nationwide without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a
particular phone or computer.
The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is they
bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are
greatly expanded, while checks and balances on governments are greatly
reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law
enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to
increase their police powers over the American people.
There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a
barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The
Federal Government has made no showing that it failed to detect or
prevent the recent
[[Page 23405]]
terrorist strike because of the civil liberties that will be
compromised by this new legislation.
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress following the
September 11 attack, President Bush reminded all of us that the United
States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last
century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union, its
centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression
of human liberty and its excessive militarization, all led to its
inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward
ever-increasing state control of our society so that our own government
does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign
terrorists.
{time} 1945
The Executive Order that has gotten the most attention by those who
are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous
to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret.
Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are being laid
to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death
penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial
branches of government and the American public. Since such a process
threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as
a justification for their protection.
Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning
stages for 5 years. If so, what would have been its justification? The
argument that FDR did it and, therefore, it must be okay is a rather
weak argument. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book: the
Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today.
There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the
Germans, who sent 8 saboteurs into our country. Convictions were
unanimous, not by two-thirds of the panel, and appeals were permitted.
That is not what is being offered today. Besides, the previous military
tribunal expired when the war as over. Since this war will go on
indefinitely, so too will these courts.
The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be
accomplished with the ``stroke of a pen.'' It may be that we have come
to that stage in our history when an Executive Order is the ``law of
the land,'' but it is not ``kinda cool,'' as one member of the previous
administration bragged. It is a process that is unacceptable, even in
this professed time of crisis.
There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up
until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact
that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in
the United States is scary. With no appeals available and no defense
attorneys of choice being permitted should compel us to reject such a
system outright.
Those who favor these trials claim that they are necessary to halt
terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be
brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects
must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of
``trial'' without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay,
in contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are
innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its
head.
One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to
foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a
slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were
convicted and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system and
they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver's family
fared no better.
It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of
freedom, justice, and prosperity throughout the world is through
example and persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a
long way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad example
for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American
citizen, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian
military court. Instead of setting an example, now we are following the
lead of a Peruvian dictator.
The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the
criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can only
represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government
becomes more secretive, it is more likely this too will be abused.
Hopefully, the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this
barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the judicial
system, it is intended that we visualize that these infractions of the
law and the Constitution will apply only to the terrorists and never
involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has
to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that
involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be
given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a
totalitarian government.
Many throughout the world, especially those in the Muslim countries,
will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for
military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict
in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against
terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice?
If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.
Congress has a profound responsibility in all of this and should
never concede this power to a President or an Attorney General.
Congressional oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail
this unconstitutional assumption of power.
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and
airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go
uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated the national
approach to all policing activities. This current crisis has given them
a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous
move. The Constitution never intended that the Federal Government
assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act
of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law
enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United
States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type
of purpose in a police State. Interestingly, it was the violation of
these principles that prompted the Texas revolution against Mexico. The
military, under the Mexican Constitution at that time, was prohibited
from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this
prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede
the principles that have been fought for on more than one occasion in
this country.
The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to
target the enemy. Instead, we have inadvertently targeted the rights of
American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those
who have argued all along for bigger government.
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who
love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has
argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its
reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the
draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty.
Morally, it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for
drafting 18-year-old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars
are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to
the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common
reason given after the call for service in an effort to make the world
safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of
parental guidance of teenagers than the Federal Government's
domineering control and forcing them to fight an enemy they do not even
know in a country they cannot even identify.
Now it is argued that since the Federal government has taken over the
entire job of Homeland Security, all
[[Page 23406]]
kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the State, even
for those who are conscientious objectors.
The proponents of the draft call it ``mandatory service.'' Slavery
too was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that
every 18-year-old owes at least 2 years of his life to his country. Let
us hope the American people do not fall for this need-to-serve
argument. The Congress should refuse even to consider such a proposal.
Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the selective service
altogether.
However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a
proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper
editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has
never served in the military and who now demands that the draft be
reinstated should be drafted first; the 18-year-olds last. Since the
Pentagon says they do not need draftees, these new recruits can be the
first to march to the orders of the general in charge of Homeland
Security. For those less robust individuals, they can do the hospital
and cooking chores for the rest of the newly-formed domestic Army.
After all, someone middle-aged owes a lot more to his country than an
18-year-old.
I am certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the
return of the military draft.
I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned, not only
about another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as
the Congress deals with this crisis. Personal freedom is the element of
the human condition that has made America great and unique and
something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to sacrifice
a little freedom for security do it with the firm conviction that they
are acting in the best interests of freedom and justice. However, good
intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of
liberty.
I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree
with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government
solutions for all of our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the
best formula for giving us peace and prosperity and preserving the
American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our
own business overseas.
Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The
Mainspring of Human Progress, years ago warned us that good intentions
in politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the
cause. Weaver stated: ``Most of the major ills of the world have been
caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual
freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with
fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some
pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals,
murderers, gangsters and thieves is negligible in comparison with the
agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders who
attempt to set themselves up as Gods on earth and who would ruthlessly
force their views on all others, with the abiding assurance that the
end justifies the means.''
Mr. Speaker, this message is one we should all ponder.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). Pursuant to
clause 12 of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to
the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 0602
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) at 6 o'clock and 2 minutes a.m.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2299, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky submitted the following conference report and
statement on the bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the
Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 107-308)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2299) ``making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes'', having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said
amendment, insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$67,778,000, of which not to exceed $1,929,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $619,000 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $13,355,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $3,058,000 shall be for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy; not to exceed $7,421,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs; not to exceed $7,728,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,282,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Government Affairs; not to exceed $19,250,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration; not to exceed $1,723,000 shall be available
for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,204,000
shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $507,000 shall be available for
the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,240,000 shall
be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization; not to exceed $1,321,000 shall be
available for the Office of Intelligence and Security; not to
exceed $6,141,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer: Provided, That not to exceed
$60,000 shall be for allocation within the Department for
official reception and representation expenses as the
Secretary may determine: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, excluding fees
authorized in Public Law 107-71, there may be credited to
this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in funds received in user
fees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Transportation
is authorized to transfer funds appropriated for any office
of the Office of the Secretary to any other office of the
Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That no
appropriation for any office shall be increased or decreased
by more than 7 percent by all such transfers: Provided
further, That any such transfer shall be submitted for
approval to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$8,500,000.
Transportation Security Administration
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to Public Law 107-71, $1,250,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That, security
service fees authorized under 49 U.S.C. 44940 shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
used for providing civil aviation security services
authorized by that section: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be reduced as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2002 so as to result in a final fiscal year appropriation
from the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
For necessary expenses for conducting transportation
planning, research, systems development, development
activities, and making grants, to remain available until
expended, $11,993,000.
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to
exceed $125,323,000, shall be paid from appropriations made
available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That
such services shall be provided on a competitive basis to
entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided
further, That the above limitation on operating expenses
shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That
no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the
Department shall be transferred to the Transportation
Administrative Service Center without the approval of the
[[Page 23407]]
agency modal administrator: Provided further, That no
assessments may be levied against any program, budget
activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless
notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are
presented to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $500,000, as authorized
by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $18,367,000. In addition, for administrative expenses
to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $400,000.
Minority Business Outreach
For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center
outreach activities, $3,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2003: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C.
332, these funds may be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation.
Payments to Air Carriers
(airport and airway trust fund)
In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, to be derived from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund, $13,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
COAST GUARD
Operating Expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not
to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only;
payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and
welfare, $3,382,000,000, of which $440,000,000 shall be
available for defense-related activities; and of which
$24,945,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in
this or any other Act shall be available for pay of
administrative expenses in connection with shipping
commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for
expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 46 U.S.C.
12109, except to the extent fees are collected from yacht
owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided further,
That of the amounts made available under this heading, not
less than $14,541,000 shall be used solely to increase
staffing at Search and Rescue stations, surf stations and
command centers, increase the training and experience level
of individuals serving in said stations through targeted
retention efforts, revise personnel policies and expand
training programs, and to modernize and improve the quantity
and quality of personal safety equipment, including survival
suits, for personnel assigned to said stations: Provided
further, That the Department of Transportation Inspector
General shall audit and certify to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations that the funding described in
the preceding proviso is being used solely to supplement and
not supplant the Coast Guard's level of effort in this area
in fiscal year 2001.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $636,354,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which
$89,640,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate
or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to
remain available until September 30, 2006; $9,500,000 shall
be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation
capability, to remain available until September 30, 2004;
$79,293,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain
available until September 30, 2004; $73,100,000 shall be
available for shore facilities and aids to navigation
facilities, to remain available until September 30, 2004;
$64,631,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and
benefits and related costs, to remain available until
September 30, 2003; and $320,190,000 shall be available for
the Integrated Deepwater Systems program, to remain available
until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the Commandant of
the Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of surplus real
property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
made available only for the National Distress and Response
System Modernization program, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2004: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided under this heading may be
obligated or expended for the Integrated Deepwater Systems
(IDS) system integration contract until the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the Director, Office
of Management and Budget jointly certify to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations that funding for the IDS
program for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, funding for the
National Distress and Response System Modernization program
to allow for full deployment of said system by 2006, and
funding for other essential search and rescue procurements,
are fully funded in the Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan
and within the Office of Management and Budget's budgetary
projections for the Coast Guard for those years: Provided
further, That none of the funds provided under this heading
may be obligated or expended for the Integrated Deepwater
Systems (IDS) integration contract until the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the Director, Office
of Management and Budget jointly approve a contingency
procurement strategy for the recapitalization of assets and
capabilities envisioned in the IDS: Provided further, That
upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal year
2003 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation
shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital
investment plan for the United States Coast Guard which
includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years
2003 through 2007, with total funding for each year of the
plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as
estimated and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget: Provided further, That the amount herein appropriated
shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after
initial submission of the President's budget that the plan
has not been submitted to the Congress: Provided further,
That the Director, Office of Management and Budget shall
submit the budget request for the IDS integration contract
delineating sub-headings which include the following: systems
integrator, ship construction, aircraft, equipment, and
communications, providing specific assets and costs under
each sub-heading.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $16,927,000, to
remain available until expended.
Alteration of Bridges
For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, $15,466,000, to remain available until
expended.
Retired Pay
For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for
this purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses under the National Defense Authorization Act,
and for payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10
U.S.C. ch. 55), $876,346,000.
Reserve Training
(including transfer of funds)
For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities;
and supplies, equipment, and services, $83,194,000: Provided,
That no more than $25,800,000 of funds made available under
this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating
expenses'' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast
Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be
used by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the Coast
Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so
charged during fiscal year 1997.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
applied scientific research, development, test, and
evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation
of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law,
$20,222,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$3,492,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used
for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from
State and local governments, other public authorities,
private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred
for research, development, testing, and evaluation.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including
operations and research activities related to commercial
space transportation, administrative expenses for research
and development, establishment of air navigation facilities,
the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of
aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and
maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made
available by Public Law 104-264, $6,886,000,000, of which
$5,773,519,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $5,452,871,000 shall be
available for air traffic services program activities; not to
exceed $768,769,000 shall be available for aviation
regulation and certification program activities; not to
exceed $150,154,000 shall be available for civil aviation
security program activities; not to exceed $195,799,000 shall
be available for research and acquisition program activities;
not to exceed $12,456,000 shall be available for commercial
space transportation program activities; not to exceed
$50,284,000 shall be available for financial services program
activities; not to exceed $69,516,000 shall be available for
human resources program activities; not to exceed $85,943,000
shall be available for regional coordination program
activities; and not to exceed $109,208,000 shall be available
for staff offices: Provided, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for the Federal Aviation
Administration to finalize or implement any regulation that
would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically
authorized by law after the
[[Page 23408]]
date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
there may be credited to this appropriation funds received
from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities,
other public authorities, and private sources, for expenses
incurred in the provision of agency services, including
receipts for the maintenance and operation of air navigation
facilities, and for issuance, renewal or modification of
certificates, including airman, aircraft, and repair station
certificates, or for tests related thereto, or for processing
major repair or alteration forms: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than
$6,000,000 shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing
program: Provided further, That funds may be used to enter
into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to assist in the development of aviation safety
standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for new applicants for the second
career training program: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay
under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station
in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none
of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and
cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Transportation Administrative
Service Center.
Facilities and Equipment
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or
purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental
facilities and equipment as authorized under part A of
subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including
initial acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant;
engineering and service testing, including construction of
test facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by lease
or grant; construction and furnishing of quarters and related
accommodations for officers and employees of the Federal
Aviation Administration stationed at remote localities where
such accommodations are not available; and the purchase,
lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds available under
this heading; to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund, $2,914,000,000, of which $2,536,900,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2004, and of which $377,100,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided,
That there may be credited to this appropriation funds
received from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in
the establishment and modernization of air navigation
facilities: Provided further, That upon initial submission to
the Congress of the fiscal year 2003 President's budget, the
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the Congress a
comprehensive capital investment plan for the Federal
Aviation Administration which includes funding for each
budget line item for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, with
total funding for each year of the plan constrained to the
funding targets for those years as estimated and approved by
the Office of Management and Budget: Provided further, That
the amount herein appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000
per day for each day after initial submission of the
President's budget that the plan has not been submitted to
the Congress.
Facilities and Equipment
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the available balances under this heading, $15,000,000
are rescinded.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
research, engineering, and development, as authorized under
part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
including construction of experimental facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,
$195,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2004:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other
public authorities, and private sources, for expenses
incurred for research, engineering, and development.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(airport and airway trust fund)
For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid
for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility
planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of
chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49,
United States Code, and under other law authorizing such
obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning
of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at
airports of such title; for implementation of section 203 of
Public Law 106-181; and for inspection activities and
administration of airport safety programs, including those
related to airport operating certificates under section 44706
of title 49, United States Code, $1,800,000,000, to be
derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain
available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds
under this heading shall be available for the planning or
execution of programs the obligations for which are in excess
of $3,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding
section 47117(h) of title 49, United States Code: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
more than $57,050,000 of funds limited under this heading
shall be obligated for administration and not less than
$20,000,000 shall be for the Small Community Air Service
Development Pilot Program.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission of contract authorization)
Of the unobligated balances authorized under 49 U.S.C.
48103, as amended, $301,720,000 are rescinded.
Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund
The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to
make such expenditures and investments, within the limits of
funds available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, and in
accordance with section 104 of the Government Corporation
Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary
in carrying out the program for aviation insurance activities
under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the
Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $311,000,000,
shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made
available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration
together with advances and reimbursements received by the
Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That of the funds
available under section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United
States Code: $7,500,000 shall be available for ``Child
Passenger Protection Education Grants'' under section 2003(b)
of Public Law 105-178, as amended; $4,000,000 shall be
available for motor carrier safety research; $841,000 shall
be available for the motor carrier crash data improvement
program; $6,000,000 shall be available for the nationwide
differential global positioning system program; and
$1,500,000 for environmental streamlining activities.
Federal-Aid Highways
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $31,799,104,000 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2002: Provided, That within the $31,799,104,000
obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs, not more than $447,500,000
shall be available for the implementation or execution of
programs for transportation research (sections 502, 503, 504,
506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, as
amended; section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, as
amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-5209 of Public Law 105-
178) for fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That this
limitation on transportation research programs shall not
apply to any funds authorized under section 110 of title 23,
United States Code, and allocated to these programs, or to
any authority previously made available for obligation:
Provided further, That within the $225,000,000 obligation
limitation on Intelligent Transportation Systems, the
following sums shall be made available for Intelligent
Transportation System projects that are designed to achieve
the goals and purposes set forth in section 5203 of the
Intelligent Transportation Systems Act of 1998 (subtitle C of
title V of Public Law 105-178; 112 Stat. 453; 23 U.S.C. 502
note) in the following specified areas:
Alameda-Contra Costa, California, $500,000;
Alaska statewide; $2,500,000;
Alexandria, Virginia, $750,000;
Arizona statewide EMS, $500,000;
Army trail road traffic signal coordination project,
Illinois, $300,000;
Atlanta smart corridors, Georgia, $1,000,000;
Austin, Texas, $125,000;
Automated crash notification, UAB, Alabama, $2,500,000;
Bay County Area wide traffic signal system, Florida,
$500,000;
Beaver County transit mobility manager, Pennsylvania,
$800,000;
Brownsville, Texas, $250,000;
Carbondale technology transfer center, Pennsylvania,
$1,000,000;
Cargo mate logistics and intermodal management, New York,
$1,250,000;
Central Ohio, $1,500,000;
Chattanooga, Tennessee, $2,000,000;
Chinatown intermodal transportation center, California,
$1,750,000;
Clark County, Washington, $1,000,000;
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks, New
York, $450,000;
Dayton, Ohio, $1,250,000;
Detroit, Michigan (airport), $1,500,000;
Durham, Wake Counties, North Carolina, $500,000;
Eastern Kentucky rural highway information, $2,000,000;
Fargo, North Dakota, $1,000,000;
Forsyth, Guillford Counties, North Carolina, $1,000,000;
Genesee County, Michigan, $1,000,000;
Great Lakes, Michigan, $1,500,000;
Guidestar, Minnesota, $6,000,000;
Harrison County, Mississippi, $500,000;
[[Page 23409]]
Hawaii statewide, $1,000,000;
Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana, $2,000,000;
Houma, Louisiana, $1,000,000;
I-90 connector testbed, New York, $1,000,000;
Illinois statewide, $2,000,000;
Inglewood, California, $500,000;
Integrated transportation management system, Delaware
statewide, $2,000,000;
Iowa statewide, $562,000;
Jackson Metropolitan, Mississippi, $500,000;
James Madison University, Virginia, $1,500,000;
Kansas City, Kansas, $500,000;
Kittitas County workzone traffic safety system, Washington,
$450,000;
Lansing, Michigan, $750,000;
Las Vegas, Nevada, $1,450,000;
Lexington, Kentucky, $750,000;
Libertyville traffic management center, Illinois, $760,000;
Long Island rail road grade crossing deployment, New York,
$1,000,000;
Macomb, Michigan (border crossing), $1,000,000;
Maine statewide (rural), $500,000;
Maryland statewide, $1,000,000;
Miami-Dade, Florida, $1,000,000;
Monterey-Salinas, California, $750,000;
Montgomery County ECC & TMC, Maryland, $1,000,000;
Moscow, Idaho, $1,000,000;
Nebraska statewide, $$4,000,000;
New York statewide information exchange systems, New York,
$500,000;
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut (TRANSCOM), $2,500,000;
North Greenbush, New York, $1,000,000;
Oklahoma statewide, $3,000,000;
Oxford, Mississippi, $500,000;
Pennsylvania statewide (turnpike), $500,000;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $1,033,000;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Drexel), $1,500,000;
Pioneer Valley, Massachusetts, $1,500,000;
Port of Long Beach, California, $500,000;
Port of Tacoma trucker congestion notification system,
Washington, $200,000;
Roadside animal detection test-bed, Montana, $500,000;
Rochester-Genesse, New York, $800,000;
Rutland, Vermont, $750,000;
Sacramento, California, $3,000,000;
San Diego joint transportation operations center,
California, $1,500,000;
San Francisco central control communications, California,
$250,000;
Santa Anita, California, $300,000;
Santa Teresa, New Mexico, $750,000;
Shreveport, Louisiana, $750,000;
Silicon Valley transportation management center,
California, $700,000;
South Carolina DOT, $3,000,000;
Southeast Corridor, Colorado, $7,000,000;
Southern Nevada (bus), $1,100,000;
Spillway road incident management system, Mississippi,
$600,000;
St. Louis, Missouri, $1,000,000;
Statewide transportation operations center, Kentucky,
$2,000,000;
Superior, I-39 corridor, Wisconsin, $2,500,000;
Texas statewide, $2,000,000;
Travel network, South Dakota, $2,325,000;
University of Arizona ATLAS Center, Arizona, $500,000;
Utah Statewide, $560,000;
Vermont statewide (rural), $1,500,000;
Washington statewide, $4,500,000;
Washington, D.C. metropolitan region, $2,000,000;
Wayne County road information management system, Michigan,
$1,500,000;
Wichita, Kansas, $1,200,000;
Wisconsin communications network, $310,000;
Wisconsin statewide, $1,000,000;
Yakima County adverse weather operations, Washington,
$475,000;
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, funds authorized under section 110 of title 23,
United States Code, for fiscal year 2002 shall be apportioned
to the States in accordance with the distribution set forth
in section 110(b)(4)(A) and (B) of title 23, United States
Code, except that before such apportionments are made,
$35,565.651 shall be set aside for the program authorized
under section 1101(a)(8)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century, as amended, and section 204 of title
23, United States Code; $31,815,091 shall be set aside for
the program authorized under section 1101(a)(8)(B) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended,
and section 204 of title 23, United States Code; $21,339,391
shall be set aside for the program authorized under section
1101(a)(8)(C) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, as amended, and section 204 of title 23, United
States Code; $2,586,593 shall be set aside for the program
authorized under section 1101(a)(8)(D) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, and section 204
of title 23, United States Code; $25,579,000 shall be set
aside for the program authorized under section 129(c) of
title 23, United States Code, and section 1064 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, as
amended; $352,256,000 shall be set aside for the programs
authorized under sections 1118 and 1119 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended; $3,348,128 shall
be set aside for the program authorized under section
1101(a)(11) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, as amended and section 162 of title 23, United
States Code; $76,025,000 shall be set aside for the program
authorized under section 118(c) of title 23, United States
Code; $62,450,000 shall be set aside for the program
authorized under section 144(g) of title 23, United States
Code; $251,092,600 shall be set aside for the program
authorized under section 1221 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century, as amended; $10,000,000 shall be
set aside for the program authorized under section 502(e) of
title 23, United States Code; $56,300,000 shall be available
for border infrastructure improvements; $45,122,600 shall be
available for allocation by the Secretary for public lands
highways; and $23,896,000 shall be set aside and transferred
to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as
authorized by section 102 of Public Law 106-159: Provided
further, That, of the funds to be apportioned to each State
under section 110 for fiscal year 2002, the Secretary shall
ensure that such funds are apportioned for the programs
authorized under sections 1101(a)(1), 1101(a)(2), 1101(a)(3),
1101(a)(4), and 1101(a)(5) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century, as amended, in the same ratio that each
State is apportioned funds for such programs in fiscal year
2002 but for this section.
Federal-Aid Highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for carrying
out the provisions of title 23, United States Code, that are
attributable to Federal-aid highways, including the National
Scenic and Recreational Highway as authorized by 23 U.S.C.
148, not otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums
expended pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308,
$30,000,000,000 or so much thereof as may be available in and
derived from the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available
until expended.
Appalachian Development Highway System
For necessary expenses for the Appalachian Development
Highway System as authorized under Section 1069(y) of Public
Law 102-240, as amended, $200,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
State Infrastructure Banks
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available for State Infrastructure Banks
in Public Law 104-205, $5,750,000 are rescinded.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Motor Carrier Safety
limitation on administrative expenses
(including rescission of funds)
For necessary expenses for administration of motor carrier
safety programs and motor carrier safety research, pursuant
to section 104(a)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, not
to exceed $110,000,000 shall be paid in accordance with law
from appropriations made available by this Act and from any
available take-down balances to the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration: Provided, That such amounts shall be
available to carry out the functions and operations of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Of the unobligated balances authorized under 23 U.S.C.
104(a)(1)(B), $6,665,342 are rescinded.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, 31106
and 31309, $205,896,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $182,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier
Safety Grants'', and ``Information Systems'': Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the $23,896,000 provided under 23 U.S.C. 110, $18,000,000
shall be for border State grants and $4,837,000 shall be for
State commercial driver's license program improvements.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Operations and Research
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under
chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $127,780,000, of
which $95,835,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2004: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or
implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement
pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the
three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance) already in effect.
Operations and Research
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
(including rescission of contract authorization)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until
expended, $72,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2002, are in excess of
$72,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.
[[Page 23410]]
Of the unobligated balances authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403,
$1,516,000 are rescinded.
National Driver Register
(highway trust fund)
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under
chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000, to
be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, and to remain
available until expended.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411 to remain available until
expended, $223,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2002, are in excess of
$223,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402,
405, 410, and 411 of which $160,000,000 shall be for
``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $15,000,000
shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under
23 U.S.C. 405, $38,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410, and
$10,000,000 shall be for the ``State Highway Safety Data
Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 411: Provided further, That none of
these funds shall be used for construction, rehabilitation,
or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures
for State, local, or private buildings or structures:
Provided further, That not to exceed $8,000,000 of the funds
made available for section 402, not to exceed $750,000 of the
funds made available for section 405, not to exceed
$1,900,000 of the funds made available for section 410, and
not to exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for
section 411 shall be available to NHTSA for administering
highway safety grants under chapter 4 of title 23, United
States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 of
the funds made available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for
technical assistance to the States.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Safety and Operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $110,857,000, of
which $6,509,000 shall remain available until expended.
Railroad Research and Development
For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $29,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations
pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as
amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be
necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the
guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist
as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding:
Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as
amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments
shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium
during fiscal year 2002.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed
Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102,
$32,300,000, to remain available until expended.
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the Alaska Railroad, $20,000,000 shall be for capital
rehabilitation and improvements benefiting its passenger
operations, to remain available until expended.
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
For necessary expenses of capital improvements of the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49
U.S.C. 24104(a), $521,476,000, to remain available until
expended.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $13,400,000: Provided, That no
more than $67,000,000 of budget authority shall be available
for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds in
this Act available for the execution of contracts under
section 5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000
shall be reimbursed to the Department of Transportation's
Office of Inspector General for costs associated with audits
and investigations of transit-related issues, including
reviews of new fixed guideway systems: Provided further, That
not to exceed $2,600,000 for the National transit database
shall remain available until expended.
Formula Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308,
5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178,
$718,400,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $3,592,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds
provided under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be available
for grants for the costs of planning, delivery, and temporary
use of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and
construction of temporary transportation facilities for the
VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake
City, Utah: Provided further, That in allocating the funds
designated in the preceding proviso, the Secretary shall make
grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and
such grants shall not be subject to any local share
requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this
Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended: Provided further,
That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105-178 and
49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(3)(C), $50,000,000 of the funds to carry
out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be transferred to and merged with
funding provided for the replacement, rehabilitation, and
purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction
of bus-related facilities under ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants''.
University Transportation Research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505,
$1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $6,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes.
Transit Planning and Research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304,
5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322,
$23,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $116,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That
$5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation
assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)), $4,000,000 is available to
carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49
U.S.C. 5315), $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit
cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)),
$55,422,400 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C.
5303, 5304, and 5305), $11,577,600 is available for State
planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $31,500,000 is available
for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C.
5314).
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308,
5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037
and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $5,397,800,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That
$2,873,600,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants account: Provided further,
That $93,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's transit planning and research account:
Provided further, That $53,600,000 shall be paid to the
Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses
account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to
the Federal Transit Administration's university
transportation research account: Provided further, That
$100,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's job access and reverse commute grants
program: Provided further, That $2,272,800,000 shall be paid
to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment
grants account.
Capital Investment Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309,
5318, and 5327, $568,200,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no more than $2,841,000,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes:
Provided further, That there shall be available for fixed
guideway modernization, $1,136,400,000; there shall be
available for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase
of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
related facilities, $568,200,000, together with $50,000,000
transferred from ``Federal Transit Administration, Formula
Grants''; and there shall be available for new fixed guideway
systems $1,136,400,000, together with $1,488,840 of the funds
made available under ``Federal Transit Administration,
Capital investment grants'' in Public Law 105-277; to be
available as follows:
$10,296,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects;
$1,000,000 for the Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail
project;
$25,000,000 for the Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension
project;
$13,000,000 for the Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail
transit double track project;
$1,500,000 for the Baltimore, Maryland, rail transit
project;
$2,000,000 for the Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor
project;
$10,631,245 for the Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston
Piers transitway project;
$500,000 for the Boston, Massachusetts, urban ring transit
project;
$7,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina, South
corridor light rail transit project;
$32,750,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch
reconstruction project;
$55,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, METRA commuter rail
and line extension projects;
$3,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood
reconstruction project;
$6,000,000 for the Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor
transportation project;
$70,000,000 for the Dallas, Texas, North Central light rail
transit extension project;
[[Page 23411]]
$55,000,000 for the Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor
light rail transit project;
$192,492 for the Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light
rail transit project;
$150,000 for the Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility
project;
$200,000 for the Dubuque, Iowa, light rail feasibility
project;
$25,000,000 for the Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid
transit project;
$27,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-County
commuter rail upgrades project;
$2,000,000 for the Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity railway
express project;
$750,000 for the Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area,
major corridor project;
$12,000,000 for Honolulu, Hawaii, bus rapid transit
project;
$10,000,000 for the Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit
project;
$300,000 for the Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility
project;
$1,500,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City,
Missouri, I-35 commuter rail project;
$2,000,000 for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
commuter rail extension project;
$55,000,000 for the Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension
project;
$2,000,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail
project;
$14,744,420 for the Long Island Rail Road, New York, East
Side access project;
$9,289,557 for the Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood
extension project;
$7,500,000 for the Los Angeles, California, East Side
corridor light rail transit project;
$3,000,000 for the Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New
Hampshire commuter rail extension project;
$12,000,000 for the Maryland (MARC) commuter rail
improvements projects;
$19,170,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Medical center rail
extension project;
$5,000,000 for the Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway
extension project;
$10,000,000 for the Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar
corridor commuter rail project;
$50,000,000 for the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota,
Hiawatha corridor light rail transit project;
$4,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor
commuter rail project;
$141,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson-Bergen light rail
transit project;
$15,000,000 for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street
car line project;
$1,200,000 for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor
streetcar project;
$2,000,000 for the New York, New York, Second Avenue subway
project;
$20,000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link
project;
$2,500,000 for the Northeast Indianapolis, Indiana,
downtown corridor project;
$2,500,000 for the Northern Indiana South Shore commuter
rail project;
$6,500,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido, California, light
rail extension project;
$500,000 for the Ohio, Central Ohio North corridor rail
(COTA) project;
$5,000,000 for the Pawtucket-TF Green, Rhode Island,
commuter rail and maintenance facility project;
$9,000,000 for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuykill
Valley metro project;
$10,000,000 for the Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East
Valley corridor project;
$8,000,000 for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore
connector light rail transit project;
$18,000,000 for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II
light rail transit reconstruction project;
$64,000,000 for the Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light
rail transit extension project;
$20,000,000 for the Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder
commuter rail project;
$9,000,000 for the Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle
transit project;
$328,000 for the Sacramento, California, light rail transit
extension project;
$14,000,000 for the Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University
light rail transit project;
$3,000,000 for the Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical
Center light rail transit extension project;
$60,000,000 for the San Diego, California, Mission Valley
East light rail project;
$1,000,000 for the San Diego, California, Mid Coast
corridor project;
$75,673,790 for the San Francisco, California, BART
extension to the airport project;
$113,336 for the San Jose, California, Tasman West light
rail transit project;
$40,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano
project;
$1,700,000 for the Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project;
$28,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair, Missouri,
metrolink extension project;
$5,000,000 for the Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway
project;
$3,000,000 for the Stockton, California, Altamont commuter
rail project;
$3,000,000 for the Virginia Railway Express station
improvements project;
$500,000 for the Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to
Beaverton commuter rail project;
$2,500,000 for the Wasilla, Alaska, alternative route
project; and
$400,000 for the Yosemite, California, area regional
transportation system project.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178,
as amended, for necessary expenses to carry out section 3037
of the Federal Transit Act of 1998, $25,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That no more than
$125,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for these
purposes: Provided further, That up to $250,000 of the funds
provided under this heading may be used by the Federal
Transit Administration for technical assistance and support
and performance reviews of the Job Access and Reverse Commute
Grants program.
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation,
and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the
current fiscal year.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of
those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and
maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, $13,345,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Research and Special Programs
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Research and Special Programs Administration, $37,279,000, of
which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety
Fund, and of which $2,170,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2004: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees
collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided
further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to
be available until expended, funds received from States,
counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and
private sources for expenses incurred for training, for
reports publication and dissemination, and for travel
expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials
exemptions and approvals functions.
Pipeline Safety
(pipeline safety fund)
(oil spill liability trust fund)
For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the
pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a
pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107,
and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $58,250,000, of which $7,864,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2004; of which
$50,386,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $30,828,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2004.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c),
$200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2004: Provided, That
not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2002 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d): Provided further, That none of
the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d)
shall be made available for obligation by individuals other
than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, $50,614,000: Provided, That the Inspector
General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out
the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended
(5 U.S.C. App. 3) to investigate allegations of fraud,
including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C.
1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation
by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made
available under this heading shall be used to investigate,
pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code:
(1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air
carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $18,457,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $950,000 from fees established by the Chairman
of the Surface Transportation Board shall be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting collections and used for
necessary and authorized expenses under this heading:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2002, to result in a final appropriation from the general
fund estimated at no more than $17,507,000.
[[Page 23412]]
TITLE II
RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
$5,015,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received for publications and training expenses.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the National Transportation
Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902)
$68,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses.
TITLE III
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable
appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be
available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of
passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability
insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries
on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2002 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 303. Appropriations contained in this Act for the
Department of Transportation shall be available for services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Sec. 304. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 105 political and
Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation:
Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this
provision or political and Presidential appointees in an
independent agency funded in this Act may be assigned on
temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation or
such independent agency except to the Office of Homeland
Security.
Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses
of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening
in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations,
unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 307. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 309. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid Highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs funded from the administrative takedown
authorized by section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States
Code, for the highway use tax evasion program, amounts
provided under section 110 of title 23, United States Code,
and for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid Highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety programs for the previous fiscal
year the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
(3) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less
the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and
sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title
23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in
subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of
the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
Highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 117 of title 23, United
States Code (relating to high priority projects program),
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of
1995, and $2,000,000,000 for such fiscal year under section
105 of title 23, United States Code (relating to minimum
guarantee) so that the amount of obligation authority
available for each of such sections is equal to the amount
determined by multiplying the ratio determined under
paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such section (except in the case of section 105,
$2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
(5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that
are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States
Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies
and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying
the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums
authorized to be appropriated for such program for such
fiscal year; and
(6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs (other than
the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that
amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for
such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian
development highway system program) that are apportioned by
the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the
ratio that--
(A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such programs that are apportioned to all States for such
fiscal year.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid Highways shall not apply to
obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States
Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under sections 131(b) and 131(
j) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; (5)
under sections 149(b) and 149(c) of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987;
(6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7) under
section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and (8) under
section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year).
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall after
August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of the
obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if
a State will not obligate the amount distributed during that
fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those
States able to obligate amounts in addition to those
previously distributed during that fiscal year giving
priority to those States having large unobligated balances of
funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23,
United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day
before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under
section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1943-1945).
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation
shall apply to transportation research programs carried out
under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, except that
obligation authority made available for such programs under
such limitation shall remain available for a period of 3
fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the distribution of obligation
limitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
distribute to the States any funds: (1) that are authorized
to be appropriated for such fiscal year for Federal-aid
highways programs (other than the program under section 160
of title 23, United States Code) and for carrying out
subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code,
and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of title 23,
United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary determines
will not be allocated to the States, and will not be
available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the
imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
Such distribution to the States shall be made in the same
ratio as the distribution of obligation authority under
subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be
available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of
title 23, United States Code.
(f) Special Rule.--Obligation limitation distributed for a
fiscal year under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a
section set forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available
until used and shall be in addition to the amount of any
limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-aid highway and
highway safety construction programs for future fiscal years.
Sec. 311. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this
Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18
U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor
vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined
[[Page 23413]]
in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721
for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not
withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Sec. 312. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would
establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five
miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation
Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems
(along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway
visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and
performance specifications, the purchase of which was
assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport
development aid program or airport improvement program grant:
Provided, That, the Federal Aviation Administration shall
accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and
maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made
available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration,
Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this
Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not
obligated by September 30, 2004, and other recoveries, shall
be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2001, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Sec. 316. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 335 technical staff-years under the
federally funded research and development center contract
between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center
for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year
2002.
Sec. 317. Funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training may be credited
respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's
``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit
Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account,
and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and
Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors
participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
Sec. 318. Of the funds made available under section
1101(a)(12) and section 1503 of Public Law 105-178, as
amended, $52,973,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 319. Beginning in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, the
Secretary may use up to 1 percent of the amounts made
available to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5309 for oversight
activities under 49 U.S.C. 5327.
Sec. 320. Funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii ferry
boats or ferry terminal facilities pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5309(m)(2)(B) may be used to construct new vessels and
facilities, or to improve existing vessels and facilities,
including both the passenger and vehicle-related elements of
such vessels and facilities, and for repair facilities:
Provided, That not more than $3,000,000 of the funds made
available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(2)(B) may be used by
the State of Hawaii to initiate and operate a passenger
ferryboat services demonstration project to test the
viability of different intra-island and inter-island ferry
routes.
Sec. 321. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data
products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways
account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such
expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction.
Sec. 322. Section 3030(a) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) is amended by
adding at the end, the following line: ``Washington County--
Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail.''.
Sec. 323. Section 3030(b) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Detroit, Michigan
Metropolitan Airport rail project.''.
Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet
identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties; (b)
contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional
response or psychological stress in some participants; (c)
does not require prior employee notification of the content
and methods to be used in the training and written end of
course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content
associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems
or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2,
1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change,
participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the
workplace; or (f) includes content related to human
immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more
aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the
workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
Sec. 325. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the
absence of express authorization by Congress, be used
directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service,
advertisement, telegraph, telephone, letter, printed or
written material, radio, television, video presentation,
electronic communications, or other device, intended or
designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress or
of a State legislature to favor or oppose by vote or
otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress or a
State legislature after the introduction of any bill or
resolution in Congress proposing such legislation or
appropriation, or after the introduction of any bill or
resolution in a State legislature proposing such legislation
or appropriation: Provided, That this shall not prevent
officers or employees of the Department of Transportation or
related agencies funded in this Act from communicating to
Members of Congress or to Congress, on the request of any
Member, or to members of State legislature, or to a State
legislature, through the proper official channels, requests
for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary
for the efficient conduct of business.
Sec. 326. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available
in this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity
agrees that in expending the funds the entity will comply
with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
(b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 327. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees
and other funds received by the Department from travel
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of
building space, and miscellaneous sources are to be credited
to appropriations of the Department and allocated to elements
of the Department using fair and equitable criteria and such
funds shall be available until December 31, 2002.
Sec. 328. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule
or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized
to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to
the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the
payment to the Department of an amount determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 329. For necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform
Council authorized under section 203 of Public Law 105-134,
$225,000.
Sec. 330. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this Act, to enable the Secretary of Transportation to
make grants for surface transportation projects,
$144,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 331. During fiscal year 2002, for providing support to
the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard Yard and other
Coast Guard specialized facilities designated by the
Commandant shall qualify as components of the Department of
Defense for competition and workload assignment purposes:
Provided, That in addition, for purposes of entering into
joint public-private partnerships and other cooperative
arrangements for the performance of work, the Coast Guard
Yard and other Coast Guard specialized facilities may enter
into agreements or other arrangements, receive and retain
funds from and pay funds to such public and private entities,
and may accept contributions of funds, materials, services,
and the use of facilities from such entities: Provided
further, That amounts received under this section may be
credited to appropriate Coast Guard accounts for fiscal year
2002.
Sec. 332. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
a grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than
three full business days before any discretionary grant
award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement
totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or
its modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary grant
program of the Federal Highway Administration other than the
emergency relief program; (2) the airport improvement program
of the Federal Aviation Administration; or (3) any program of
the Federal Transit Administration other than the formula
grants and fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided,
That no notification shall involve funds that are not
available for obligation.
[[Page 23414]]
Sec. 333. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be available for the design or construction of a light
rail system in Houston, Texas.
(b) Notwithstanding (a), amounts made available in this Act
under the heading ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital
investment grants'' for a Houston, Texas, Metro advanced
transit plan project shall be available for obligation or
expenditure subject to the following conditions:
(1) Sufficient amounts shall be used for major investment
studies in 4 major corridors.
(2) The Texas Department of Transportation shall review and
comment on the findings of the studies under paragraph (1).
Any comments by such department on such findings shall be
included in any final report on such studies.
(3) If a final report on the studies under paragraph (1) is
not available for at least the 1-month period preceding the
date of any referendum held by the City of Houston, Texas, or
by a county of Texas, regarding approval of the issuance of
bonds for funding a light rail system in Houston, Texas, all
information developed by such studies regarding passenger and
cost estimates for such a system shall be made available to
the public at least one month before the date of the
referendum.
Sec. 334. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for engineering work related to an additional runway
at New Orleans International Airport.
Sec. 335. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration
without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to air traffic control, air navigation or
weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in
this section does not apply to negotiations between the
agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Sec. 336. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
whenever an allocation is made of the sums authorized to be
appropriated for expenditure on the Federal lands highway
program, and whenever an apportionment is made of the sums
authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface
transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program, the National Highway System, the
Interstate maintenance program, the bridge program, the
Appalachian development highway system, and the minimum
guarantee program, the Secretary of Transportation shall
deduct a sum in such amount not to exceed two-fifths of 1
percent of all sums so made available, as the Secretary
determines necessary, to administer the provisions of law to
be financed from appropriations for motor carrier safety
programs and motor carrier safety research. The sum so
deducted shall remain available until expended: Provided,
That any deduction by the Secretary of Transportation in
accordance with this paragraph shall be deemed to be a
deduction under section 104(a)(1)(B) of title 23, United
States Code.
Sec. 337. For an airport project that the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determines will add
critical airport capacity to the national air transportation
system, the Administrator is authorized to accept funds from
an airport sponsor, including entitlement funds provided
under the ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' program, for the FAA
to hire additional staff or obtain the services of
consultants: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to accept and utilize such funds only for the purpose of
facilitating the timely processing, review, and completion of
environmental activities associated with such project.
Sec. 338. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to further any efforts toward developing a new
regional airport for southeast Louisiana until a
comprehensive plan is submitted by a commission of
stakeholders to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration and that plan, as approved by the
Administrator, is submitted to and approved by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Sec. 339. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
States may use funds provided in this Act under Section 402
of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema
and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with
guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided,
That any State that uses funds for such public service
messages shall submit to the Secretary a report describing
and assessing the effectiveness of the messages: Provided
further, That $8,000,000 of the funds allocated for
innovative seat belt projects under section 157 of title 23,
United States Code, shall be used by the States, as directed
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, to
purchase advertising in broadcast or print media to publicize
the States' seat belt enforcement efforts during one or more
of the Operation ABC National Mobilizations: Provided
further, That up to $2,000,000 of the funds allocated for
innovative seat belt projects under section 157 of title 23,
United States Code, shall be used by the Administrator to
evaluate the effectiveness of State seat belt programs that
purchase advertising as provided by this section.
Sec. 340. Item 1348 of the table contained in section 1602
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is
amended by striking ``Extend West Douglas Road'' and
inserting ``Construct Gastineau Channel Second Crossing to
Douglas Island''.
Sec. 341. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated
for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except
for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Sec. 342. Item 642 in the table contained in section 1602
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
relating to Washington, is amended by striking ``Construct
passenger ferry facility to serve Southworth, Seattle'' and
inserting ``Passenger only ferry to serve Kitsap and King
Counties to Seattle''.
Sec. 343. Item 1793 in section 1602 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, relating to Washington, is
amended by striking ``Southworth Seattle Ferry'' and
inserting ``Passenger only ferry to serve Kitsap and King
Counties to Seattle''.
Sec. 344. Item 576 in the table contained in section 1602
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112
Stat. 278) is amended by striking ``Bull Shoals Lake Ferry in
Taney County'' and inserting ``Construct the Missouri Center
for Advanced Highway Safety (MOCAHS)''.
Sec. 345. The transit station operated by the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority located at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, and known as the National
Airport Station, shall be known and designated as the
``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station''. The
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority shall modify
the signs at the transit station, and all maps, directories,
documents, and other records published by the Authority, to
reflect the redesignation.
Sec. 346. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be made available to any person or
entity convicted of violating the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c).
Sec. 347. For fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, historic covered bridges eligible for
Federal assistance under section 1224 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, may be funded
from amounts set aside for the discretionary bridge program.
Sec. 348. None of the funds provided in this Act or prior
Appropriations Acts for Coast Guard ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' shall be available after the
fifteenth day of any quarter of any fiscal year, unless the
Commandant of the Coast Guard first submits a quarterly
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
on all major Coast Guard acquisition projects including
projects executed for the Coast Guard by the United States
Navy and vessel traffic service projects: Provided, That such
reports shall include an acquisition schedule, estimated
current and year funding requirements, and a schedule of
anticipated obligations and outlays for each major
acquisition project: Provided further, That such reports
shall rate on a relative scale the cost risk, schedule risk,
and technical risk associated with each acquisition project
and include a table detailing unobligated balances to date
and anticipated unobligated balances at the close of the
fiscal year and the close of the following fiscal year should
the Administration's pending budget request for the
acquisition, construction, and improvements account be fully
funded: Provided further, That such reports shall also
provide abbreviated information on the status of shore
facility construction and renovation projects: Provided
further, That all information submitted in such reports shall
be current as of the last day of the preceding quarter.
Sec. 349. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation
Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be reduced by
$5,000,000, which limits fiscal year 2002 TASC obligational
authority for elements of the Department of Transportation
funded in this Act to no more than $120,323,000: Provided,
That such reductions from the budget request shall be
allocated by the Department of Transportation to each
appropriations account in proportion to the amount included
in each account for the Transportation Administrative Service
Center.
Sec. 350. Safety of Cross-Border Trucking Between United
States and Mexico. (a) No funds limited or appropriated in
this Act may be obligated or expended for the review or
processing of an application by a Mexican motor carrier for
authority to operate beyond United States municipalities and
commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border until the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--
(1)(A) requires a safety examination of such motor carrier
to be performed before the carrier is granted conditional
operating authority to operate beyond United States
municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-
Mexico border;
(B) requires the safety examination to include--
(i) verification of available performance data and safety
management programs;
(ii) verification of a drug and alcohol testing program
consistent with part 40 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations;
(iii) verification of that motor carrier's system of
compliance with hours-of-service rules, including hours-of-
service records;
(iv) verification of proof of insurance;
[[Page 23415]]
(v) a review of available data concerning that motor
carrier's safety history, and other information necessary to
determine the carrier's preparedness to comply with Federal
Motor Carrier Safety rules and regulations and Hazardous
Materials rules and regulations;
(vi) an inspection of that Mexican motor carrier's
commercial vehicles to be used under such operating
authority, if any such commercial vehicles have not received
a decal from the inspection required in subsection (a)(5);
(vii) an evaluation of that motor carrier's safety
inspection, maintenance, and repair facilities or management
systems, including verification of records of periodic
vehicle inspections;
(viii) verification of drivers' qualifications, including a
confirmation of the validity of the Licencia de Federal de
Conductor of each driver of that motor carrier who will be
operating under such authority; and
(ix) an interview with officials of that motor carrier to
review safety management controls and evaluate any written
safety oversight policies and practices.
(C) requires that--
(i) Mexican motor carriers with three or fewer commercial
vehicles need not undergo on-site safety examination; however
50 percent of all safety examinations of all Mexican motor
carriers shall be conducted onsite; and
(ii) such on-site inspections shall cover at least 50
percent of estimated truck traffic in any year.
(2) requires a full safety compliance review of the carrier
consistent with the safety fitness evaluation procedures set
forth in part 385 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
and gives the motor carrier a satisfactory rating, before the
carrier is granted permanent operating authority to operate
beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on
the United States-Mexico border, and requires that any such
safety compliance review take place within 18 months of that
motor carrier being granted conditional operating authority,
provided that;
(A) Mexican motor carriers with three or fewer commercial
vehicles need not undergo onsite compliance review; however
50 percent of all compliance reviews of all Mexican motor
carriers shall be conducted on-site; and
(B) any Mexican motor carrier with 4 or more commercial
vehicles that did not undergo an on-site safety exam under
(a)(1)(C), shall undergo an on-site safety compliance review
under this section.
(3) requires Federal and State inspectors to verify
electronically the status and validity of the license of each
driver of a Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicle crossing
the border;
(A) for every such vehicle carrying a placardable quantity
of hazardous materials;
(B) whenever the inspection required in subsection (a)(5)
is performed; and
(C) randomly for other Mexican motor carrier commercial
vehicles, but in no case less than 50 percent of all other
such commercial vehicles.
(4) gives a distinctive Department of Transportation number
to each Mexican motor carrier operating beyond the commercial
zone to assist inspectors in enforcing motor carrier safety
regulations including hours-of-service rules under part 395
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
(5) requires, with the exception of Mexican motor carriers
that have been granted permanent operating authority for
three consecutive years--
(A) inspections of all commercial vehicles of Mexican motor
carriers authorized, or seeking authority to operate beyond
United States municipalities and commercial zones on the
United States-Mexico border that do not display a valid
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection decal, by
certified inspectors in accordance with the requirements for
a Level I Inspection under the criteria of the North American
Standard Inspection (as defined in section 350.105 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations), including examination of
the driver, vehicle exterior and vehicle under-carriage;
(B) a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance decal to be
affixed to each such commercial vehicle upon completion of
the inspection required by clause (A) or a re-inspection if
the vehicle has met the criteria for the Level I inspection;
and
(C) that any such decal, when affixed, expire at the end of
a period of not more than 90 days, but nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to preclude the Administration
from requiring reinspection of a vehicle bearing a valid
inspection decal or from requiring that such a decal be
removed when a certified Federal or State inspector
determines that such a vehicle has a safety violation
subsequent to the inspection for which the decal was granted.
(6) requires State inspectors who detect violations of
Federal motor carrier safety laws or regulations to enforce
them or notify Federal authorities of such violations;
(7)(A) equips all United States-Mexico commercial border
crossings with scales suitable for enforcement action; equips
5 of the 10 such crossings that have the highest volume of
commercial vehicle traffic with weigh-in-motion (WIM)
systems; ensures that the remaining 5 such border crossings
are equipped within 12 months; requires inspectors to verify
the weight of each Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicle
entering the United States at said WIM equipped high volume
border crossings; and
(B) initiates a study to determine which other crossings
should also be equipped with weigh-in-motion systems;
(8) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
implemented a policy to ensure that no Mexican motor carrier
will be granted authority to operate beyond United States
municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-
Mexico border unless that carrier provides proof of valid
insurance with an insurance company licensed in the United
States;
(9) requires commercial vehicles operated by a Mexican
motor carrier to enter the United States only at commercial
border crossings where and when a certified motor carrier
safety inspector is on duty and where adequate capacity
exists to conduct a sufficient number of meaningful vehicle
safety inspections and to accommodate vehicles placed out-of-
service as a result of said inspections.
(10) publishes--
(A) interim final regulations under section 210(b) of the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31144
nt.) that establish minimum requirements for motor carriers,
including foreign motor carriers, to ensure they are
knowledgeable about Federal safety standards, that may
include the administration of a proficiency examination;
(B) interim final regulations under section 31148 of title
49, United States Code, that implement measures to improve
training and provide for the certification of motor carrier
safety auditors;
(C) a policy under sections 218(a) and (b) of that Act (49
U.S.C. 31133 nt.) establishing standards for the
determination of the appropriate number of Federal and State
motor carrier inspectors for the United States-Mexico border;
(D) a policy under section 219(d) of that Act (49 U.S.C.
14901 nt.) that prohibits foreign motor carriers from leasing
vehicles to another carrier to transport products to the
United States while the lessor is subject to a suspension,
restriction, or limitation on its right to operate in the
United States; and
(E) a policy under section 219(a) of that Act (49 U.S.C.
14901 nt.) that prohibits foreign motor carriers from
operating in the United States that is found to have operated
illegally in the United States.
(b) No vehicles owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier
and carrying hazardous materials in a placardable quantity
may be permitted to operate beyond a United States
municipality or commercial zone until the United States has
completed an agreement with the Government of Mexico which
ensures that drivers of such vehicles carrying such
placardable quantities of hazardous materials meet
substantially the same requirements as U.S. drivers carrying
such materials.
(c) No vehicles owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier
may be permitted to operate beyond United States
municipalities and commercial zones under conditional or
permanent operating authority granted by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration until--
(1) the Department of Transportation Inspector General
conducts a comprehensive review of border operations within
180 days of enactment to verify that--
(A) all new inspector positions funded under this Act have
been filled and the inspectors have been fully trained;
(B) each inspector conducting on-site safety compliance
reviews in Mexico consistent with the safety fitness
evaluation procedures set forth in part 385 of title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, is fully trained as a safety
specialist;
(C) the requirement of subparagraph (a)(2) has not been met
by transferring experienced inspectors from other parts of
the United States to the United States-Mexico border,
undermining the level of inspection coverage and safety
elsewhere in the United States;
(D) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
implemented a policy to ensure compliance with hours-of-
service rules under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, by Mexican motor carriers seeking authority to
operate beyond United States municipalities and commercial
zones on the United States-Mexico border;
(E) the information infrastructure of the Mexican
government is sufficiently accurate, accessible, and
integrated with that of U.S. law enforcement authorities to
allow U.S. authorities to verify the status and validity of
licenses, vehicle registrations, operating authority and
insurance of Mexican motor carriers while operating in the
United States, and that adequate telecommunications links
exist at all United States-Mexico border crossings used by
Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicles, and in all mobile
enforcement units operating adjacent to the border, to ensure
that licenses, vehicle registrations, operating authority and
insurance information can be easily and quickly verified at
border crossings or by mobile enforcement units;
(F) there is adequate capacity at each United States-Mexico
border crossing used by Mexican motor carrier commercial
vehicles to conduct a sufficient number of meaningful vehicle
safety inspections and to accommodate vehicles placed out-of-
service as a result of said inspections;
(G) there is an accessible database containing sufficiently
comprehensive data to allow safety monitoring of all Mexican
motor carriers that apply for authority to operate commercial
vehicles beyond United States municipalities and commercial
zones on the United States-Mexico border and the drivers of
those vehicles; and
(H) measures are in place to enable U.S. law enforcement
authorities to ensure the effective enforcement and
monitoring of license revocation and licensing procedures of
Mexican motor carriers.
(2) The Secretary of Transportation certifies in writing in
a manner addressing the Inspector General's findings in
paragraphs (c)(1)(A) through (c)(1)(H) of this section that
the opening of the border does not pose an unacceptable
safety risk to the American public.
[[Page 23416]]
(d) The Department of Transportation Inspector General
shall conduct another review using the criteria in (c)(1)(A)
through (c)(1)(H) consistent with paragraph (c) of this
section, 180 days after the first review is completed, and at
least annually thereafter.
(e) For purposes of this section, the term ``Mexican motor
carrier'' shall be defined as a Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier operating beyond United States municipalities and
commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border.
(f) In addition to amounts otherwise made available in this
Act, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, there is
hereby appropriated to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, $25,866,000 for the salary, expense, and
capital costs associated with the requirements of this
section.
Sec. 351. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of calculating the non-federal contribution to
the net project cost of the Regional Transportation
Commission Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project in Clark
County, Nevada, the Secretary of Transportation shall include
all non-federal contributions (whether public or private)
made on or after January 1, 2000 for engineering, final
design, and construction of any element or phase of the
project, including any fixed guideway project or segment
connecting to that project, and also shall allow non-federal
funds (whether public or private) expended on one element or
phase of the project to be used to meet the non-federal share
requirement of any element or phase of the project.
Sec. 352. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) The condition of highway, railway, and waterway
infrastructure across the Nation varies widely and is in need
of improvement and investment.
(2) Thousands of tons of hazardous materials, including a
very small amount of high-level radioactive material, are
transported along the Nation's highways, railways, and
waterways each year.
(3) The volume of hazardous material transport increased by
over one-third in the last 25 years and is expected to
continue to increase. Some propose significantly increasing
radioactive material transport.
(4) Approximately 261,000 people were evacuated across the
Nation because of rail-related incidents involving hazardous
materials between 1978 and 1995, and during that period
industry reported 8 transportation accidents involving the
small volume of high level radioactive waste transported
during that period.
(5) The Federal Railroad Administration has significantly
decreased railroad inspections and has allocated few
resources since 1993 to assure the structural integrity of
railroad bridges. Train derailments have increased by 18
percent over roughly the same period.
(6) The poor condition of highway, railway, and waterway
infrastructure, increases in the volume of hazardous material
transport, and proposed increases in radioactive material
transport increase the risk of incidents involving such
materials.
(7) Measuring the risks of hazardous or radioactive
material incidents and preventing such incidents requires
specific information concerning the condition and suitability
of specific transportation routes contemplated for such
transport to inform and enable investment in related
infrastructure.
(8) Mitigating the impact of hazardous and radioactive
material transportation incidents requires skilled,
localized, and well-equipped emergency response personnel
along all specifically identified transportation routes.
(9) Incidents involving hazardous or radioactive material
transport pose threats to the public health and safety, the
environment, and the economy.
(b) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall, in
consultation with the Comptroller General of the United
States, conduct a study of the effects to public health and
safety, the environment, and the economy associated with the
transportation of hazardous and radioactive material.
(c) Matters to be Addressed.--The study under subsection
(b) shall address the following matters:
(1) Whether the Federal Government conducts or reviews
individualized and detailed evaluations and inspections of
the condition and suitability of specific transportation
routes for the current, and any anticipated or proposed,
transport of hazardous and radioactive material, including
whether resources and information are adequate to conduct
such evaluations and inspections.
(2) The costs and time required to ensure adequate
inspection of specific transportation routes and related
infrastructure and to complete the infrastructure
improvements necessary to ensure the safety of current, and
any anticipated or proposed, hazardous and radioactive
material transport.
(3) Whether emergency preparedness personnel, emergency
response personnel, and medical personnel are adequately
trained and equipped to promptly respond to incidents along
specific transportation routes for current, anticipated, or
proposed hazardous and radioactive material transport.
(4) The costs and time required to ensure that emergency
preparedness personnel, emergency response personnel, and
medical personnel are adequately trained and equipped to
promptly respond to incidents along specific transportation
routes for current, anticipated, or proposed hazardous and
radioactive material transport.
(5) The availability of, or requirements to, establish
governmental and commercial information collection and
dissemination systems adequate to provide public and
emergency responders in an accessible manner, with timely,
complete, specific, and accurate information (including
databases) concerning actual, proposed, or anticipated
shipments by highway, railway, or waterway of hazardous and
radioactive materials, including incidents involving the
transportation of such materials by those means and the
public safety implications of such dissemination.
(d) Deadline for Completion.--The study under subsection
(b) shall be completed not later than six months after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Report.--Upon completion of the study under subsection
(b), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the
study.
Sec. 353. In selecting projects to carry out using funds
apportioned under section 110 of title 23, United States
Code, the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi shall
give priority consideration to the following projects:
(1) Improving Johnson Ferry Road from the Chattahoochee
River to Abernathy Road, including the bridge over the
Chattahoochee River, Georgia;
(2) Widening Abernathy Road from 2 to 4 lanes from Johnson
Ferry Road to Roswell Road, Georgia;
(3) Constructing approaches to the Patton Island Bridge,
Alabama; and
(4) Planning, design, engineering, and construction of an
interchange on I-55, at approximately mile marker 114, and
connector roads in Madison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 354. Section 355(a) of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 624) is amended by
striking ``has achieved'' and all that follows and inserting
the following: ``has achieved a safety belt use rate of not
less than 50 percent.''.
Sec. 355. Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the costs
and benefits of constructing a third bridge across the
Mississippi River in the Memphis, Tennessee, metropolitan
area.
Sec. 356. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 345 of the National Highway System Designation
Act of 1995 authorizes limited relief to drivers of certain
types of commercial motor vehicles from certain restrictions
on maximum driving time and on-duty time.
(2) Subsection (c) of that section requires the Secretary
of Transportation to determine by rulemaking proceedings that
the exemptions granted are not in the public interest and
adversely affect the safety of commercial motor vehicles.
(3) Subsection (d) of that section requires the Secretary
of Transportation to monitor the safety performance of
drivers of commercial motor vehicles who are subject to an
exemption under section 345 and report to Congress prior to
the rulemaking proceedings.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Transportation should not take any action that would diminish
or revoke any exemption in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act for drivers of vehicles under section
345 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-59; 109 Stat. 613; 49 U.S.C. 31136 note)
unless the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) of such
section are satisfied.
Sec. 357. Point Retreat Light Station shall be transferred
to the Alaska Lighthouse Association consistent with the
terms and conditions of section 416(b)(2) of Public Law 105-
383.
Sec. 358. Priority Highway Projects, Minnesota. In
selecting projects to carry out using funds apportioned under
section 110 of title 23, United States Code, the State of
Minnesota shall give priority consideration to the following
projects:
(1) The Southeast Main and Rail Relocation Project in
Moorhead, Minnesota.
(2) Improving access to and from I-35 W at Lake Street in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 359. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Transportation shall approve the use of funds
apportioned under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b) of
title 23, United States Code, for construction of Type II
noise barriers--
(1) at the locations identified in section 358 of the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000 (113 Stat. 1027);
(2) on the west side of Interstate Route 285 from Henderson
Mill Road to Chamblee Tucker Road in DeKalb County, Georgia;
(3) on the east and west side of Interstate Route 85,
extending from Virginia Avenue to Metropolitan Parkway in
Fulton County, Georgia;
(4) on the east and west sides of Interstate 285 from the
South Fulton Parkway/Interstate Route 85 interchange north to
Interstate Route 20;
(5) on the east side of Interstate Route 75 from Howell
Mill Road to West Paces Ferry Road in Fulton County, Georgia;
(6) on the east and west sides of Interstate Route 75
between Chastain Road and Georgia State Route 92 in Cobb and
Cherokee Counties, Georgia; and
(7) on the south side of Interstate 95 in Bensalem
Township, between exit 25 and exit 26, Bucks County,
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 360. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds apportioned to the State of
[[Page 23417]]
Oklahoma under section 110 of title 23, United States Code,
for fiscal year 2001, the $4,300,000 specified under the
heading ``Federal-Aid Highways (Limitation on Obligations)''
in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-346) for
reconstruction of U.S. 177 in the vicinity of Cimarron River,
Oklahoma, shall be available instead only for the widening of
U.S. 177 from SH-33 to 32nd Street in Stillwater, Oklahoma,
and such amount shall be subject to the provisions of the
last proviso under such heading.
Sec. 361. Section 3030(d)(3) of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) is amended by
inserting at the end:
``(D) Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger and freight
facility.''.
Sec. 362. Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(44) The Louisiana Highway 1 corridor from Grand Isle,
Louisiana, along Louisiana Highway 1, to the intersection
with United States Route 90.''.
Sec. 363. Item 425 in the table contained in section 1602
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112
Stat. 272) is amended by striking ``Extend'' and all that
follows through ``Parish'' and inserting the following:
``Extend and improve Louisiana Route 42 from and along U.S.
61 to I-10 in Ascension and East Baton Rouge Parishes''.
Sec. 364. Items 111 and 1583 in the table contained in
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 261 and 315), relating to Kentucky, are
each amended by inserting after ``Paducah'' the following:
``and other areas in the city of Paducah and McCracken
County, Kentucky''.
Sec. 365. (a) Section 1105(c)(3) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240),
as amended, is hereby further amended by striking: ``then to
a Kentucky Corridor centered on the cities of Pikeville,
Jenkins, Hazard, London, Somerset, Columbia, Bowling Green,
Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah'' and inserting: ``then to
a Kentucky Corridor centered on the cities of Pikeville,
Jenkins, Hazard, London, and Somerset; then, generally
following the Louie B. Nunn Parkway corridor from Somerset to
Columbia, to Glasgow, to I-65; then to Bowling Green,
Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah''.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240),
as amended, is hereby further amended by inserting after
``subsection (c)(1)'', the following: ``subsection (c)(3)
(solely as it relates to the Kentucky Corridor),''.
Sec. 366. Section 1105(c)(18) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240),
as amended, is hereby further amended by adding:
``(E) In Kentucky, the corridor shall utilize the existing
Purchase Parkway from the Tennessee state line to Interstate
24.''.
Sec. 367. Section 1105(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law
102-240), as amended, is hereby further amended by adding:
``The Louie B. Nunn Parkway corridor referred to in
subsection (c)(3) shall be designated as Interstate Route 66.
A state having jurisdiction over any segment of routes and/or
corridors referred to in subsections (c)(3) shall erect signs
identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria
set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as
Interstate Route 66. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii), or any other
provisions of this Act, the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall
erect signs, as approved by the Secretary, identifying the
routes and/or corridors described in subsection (c)(3) for
the Commonwealth, as segments of future Interstate Route 66.
The Purchase Parkway corridor referred to in subsection
(c)(18)(E) shall be designated as Interstate Route 69. A
state having jurisdiction over any segment of routes and/or
corridors referred to in subsections (c)(18) shall erect
signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the
criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and
(e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 69. Notwithstanding the
provisions of subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii), or
any other provisions of this Act, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky shall erect signs, as approved by the Secretary,
identifying the routes and/or corridors described in
subsection (c)(18) for the Commonwealth, as segments of
future Interstate Route 69.''.
Sec. 368. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds made available to the southern coalition for advanced
transportation (SCAT) in the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-69,
under Capital Investment Grants, or identified in the
conference report accompanying the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001,
Public Law 106-346, that remain unobligated shall be
transferred to Transit Planning and Research and made
available to the electric transit vehicle institute (ETVI) in
Tennessee for research administered under the provisions of
49 U.S.C. 5312.
Sec. 369. Chapter 9 of title II of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 107-20) is amended by
deleting the heading ``(Highway Trust Fund)'' under the
heading ``Federal-aid Highways''; and inserting in the body
under the heading ``Federal-aid Highways'' after
``available'' the following: ``from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the mass transit account) or the general fund'';
and striking ``103-311'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``103-
331''.
Sec. 370. Notwithstanding the project descriptions
contained in table item number 865 of section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178, table item number 77 of section 1106(a) of
Public Law 102-240 and section 1069(d) relating to the
Riverside Expressway in Fairmont, West Virginia, amounts
available under such provision shall be available to carry
out any project eligible under title 23, United States Code,
in the vicinity of Fairmont, West Virginia.
Sec. 371. Item 71 in the table contained in section 1602 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public
Law 105-178, is amended by replacing ``restore First and Main
Streets to two-way traffic'' with ``traffic safety and
pedestrian improvements in downtown Miamisburg''.
Sec. 372. Item 258 in the table under the heading ``Capital
Investment Grants'' in title I of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
(Public Law 106-69; 113 Stat. 1006) is amended by striking
``Killington-Sherburne satellite bus facility'' and inserting
``Marble Valley Regional Transit District buses''.
Sec. 373. Of the funds available in item 73 of the table
contained in section 1106(b) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240),
$5,700,000 shall be available for construction of a parking
facility for the inner harbor/redevelopment project in
Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 374. Of the funds available in item 630 of the table
contained in section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) as amended by
section 1102 of chapter 11 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554) shall be available for the
construction of a parking facility for the inner harbor/
redevelopment project in Buffalo, New York.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Harold Rogers,
Frank R. Wolf,
Tom DeLay,
Sonny Callahan,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Kay Granger,
JoAnn Emerson,
John E. Sweeney,
Bill Young,
Martin Olav Sabo,
John W. Olver,
Ed Pastor,
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick,
Jose E. Serrano,
James E. Clyburn,
David R. Obey,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Patty Murray,
Robert C. Byrd,
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Harry Reid,
Herb Kohl,
Richard J. Durbin,
Patrick Leahy,
Daniel Inouye,
Richard C. Shelby,
Christopher Bond,
Robert F. Bennett,
Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Ted Stevens,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House of Representatives
and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, submit the
following joint statement to the House of Representatives and
the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying
conference report.
The Senate deleted the entire House bill after the enacting
clause and inserted the Senate bill. The conference agreement
includes a revised bill.
Congressional Directives
The conferees agree that Executive Branch propensities
cannot substitute for Congress' own statements concerning the
best evidence of Congressional intentions; that is, the
official reports of the Congress. The committee of conference
approves report language included by the House (House Report
107-108) or the Senate (Senate Report 107-38 accompanying the
companion measure S. 1178) that is not changed by the
conference. The statement of the managers, while repeating
some report language for emphasis, is not intended to negate
the language referred to above unless expressly provided
herein.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2002, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to funds provided for the
Department of Transportation and related agencies, the terms
``program, project, and activity'' shall mean any item for
which
[[Page 23418]]
a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act
(including joint resolutions providing continuing
appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying
conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the
committee of conference. In addition, the reductions made
pursuant to any sequestration order to funds appropriated for
``Federal Aviation Administration, Facilities and equipment''
and for ``Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, and
improvements'' shall be applied equally to each ``budget
item'' that is listed under said accounts in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations
Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports,
or joint explanatory statements of the committee of
conference. The conferees recognize that adjustments to the
above allocations may be required due to changing program
requirements or priorities. The conferees expect any such
adjustment, if required, to be accomplished only through the
normal reprogramming process.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and Expenses
The conference agreement provides $67,778,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the office of the secretary instead
of $68,446,000 as proposed by the House and $67,349,000 as
proposed by the Senate. New bill language is included that
specifies amounts by office, consistent with actions in prior
years, and limits transfers among each office to no more than
7 percent. The bill language specifies that any transfer
shall be submitted for approval to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. The following table summarizes
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation for each office:
Immediate office of the Secretary............................$1,929,000
Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary....................... 619,000
Office of the General Counsel................................13,355,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..................3,058,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs.....................................................7,421,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.....7,728,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs......2,282,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.........19,250,000
Office of Public Affairs......................................1,723,000
Executive Secretariat.........................................1,204,000
Board of Contract Appeals.......................................507,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........1,240,000
Office of Intelligence and Security...........................1,321,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................6,141,000
The conferees direct the office of the secretary to submit
its congressional justification materials in support of the
individual offices of the offices of the secretary at the
same level of detail provided in the congressional
justifications presented in fiscal year 2002.
Bill language, as proposed by both the House and the
Senate, allows the Department to spend up to $60,000 for
official reception and representation activities.
The conference agreement modifies bill language that was
contained in both the House and the Senate bills that credits
to this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in funds received in
user fees by excluding fees authorized in Public Law 107-71.
Aviation consumer hotline.--The conference agreement
includes $720,000 for the Department's Aviation Consumer
Protection Division's consumer hotline. The conferees note
that a hotline for consumer complaints currently exists in
the Office of the General Counsel. However, the phone line is
understaffed, leaving many consumers frustrated when a phone
recording is the only place to register a complaint. This can
cause considerable hardship for individuals with disabilities
who may have travel complaints that warrant immediate
attention. The conferees direct that these funds are to be
used to establish a 1-800 disability inquiry line that is
staffed from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. each day.
Study of air travel services.--The conferees are interested
in the impact the joint entry of suppliers of air travel
services into the market for direct distribution has had to
date on consumers, airline competition, and ticket prices.
Accordingly, the conferees request the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
report on its monitoring efforts pursuant to the launch of
the joint airline distribution ventures. The report should
address, at a minimum, the following issues raised by the
Department as potential concerns related to such ventures:
Deviations from plans, polices, and procedures initially
proposed in the joint venture's business plan and contained
in its charter associate agreements;
The extent to which the joint venture has adhered to its
commitment to not bias displays of fares or services;
The extent to which ties between the airline-owners and the
``Most Favored Nation'' clause in the charter agreement have
resulted in monopolistic or other anti-competitive market
behavior; and
Whether airline-owners of the joint ventures or charter
associates have acted in an anti-competitive manner by
choosing not to distribute fares through other online
distribution outlets.
The conferees request the Office of Aviation and
International Affairs to submit its findings to the DOT
Inspector General's office no later than April 1, 2002, for
its evaluation and comment. The House and Senate
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittees request the
Inspector General to report on these findings no later than
90 days after receiving the findings from the Office of
Aviation and International Affairs.
Reorganization.--The conferees are aware that consideration
is being given to a reorganization of functions and offices
within the office of the secretary and the department is in
the process of establishing the new Transportation Security
Administration. The conferees expect that any transfer of
functions or reorganization must be formally approved by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the
regular reprogramming process.
Administrative directions.--The conferees direct the
department to submit its annual congressional justifications
for each modal administration to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the date on which the
President's budget is delivered officially to Congress.
Assessments.--The conferees direct that assessments charged
by the office of the secretary to modal administrations
should be for administrative activities, not policy
initiatives. The conferees have seen violations of this
direction in fiscal year 2001 and will not tolerate further
problems.
Office of Civil Rights
The conference agreement provides $8,500,000 for the office
of civil rights as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Transportation Security Administration
The conference agreement provides $1,250,000,000 for the
new multi-modal Transportation Security Administration for
civil aviation security services pursuant to Public Law 107-
71. Neither the House nor the Senate bill contained a similar
appropriation. The bill language specifies that the security
fees shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections. The bill also specifies that the general fund
appropriation shall be reduced, as fees are collected, to
result in an anticipated final fiscal year appropriation of
zero.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
The conference agreement provides $11,993,000 for
transportation planning, research, and development instead of
$5,193,000 as proposed by the House and $15,592,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Adjustments to the budget request
shall be available for the following activities:
Northeast advanced vehicle consortium........................$2,600,000
WestStart's vehicular flywheel project in the Pacific Northwes1,000,000
International ferry service from Blaine, WA to White Rock, B.C..200,000
North Dakota State University system planning and resource manag150,000
Auburn University, AL campus transit study......................375,000
Bypass mail system computer software and hardware upgrades in 2,075,000
North Puget Sound intermodal center planning study..............400,000
Transportation Administrative Service Center
The conference agreement includes a limitation of
$125,323,000 on activities of the transportation
administration service center (TASC) as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
Modal usage of TASC.--The conferees direct the department,
in its fiscal year 2003 Congressional justifications for each
modal administration, to account for increases and decreases
in TASC billings based on planned usage requested or
anticipated by the modes rather than TASC as proposed by the
House.
Information technology omnibus procurement (ITOP).--The
conferees direct the DOT Inspector General to conduct a
thorough review of the ITOP program and report findings to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later
than February 15, 2002 as specified in the House report.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
The conference agreement provides an appropriation of
$900,000 for the minority business resource center program
and limits the loans to $18,367,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
Minority Business Outreach
The conference agreement provides a total of $3,000,000 for
minority business outreach
[[Page 23419]]
as proposed by the House and the Senate. Language pertaining
to funding availability, as proposed by the Senate, has been
deleted.
Payments to Air Carriers
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides $63,000,000 for payments
to air carriers as proposed by the House instead of
$50,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of this total,
$13,000,000 is in new appropriations and the remainder is to
be derived from overflight user fees and, if necessary,
unobligated balances from the facilities and equipment
account of the Federal Aviation Administration. The
conference agreement does not include a provision contained
in the Senate bill that tightens the eligibility criteria for
communities to receive essential air service subsidies.
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
The conference agreement provides $3,382,000,000 for Coast
Guard operating expenses instead of $3,382,588,000 as
proposed by the House and $3,427,588,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The agreement specifies that $440,000,000 of the
total is available only for defense-related activities
instead of $340,000,000 as proposed by the House and
$695,000,000 proposed by the Senate. The agreement includes
$24,945,000 to be derived from the oil spill liability trust
fund as proposed by the House instead of $25,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
Funding for search and rescue stations, surf stations, and
command centers.--The conference agreement specifies that
$14,541,000 is only for increased staffing, training, and
personnel protective gear at search and rescue stations, surf
stations, and command centers, instead of $13,541,000
proposed by the Senate. Further, the agreement includes
language, proposed by the Senate, requiring the Inspector
General to audit and certify that these funds are being used
solely to supplement the fiscal year 2001 level of effort in
this area. The conferees agree that these activities are in
dire need of increased funding, and that the Coast Guard
should give search and rescue a higher priority for funding
in future budget submissions.
Specific adjustments.--The following table summarizes the
House and Senate's proposed adjustments to the Coast Guard's
budget request and the final conference agreement:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
House bill Senate bill agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate........................................... $3,382,838,000 $3,382,838,000 $3,382,838,000
Changes to the budget estimate:
Minor IT projects (transfer from AC&I).................... +1,000,000 ................ +1,000,000
SCBA (transfer from AC&I)................................. +1,000,000 ................ ................
Civilian pay raise (4.6%)................................. +4,000,000 ................ ................
Selective reenlistment bonuses............................ -3,000,000 ................ ................
Aviation career continuation pay.......................... -300,000 ................ ................
Clothing maintenance allowance............................ -300,000 ................ ................
Contract costs............................................ -3,000,000 ................ -4,000,000
Operating funds--``other activities''..................... -4,000,000 ................ -4,000,000
Local notice to mariners.................................. -925,000 ................ -888,000
Human resources information system........................ -1,173,000 ................ -1,105,000
Marine transportation system.............................. -845,000 ................ -845,000
Ice operations............................................ -4,457,000 ................ ................
Search and rescue readiness............................... +12,000,000 +8,000,000 +9,000,000
Pay and benefits shortfalls............................... ................ +36,750,000 ................
Amount recommended........................................ 3,382,838,000 3,427,588,000 3,382,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation depot maintenance.--The conferees agree that the
Coast Guard should work toward developing full and open
competition for aviation depot maintenance services of C-130
aircraft as soon as possible, but no later than fiscal year
2003.
Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The conferees remain
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety
Association (MFSA) to provide specialized firefighting
training and retain an oil spill response contingency plan
for the Columbia River. The conferees direct the Secretary to
provide $255,000 to continue efforts by the nonprofit
organization comprised of numerous fire departments on both
sides of the Columbia River. The funding will be utilized to
provide specialized communications, firefighting training and
equipment, and to implement the oil spill response
contingency plan for the Columbia River.
Lighthouse conveyances.--The conference agreement includes
sufficient funding to complete the conveyance of several
Coast Guard lighthouse properties and improvements, as
authorized under Public Law 105-383, that have not been
transferred. The conferees expect the Coast Guard to convey
the remaining authorized lighthouse properties not later than
the end of fiscal year 2002. If the Commandant determines, by
June 31, 2002, that the Coast Guard is unable to complete any
of the conveyances in the coming fiscal year, the conferees
direct the Commandant to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within fifteen days of
that decision explaining the reasons why each property has
not been transferred and providing an estimated date of
completion of that transfer.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
The conference agreement includes $636,354,000 for
acquisition, construction, and improvement programs of the
Coast Guard instead of $600,000,000 as proposed by the House
and $669,323,000 as proposed by the Senate. The bill
specifies that $20,000,000 of total funding is to be derived
from the oil spill liability trust fund, as proposed by the
Senate, instead of $19,956,000 proposed by the House.
Consistent with past years and the House and Senate bills,
the conference agreement distributes funds in the bill by
budget activity.
A table showing the distribution of this appropriation by
project as included in the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate,
House bill, Senate bill, and the conference agreement
follows:
[[Page 23420]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29NO01.001
[[Page 23421]]
Integrated deepwater systems (IDS).--The conference
agreement includes $320,190,000 for the integrated deepwater
systems (IDS) program instead of $300,000,000 proposed by the
House and $325,200,000 proposed by the Senate. The agreement
includes language, proposed by the House and Senate,
prohibiting obligation of funds for the IDS systems
integration contract until (1) certification is received from
the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management
and Budget that the program is fully funded in fiscal year
2003-2007 budget plans; (2) certification is received that
the national distress and response system modernization
program is funded to allow for full deployment by fiscal year
2006, and that other essential search and rescue procurements
are fully funded; and (3) the Department of Transportation
and Office of Management and Budget approve a contingency
procurement strategy for assets and capabilities encompassed
by the IDS program. Certification authorities for the
Department of Transportation for the above items are the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary, as proposed by the Senate,
instead of the Secretary or his designee, as proposed by the
House. Further, the bill includes language, proposed by the
Senate, requiring future IDS budget submissions to be
specified to a certain level of detail, and making funds
available for obligation for five years, instead of three
years as proposed by the House.
Capital investment plan.--The bill includes language,
proposed by the Senate, specifying a rescission of $100,000
per day for each day after initial submission of the fiscal
year 2003 President's budget that the Coast Guard capital
investment plan has not been submitted to the Congress. A
similar provision is included under Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Facilities and equipment''.
41-foot utility boat replacement.--The conference agreement
includes $12,000,000 to begin replacement of the existing 41-
foot utility boat fleet, instead of $18,000,000 as proposed
by the House. The conferees do not accept Coast Guard
statements that a full year or more will be needed to develop
requirements and specifications for this urgently-needed
replacement vessel. The conferees urge the Coast Guard to
streamline and expedite the requirements process so that
contract award for this replacement project can take place by
the end of fiscal year 2002. In the development of
requirements, the Coast Guard is to actively involve, and
consider the input of, field commanders and enlisted
personnel who operate and maintain these boats in carrying
out search and rescue missions.
ATC glass technology.--The conferees agree that, of the
funds provided for aviation parts and support, $1,000,000 is
only for the application of ambient temperature-cured (ATC)
glass technology to Coast Guard aircraft, as proposed by the
House.
National distress and response system modernization program
(NDRSMP).--The conferees believe the Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Transportation and the Director of OMB should be
attendant to the following milestones in assessing whether
the national distress and response system modernization
program (NDRSMP) will be fully deployed by fiscal year 2006.
Not later than the end of fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard
should prove, at initial operating capability (IOC), the
fully integrated technology of the NDRSMP at two of the 46
NDRSMP regions and complete low rate initial production at an
additional four regions. IOC should include: (1) the
capability to locate distressed vessels by identifying
vessels through identification of the origin of the
communications signal; (2) the ability to send and receive
data among Coast Guard and other federal and state research
and rescue assets; and (3) the compatibility with
international communications standards under the
International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea. The Coast
Guard should also complete the following percentages of the
NDRSMP by the end of the corresponding years shown below:
Fiscal year 2004: 35 percent;
Fiscal year 2005: 70 percent; and
Fiscal year 2006: 100 percent.
Coast Guard Marine Safety and Rescue Station, Chicago,
IL.--The conference agreement includes $2,000,000 for Coast
Guard participation in reconstruction of a joint-use Coast
Guard Marine Safety and Rescue Station along the Chicago Lake
Michigan shoreline. Specifically, the facility would house
Coast Guard, City of Chicago, and State of Illinois equipment
and personnel for the purposes of air/marine search and
rescue, port security, research, and maritime safety. The
conferees expect the Coast Guard to work with the City of
Chicago and the State of Illinois to plan, fund, and
construct this facility. The conferees intend for the Chicago
Coast Guard Marine Safety and Rescue Station to complement
the air search and rescue station in Waukegan, Illinois and
the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Chicago in Burr Ridge,
Illinois.
acquisition, construction, and improvements
(rescissions)
The conference agreement deletes rescissions proposed by
the Senate totaling $8,700,000. Funding in the programs
proposed for rescission is no longer available.
environmental compliance and restoration
The conference agreement includes $16,927,000 for
environmental compliance and restoration as proposed by both
the House and Senate.
alteration of bridges
The conference agreement includes $15,466,000 for
alteration of bridges deemed hazardous to marine navigation
as proposed by the House and Senate. The conference agreement
distributes these funds as follows:
Conference
Bridge and location agreement
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/HW Bridge.................$3,250,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge...................1,600,000
Charleston, SC, Limehouse Bridge..............................1,100,000
Mobile, AL, Fourteen Mile Bridge..............................5,741,000
Morris, IL, EJ&E Railroad Bridge..............................1,525,000
Galveston, TX, Galveston Causeway...............................500,000
Boston, MA, Chelsea Street Bridge.............................1,750,000
__________
Total..................................................15,466,000
Millenium port selection.--In an effort to expand U.S.
trade with Latin America and South America, the State of
Louisiana has developed the Millenium Port Commission. Funds
were provided in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for federal
support of this commission's activities. The conferees
encourage the Millenium Port Commission, cooperating
Louisiana ports, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
complete a detailed feasibility analysis of all major options
for the Millenium Port by January 1, 2002.
retired pay
The conference agreement includes $876,346,000 for Coast
Guard retired pay as proposed by both the House and the
Senate. This is scored as a mandatory program for federal
budget purposes. The conference agreement includes language
proposed by the Senate authorizing these funds for the
payment of fifteen-year career status bonuses.
reserve training
(including transfer of funds)
The conference agreement provides $83,194,000 for reserve
training as proposed by the House and Senate. The agreement
allows the Reserves to reimburse Coast Guard ``Operations''
up to $25,800,000 for Coast Guard support of Reserve
activities, as proposed by the House and Senate.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
The conference agreement provides $20,222,000 for Coast
Guard research, development, test, and evaluation instead of
$21,722,000 as proposed by the House and Senate. The
conferees agree that within the funding provided, $500,000 is
for the University of Maine Advanced Engineered Wood
Composites Center's demonstration and evaluation of
engineered wood composites at Coast Guard facilities, instead
of $1,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Columbia River Aquatic Nuisance Species Initiative
(CRANSI).--The conferees are concerned over threats that
invasive, non-indigenous plants and animals pose to U.S.
waterways and the economy. Within the funds provided, the
conferees agree that $500,000 is for the Columbia River
Aquatic Nuisance Species Initiative (CRANSI), at the Center
for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University, to
support surveys of non-indigenous aquatic species in the
Columbia River, as proposed by the Senate.
Federal Aviation Administration
operations
The conference agreement provides $6,886,000,000 for
operating expenses of the Federal Aviation Administration
instead of $6,870,000,000 as proposed by the House and
$6,916,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. These funds are in
addition to amounts made available as a mandatory
appropriation of user fees in the Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
264). Of the total amount provided, $5,773,519,000 is to be
derived from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent
with Public Law 106-181. The total funding provided is
$341,765,000 (5.2 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted
level and is the maximum amount authorized. The bill
specifies amounts by budget activity, as proposed by the
House, continuing a practice initiated in fiscal year 2001.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The conference
agreement includes language proposed by the House prohibiting
funds for any aeronautical charting and cartography
activities conducted by, or coordinated through, the
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
User fees.--The conference agreement modifies language
proposed by the House prohibiting funds to plan, finalize, or
implement new user fees not specifically authorized by
Congress. The agreement prohibits funds only for the
finalization or implementation of new, unauthorized fees.
Use of credit hours.--The conferees direct FAA to
discontinue the granting of credit hours, or related
benefits, in the settlement of union grievances until the OST
office of general counsel, working with legal counsel of the
FAA and OIG, determines in writing that such practice is
consistent with the 1998
[[Page 23422]]
collective bargaining agreement with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA) and other existing labor
agreements. Once this determination is made, the Secretary is
requested to make its finding available to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. The House proposed a
prohibition on the granting of credit hours for the
settlement of union grievances during fiscal year 2002.
Travel policy.--The conferees do not agree with House
direction prohibiting FAA from changing its travel policy
regarding per diem payments for extended temporary duty
assignments. The conferees understand that FAA has modified
its travel policies to address findings of the DOT Inspector
General in this area.
Personnel reform.--The conferees direct the Administrator
to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, not later than January 15, 2002, on how the
agency has implemented, and/or plans to implement, the Senate
directive regarding personnel reform.
Airspace redesign.--The conference agreement includes
$12,500,000 for the New York/New Jersey airspace redesign, as
proposed by the Senate, instead of $8,500,000 proposed by the
House.
Restoration of air traffic supervisors.--The conference
agreement restores $5,000,000 of the proposed reductions in
air traffic supervisor staffing included in the President's
budget. The budget proposed a reduction of $5,400,000 due to
planned expansion of the controller-in-charge (CIC) concept.
In restoring these positions, the conferees agree with the
position of the House that supervisory levels should not be
reduced further at this time.
National airspace system (NAS) handoff.--The conference
agreement provides $7,600,000 in this appropriation and
$51,006,100 in ``Facilities and equipment'' (F&E) for second
year maintenance costs for newly commissioned equipment under
the National airspace system (NAS) handoff program. The
President's budget included $76,400,000 under F&E for this
purpose. The conferees believe it is inconsistent with the
principles of existing authorizing legislation to fund these
costs under F&E. In all budget submissions through fiscal
year 2001, costs to operate and maintain such systems after
the first year of operation were to transition to FAA's
operating budget. However, due to operating budget pressures,
this year the Administration proposed to shift the second
year of such costs to the F&E appropriation. These are, in
effect, operating costs transferred to a capital
appropriation. While the conferees note that Public Law 106-
181 significantly raised F&E funding, it did so with an
understanding that those additional funds would be used for
capital costs and not to cover shortfalls in a constrained
operating budget. The conferees believe that FAA needs to
live within its authorized funding levels for operations
without program shifts of this nature.
GPS non-precision approaches.--The conference agreement
includes $5,000,000 to increase the number of GPS non-
precision instrument approaches developed and published for
airports that are not part 139 certificated, and to develop
GPS routes to help supplement the current airway route
system. These routes will provide important safety and other
benefits to general aviation pilots, including increased
access to currently inaccessible airports. In that regard,
the conferees direct FAA to assure that the GPS instrument
approaches provide the necessary procedural information known
as LNAV/VNAV minima, to enable their use by pilots in
obtaining guidance to the runway once the wide area
augmentation system is in place.
Aviation safety reporting system.--The conferees are aware
that the NASA's aviation safety reporting system (ASRS) is a
critical component of our aviation safety system. The success
of ASRS lies in its ability to offer confidentiality and
limited immunity to those who submit reports on unintentional
violations of federal aviation regulations. The conferees
direct the FAA to work to meet the goal of funding ASRS at
$3,400,000 in fiscal year 2002.
The following table compares the conference agreement to
the levels proposed in the House and Senate bills by budget
activity:
[[Page 23423]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29NO01.002
[[Page 23424]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29NO01.003
[[Page 23425]]
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides $2,914,000,000 for
facilities and equipment as proposed by the House and the
Senate. This is the level mandated by Public Law 106-181, and
represents an increase of $257,235,000 (9.7 percent) above
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
Administration of potential shortfall due to EAS
transfer.--Public Law 104-264 requires the FAA Administrator
to cover any shortfall in funding for the essential air
service program (below the mandatory amount of $50,000,000)
out of any funds otherwise available to the Administrator.
While P.L. 104-264 authorized the collection of overflight
user fees to cover these expenses, fee receipts have never
equaled the mandatory appropriation level, and are not
expected to do so in fiscal year 2002. The conferees agree
that any shortfall due to transfer of funds to the essential
air service program should be borne by unobligated balances
from the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation, and
should not be derived from programs, projects, or activities
designated as items of special Congressional interest in
Congressional reports or in the fiscal year 2002 base for
reprogramming document. The Senate proposed up to $10,000,000
of any shortfall should be derived from ``Grants-in-aid for
airports''.
Capital investment plan.--The conference agreement includes
a provision, proposed by the Senate, specifying a rescission
of $100,000 per day for each day after initial submission of
the fiscal year 2003 President's budget that the FAA's
capital investment plan has not been submitted to the
Congress. This is similar to a provision enacted for fiscal
year 2001.
The following table provides a breakdown of the House and
Senate bills and the conference agreement by program:
[[Page 23426]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29NO01.004
[[Page 23427]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29NO01.005
[[Page 23428]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29NO01.006
[[Page 23429]]
Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The
conference agreement includes $55,991,000 for advanced
technology development and prototyping. A comparison of the
budget estimate to the House and Senate proposed levels and
the conference agreement follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Senate Conference
Item recommended recommended agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate.............................................. $36,634,000 $36,634,000 $36,634,000
Airport research............................................. +7,547,000 ............... +7,457,000
Concrete pavement research................................... ............... +2,000,000 +2,000,000
WAAS navigation.............................................. ............... -5,700,000 ...............
ADS-B transfer............................................. ............... -2,800,000 -2,800,000
Juneau, AK weather research.................................. +5,000,000 +6,700,000 +6,700,000
Free flight phase 2 transfer................................. +2,000,000 ............... ...............
Separation standards study................................... +1,000,000 ............... ...............
Louisville, KY tech demo..................................... ............... ............... +5,000,000
Fogeye demonstration......................................... ............... ............... +1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 52,181,000 36,834,000 55,991,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concrete pavement research.--Funds provided for concrete
pavement research are for airfield pavement improvement
activities authorized under sections 905 and 743 of Public
Law 106-181.
Louisville, KY technology demonstration.--The conference
agreement includes $5,000,000 to initiate an operational
demonstration integrating numerous advanced technologies
being developed separately by the FAA into a single airport
environment. Although FAA has been developing technologies
under several programs, there has been limited testing of
these concepts as an integrated system at individual
airports. This demonstration will focus on the various
operational impacts of integrating GPS-based technology,
common ARTS, wake vortex alerting systems, and the
application of improved area navigation procedures.
Louisville International Airport is ideal for such a program
due to its unique operating characteristics.
Fogeye demonstration.--The conferees are aware of emerging
technology, known as fogeye, which utilizes ultraviolet light
to assist in low visibility landings and prevent runway
incursions. The conference agreement includes $1,000,000 for
further evaluation of this technology. In utilizing these
funds, the FAA is encouraged to seek the full participation
of an airline and airport sponsor to develop a plan for an
operational demonstration of fogeye technology to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the system at a commercial service
airport.
Local area augmentation system.--The conference agreement
includes $43,109,700 for this program, $9,000,000 above the
budget estimate, all of which is provided in budget activity
one as proposed by the House. The conferees encourage FAA to
consider installation of this system at Las Vegas-McCarran
International Airport in Nevada once the systems are ready
for production. The conferees continue to view the LAAS
procurement as an opportunity for FAA to expedite the cost
advantageous procurement of precision approach capability
through an aggressive public-private cooperative acquisition
strategy. The agreement provides the flexibility and
resources to continue this innovative acquisition. The
following milestones are anticipated in fiscal year 2002: (1)
category I contract award by the fourth quarter; (2) category
II/III integrity and continuity allocations between avionics
and ground equipment determined; (3) finalization of the
concept of operations required for fiscal year 2003
development of airport procedures; (4) integration of LAAS
capabilities into a certifiable avionics receiver; and (5)
development of a data collection plan and initiation of
flight evaluations for development of complex LAAS approaches
(e.g., curved, segmented, and offset). The FAA is directed to
report quarterly to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations regarding the progress toward these and other
LAAS milestones.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.
November 29, 2001
November 29, 2001
[[Page 23486]]
SENATE--Thursday, November 29, 2001
The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jean Carnahan, a Senator from the State of Missouri.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Gracious God, we thank You for the privilege of living in this land
You have blessed so bountifully. You have called the United States to
be a demonstration of freedom and equality, righteousness and justice,
opportunity and hope that You desire for all nations. O God, help us to
be faithful to our heritage in this time of war against terrorism.
Today we gratefully remember the memory of Johnny Michael ``Mike''
Spann, marine and CIA agent who gave his life in the battle in
Afghanistan, in his own words, ``to make this world a better place in
which to live.''
Now we praise You for the way that You have blessed this Senate with
great leaders in each period of our history. Through them You continue
to give Your vision for the unfolding of the American dream. Bless the
Senators with a renewed sense of their calling to greatness through
Your grace. You have appointed them; now anoint them afresh with Your
spirit. As they confront the soul-sized, crucial issues today, give
them a spirit of unity and cooperativeness. The workload is great, the
pressure is heavy, the challenges formidable, but nothing is impossible
for You.
Fill this Chamber with Your presence. You are the judge of all that
will be said and done today. Ultimately, we have no one to please or
answer to but You. With renewed commitment to You and reignited
patriotism, we press on to live the page of American history that will
be written today. Through our Lord and Saviour. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Jean Carnahan led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, November 29, 2001.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jean Carnahan, a Senator from the State of Missouri, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mrs. CARNAHAN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Madam President, this morning the Senate will resume
consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 10. There will be 60
minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders. The Senate
will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed at approximately 10 a.m.
____________________
MEASURE PLACED ON CALENDAR--H.R. 2983
Mr. REID. Madam President, I understand H.R. 2983 is at the desk and
due for its second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader is correct.
Mr. REID. I ask that H.R. 2983 be read a second time and then I would
object to any further proceedings on this legislation at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the title of
the bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2983) to extend indemnification authority
under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for
other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the
bill will be placed on the calendar.
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001--
MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R.
10, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for
pension reform, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
shall be 60 minutes of debate prior to the cloture vote.
Who yields time? If neither side yields time, time will be charged
equally to both sides.
The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Republican Energy Plan
Mr. REID. Madam President, yesterday there was considerable talk on
the Senate floor regarding the Republican energy plan, using that term
loosely, talking about the need for us to move forward. The majority
leader has announced that we are going to take up an energy bill in
February. He has given a date. I guess it is difficult for some to take
yes for an answer. We are going to go to an energy bill just as soon as
we get back. It is important we do that.
In the meantime, there is this constant harangue from the other side
about how important it is that we go to an energy bill right now. We
agree that there should be an acknowledged policy in this country. It
is very important we do that.
We have to understand that under their plan, an increase in oil
import dependence would go from 56 percent today to well over 60
percent by the year 2010.
According to the Energy Information Administration, which is part of
the DOE, by 2010, cars, light trucks, and SUVs will use an additional
1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Total oil use will increase by twice
that much to about 3.6 million barrels a day. The Republican plan does
virtually nothing to address oil consumption. Their mantra is supply,
supply, supply.
Nothing the United States does will have any impact on the price of
oil. That price is determined in the world market. If we don't address
our consumption, we might drive the price higher.
The United States currently uses 25 percent of the world's oil
supply.
U.S. oil production has been declining since 1970. Even if ANWR were
opened to oil development, the most optimistic scenario would only
result in a net increase of less than half a million barrels a day.
That is a lot of oil, but certainly it will not do anything to address
the major problems we
[[Page 23487]]
have in this country. Those problems relate to consumption.
This assumes that oil companies don't shift production from other
places in the United States. There are 32 million acres in the Gulf of
Mexico that have been leased but not developed.
Most of the dollars spent on developing new oil supplies are invested
outside the United States. Why? Because there is more oil outside the
United States. We, who are so proud of our natural resources, must
acknowledge, reluctantly but truthfully, that we don't have a lot of
oil in the United States. It is estimated that out of 100 percent of
the oil reserves in the world, we have 3 percent in the United States.
Most of the dollars spent in developing new oil supplies are in places
such as Russia, Africa, Brazil, the Caspian and, of course, the Middle
East.
Major oil companies, led by Exxon, just committed $30 billion to
develop gas and water projects in Saudi Arabia. This is a picture of
the signing of that deal. Mobil has done well. We don't need to cry
about how Mobil is doing in the economic world. Let's talk about
ExxonMobil. I am glad they are doing well, but let's not cry about how
they are doing. Profits in 2000 were $12.40 billion, total upstream
profits. Profits from the U.S. oil and gas production is this much; you
can see that. Investment in U.S. production is this much. We have
learned how much they are doing with the Saudi Arabia program. The
picture is of Lee Raymond of Exxon signing that deal. It was for $30
billion. The United States is spending that much. Investment in non-
U.S. production in Saudi Arabia, Angola, Qatar, and others, is $5.2
billion. Madam President, we should understand where the money is
going.
Natural gas: On the other hand, natural gas is currently being
produced from existing oilfields on the North Slope of Alaska, and then
reinjected because there is no pipeline to bring the gas to the lower
48 States.
Natural gas demand is projected to increase by 24 percent by 2010. We
in the United States have a choice. We can build a pipeline to bring
the gas to market. We can do that. It would be expensive, but it would
be very productive and good for the consumer. Or we can become
dependent on liquefied natural gas from oil and gas exporting countries
as we are for our other oil.
So the question is: Arctic gas or liquefied natural gas from OPEC.
Eleven of the world's gas-exporting nations gathered in Iran in May of
this year for the inaugural meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries
Forum. They control two-thirds of the world's natural gas reserves.
According to the OPEC bulletin of June 2001, ``Not only was the Gas
Exporting Countries Forum born in the capital city of an OPEC member,
but the two groups also have five members in common: Algeria,
Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, and Qatar. They can unite and coordinate
their policies in much the same way as OPEC has done in the past four
decades.'' That should give us pause.
We need a stimulus from the energy policy. Some argue that opening
ANWR to oil development would be a great economic stimulus. As we now
know, the job numbers thrown around have been grossly exaggerated.
CRS estimates job creation from ANWR might be between 60,000 and
130,000. Again, this assumes jobs are not just shifted from the Gulf of
Mexico or the Rocky Mountain region.
Construction of an Arctic natural gas pipeline would create between
350,000 and 400,000 jobs in steel production, pipe manufacturing,
trucking and shipping, and construction jobs for 3 to 4 years for
assembling the pipeline. These projections are derived from the
estimated construction costs and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
pipeline construction, and this is the same approach as the CRS
analysis used for ANWR.
This pipeline would be a mammoth project, requiring 4 times as much
steel as used for all the cars produced globally in 1999. The steel for
the pipe would be enough to give each person on Earth enough stainless
steel to make cutlery for six elaborate table settings. The potential
natural gas resources could supply the American market for 50 to 60
years.
It seems that we have an easy choice to make. We can do it ourselves
or we can be dependent on foreign oil. In the speeches we hear from the
other side, I hope they will recognize that we can't continue to
consume, consume, consume and meet our energy needs. We are going to
have to cut back on consumption. We can do that in a number of simple
ways. We can make cars more fuel efficient. We can save millions of
barrels of oil a day by making our cars more efficient. Also, we need
to look at what we are going to do with alternative energy sources,
such as sun, wind, geothermal, biomass, and also spend some money--real
dollars--in hydrogen development. For example, Senator Harkin, for
years, has worked with me in trying to come up with a hydrogen program
in the United States. It can be done, but we can't get the research
dollars to do it. We know it is a safe product. If you had a container
of hydrogen that started leaking, you would get water vapor. That is
what you would get--not the sludge and these terrible messes that we
get in the ocean and on land.
In short, we are no longer going to stand by and let the other side
speak about what a terrible thing is happening and that we are not
doing something about energy policy. We want to do something. We want
to have a full and complete debate, recognizing that the answer to the
problems of America is not drilling in the Arctic pristine wilderness.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise this morning to offer my strong
support for the Railroad Retirement Survivor Improvement Act of 2001.
It is a piece of legislation that truly will modernize the railroad
retirement system and help ensure that our railroad retirees are
offered benefits that are consistent with what is made available in the
private sector to other industrial workers throughout our economy.
Quite frankly, this is simply a fairness issue, to which I think we
need to attend. It is strongly supported on both sides of the aisle,
and I think we ought to do away with the procedural hangups that are
keeping us from addressing this issue and moving forward.
Today's railroad retirement system is deeply outmoded, badly in need
of reform. Unlike most pension plans, the current pension system for
railroad workers has tied the hands of those who have the fiduciary
responsibility to manage it. It can't invest in private market assets,
bonds, or equities. Instead, under the current law, the railroad
retirement system is required to invest only in Government securities.
That is whether it is the tier 1 benefits, which are like Social
Security, or tier 2 programs, which are very consistent or the moral
equivalent of a private pension system.
The result is that railroad retirees and their families are being
placed at a significant and, I believe, unfair disadvantage relative to
their peers in the economy.
Throughout modern pension activities, we have a different result than
what happens for rail workers because they are not able to retire with
the same certainty and security that other workers are, and their
families are prejudiced as well because of the lack of effectiveness in
their investment programs and retire programs. We need to do something
about it.
This program is very simple and very straightforward. The legislation
before us also represents a political compromise that enjoys broad
support, as I suggested, by Republicans and Democrats, labor and
management. It has wide sponsorship throughout all interested parties.
It makes sense from an economic standpoint, a consistency standpoint,
and certainly a political standpoint. After all, most people in this
Chamber--putting this into a personal perspective--are not being forced
to invest in pension plans that are limited only to Government
securities.
Under the Thrift Savings Plan, Government employees, like most in the
private sector, can invest in the private market, stock index funds,
debt
[[Page 23488]]
index funds--a whole host of options that improve the performance
profile of the assets involved in the pension funds.
These funds historically have done better, and the academic history
and testing objective data show private pension funds need more
opportunities than just being limited to Government securities. I do
not understand why we are denying to railroad workers the same
opportunity that we have as public employees.
Because private debt and equities generally provide these higher
returns, this also would allow for significant improvement in the
retirees' benefits: For example, a simple concept such as reducing the
retirement age from 62 to 60 after 30 years of service. It is a pretty
straightforward, simple, commonsense view and is very consistent with
what goes on in the private sector.
Also, widows and widowers would be guaranteed benefits at an amount
no less than the amount of the annuity that the retiree received. If
one works all their life to build up an annuity that is sensible, the
widow or widower should receive more than 50 percent of the retiree's
annuity. That is also pretty consistent with actions in the private
sector.
This legislation will allow a retirement system to reduce its vesting
requirement from 10 years to 5 years, a very standard feature in all
private sector pensions. We ought to take advantage of this opportunity
to modernize the railroad retirement system and put it in a consistent
format with other elements in our society's retirement programs.
I am concerned that the reason this legislation is not moving is
because there are those who believe we somehow are going to pilfer the
money. The opposite is true. I believe when we do not properly manage,
as a fiduciary, retirees' money, we are actually limiting their
ability, and the pilfering is really our fault, not theirs. We ought to
do something about that.
I am concerned about what is really happening. I believe it is
sometimes the view of some that we are trying to limit our options in
managing retirement funds. It is quite possible people are presuming
that if we make this kind of move with respect to railroad retirement
activities and pension investments, we must have an analogy that works
for Social Security. There is reason to believe we ought to be thinking
about how we manage our Social Security trust funds so that we secure
their actuarial responsibility over the long run.
I hope we are not standing against doing something that makes sense
for railroad workers because we have this great desire to resist
modernizing our practices in how we handle our pension funds.
It is time for us to move forward with this legislation. It was
overwhelmingly supported in the House. There is something approaching
75 cosponsors in the Senate. This is 21st century investing--actually,
it is 20th century investing practices, and we need to make sure our
railroad workers have that same right. I hope we will avoid all this
haggling about procedure and move forward to protect their retirement
the way we expect others in the economy to proceed.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to have been an original
cosponsor of the bipartisan Railroad Retirement and Survivors'
Improvement Act of 2001 when it was introduced this spring. This
legislation has strong bipartisan support and it deserves action before
Congress adjourns this year.
In West Virginia, we have over 11,000 retirees and their families
currently depending on railroad retirement, and almost 3,500 West
Virginians working for the railroads who will need their railroad
retirement in the future. These hardworking railroad employees have
done tough jobs for years, and because of the physical work and often
harsh outdoor working conditions, they deserve a good retirement
package, at a earlier age than current benefits allow.
Nationwide, there are currently about 673,000 railroad retirees and
families, and about 245,000 active rail workers. They, too, deserve a
better retirement program, and I want to work with them to promote this
historic package supported by both rail labor and rail management.
There can be no doubt that improving retirement benefits for railroad
workers, retirees, and their families must be one of our top
priorities. Right now, it takes 10 years of service before a railroad
worker becomes vested in the retirement plan, while private companies
covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, vest
their employees in just 5 to 7 years.
The need to dramatically improve benefits for railroad widows and
widowers is also obvious and has gone unaddressed for far too long. It
is cruel to slash the benefits of the widow of a railroad retiree at
the death of her spouse, as the current policy does. Railroad widows
have called my offices and pleaded with me at West Virginia town
meetings to understand how essential this legislation is for them.
A railroad widow living in Hinton, WV, recently told me that her
current railroad pension benefit is too small for her to pay the
premium for railroad health insurance. This widow's husband died when
he was just 56, and she was only 46. She has been struggling to
maintain her home and pay her bills, and can just barely do that, but
she cannot afford to buy health insurance. She deserves a better deal.
Railroad widows in my state and across our country living on fixed
incomes face a tough challenge to maintain their homes and their
dignity. Increasing pension benefits for railroad widows should be a
priority before this Congress adjourns.
Today, experts predict that the Railroad Trust Funds are solvent for
the next 25 years, and existing policy offers guaranteed benefits to
railroad retirees and their families. Under the new plan, the railroads
would pay less taxes into the Railroad Retirement Trust Funds, but the
fund would create an investment board to invest its reserves in private
equities, so the increased rate of returns would cover the expanded
benefits. Under the plan, there is a provision to increase railroad
taxes in the future when necessary to fully fund the railroad
retirement benefits.
As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been pushing hard
to enact this legislation to improve benefits for railroad retirees and
their families. I will be working with Finance Chairman Baucus and
Senate Majority Leader Daschle to achieve our goal of improving
railroad retirement. Our railroad workers, our retirees, and their
widows have been waiting too long for a better retirement package. It
would be wrong for Congress to leave without acting on this vital
program.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
that the time be charged equally.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Energy Bill Must Be Debated
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have heard several comments this
morning with regard to energy, yet I am still in a fog about why we are
even discussing this legislation.
Americans should know that September 11 not only changed the entire
Nation but it also changed the mindset in Washington, DC. I can
remember that morning because we were in a press conference talking
about enhanced 9-1-1, legislation that was passed and signed by
President Clinton. Basically what it did was it allowed the technology
to move forward in our wireless communications that when someone used
their cell phone and they hit 9-1-1, they got the nearest first
responder or emergency responder.
In a State such as Montana where we have large rural areas, this is
very important. I held a safety conference in Helena during the August
break. We had around 200 people attending, saying we need to locate
people whenever
[[Page 23489]]
an emergency comes in on a cell phone because we have great distances
to cover.
With the technology of triangulation of the towers and enhanced GPS,
we can now locate the 9-1-1, or the emergency caller, just as we can
when we pick up a phone in our own home where it is wired.
We were taking a look at the deployment of that technology in a news
conference on that morning of September 11 when the terrorists decided
to take their bite out of the United States of America. It was a
shocking thing when we saw the second airplane go into the second tower
and then the one that hit the Pentagon in Washington, DC. It changed
our perspective on everything.
I bring that up because we are in a war, and the only defense against
terrorists who will forfeit their lives to carry out a mission, the
only way to prevent those people from doing great harm to our country,
is to keep them on the run where they do not have a lot of time to plan
to do bad things to us.
I congratulate the President this morning because we are taking out
the al-Qaida and the terrorists who perpetrated this act of war on our
country.
We are also in a recession. We have an agricultural sector that is
hurting, and we are talking about something that affects none of the
things that are affecting our country today. Nothing in this
legislation, with the time we think we have left of this year, the
first half of the 107th Congress, will stimulate the economy. It has
nothing to do with the economy.
I am a cosponsor on the bill. We have farmers who are walking into
their banks to renew their operating loans, and what are the bankers
telling them? We have to have some concrete evidence this Government is
going to be in your corner next year. We have been every year, but now
they want to tie it down a little tighter. Yes, that is a stimulus.
Agriculture is about 20 percent of the GDP in this country. It is very
important, and it all starts at the production level. We do not hear
anybody talking about that.
Yesterday morning I brought up the fact that energy is a part of
this, and we hear speeches even this morning on energy, but we only
hear speeches. Put a bill on the floor. Allow a bill to come to the
Senate. We will debate conservation. We will debate the economy. We
will debate production. The President had a task force put together
headed by Vice President Cheney, and a lot of the actions he wants
taken are not allowed to be debated. Make no doubt about it. We are at
war, and then we hear speeches. We have an energy crisis, but we hear
speeches. The economy continues to slip; we continue to hear speeches.
Put the bill before the Senate. That is all I say.
The Railroad Retirement Act probably has as many cosponsors as have
ever cosponsored a bill in this body. Some folks would say fairness.
Fairness to whom? Fairness with the rest of the country? It does
nothing that would heal some of the ills that are afflicting our
country right now.
What I am saying is let us get our work done. If we want to talk
about energy, put an energy bill before the Senate. That is all we ask.
Then we will let the chips fall where they may. That is what we should
be doing this morning if we move forward on anything.
Let us do something substantive. Let us complete the appropriations.
I serve on the Appropriations Committee. The assistant minority leader
serves on that committee. We have worked together on a lot of issues,
and I think he will agree that it is not going to take a lot of work or
a lot of time to finish. As soon as we get the Defense appropriations
and complete a stimulus bill, then let us go home and let us recharge
the batteries. Let us talk to the people back home. Let us find out
what their agenda is, what they want to see this Government and this
Congress do as we complete the year 2001.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3090
Mr. REID. Madam President, the junior Senator from Montana, my good
friend, and I have worked together on a number of issues. We were the
two who handled military construction appropriations for many years. He
is a pleasure to work with. I enjoyed working with him this year on the
Interior appropriations bill. In answer to my friend, the reason we are
talking about energy this morning, it has been talked about so much
from the other side, I must reply.
Regarding the railroad retirement bill, it is important legislation.
For the widows, it is an important piece of legislation. I acknowledge
we should move these appropriations conference reports as quickly as we
can. Transportation was resolved yesterday. That is big news. We hope
to complete that this week as soon as the House does.
Yesterday it was noted that if we moved to the House bill, which will
be the vehicle for the railroad retirement legislation, the stimulus
bill would be displaced. We agreed that the stimulus bill should not be
displaced. We did not raise a point of order to knock it off the
calendar. We could have raised a point of order against a Republican
vehicle and then the stimulus bill would be gone forever from this
session of the legislature. We chose not to do that. We agreed the
stimulus bill should not be displaced. That is the reason we asked to
call the railroad bill up by unanimous consent, but that was objected
to by a Republican colleague.
To ensure again that the stimulus bill is not displaced by the
railroad retirement bill, I ask unanimous consent the stimulus bill,
H.R. 3090, recur as the pending business immediately upon the
disposition of the railroad retirement bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. On behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
Senate Work Priorities
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me speak for a few moments on the
issue of railroad retirement, the stimulus package, and the business
before the Senate. Our assistant Republican leader is on the floor and
wants to speak to the motion to proceed, so I will be brief.
I rise in support of railroad retirement and have been a cosponsor of
that legislation for the last several years. There is adequate time to
deal with this issue. We can deal with it now following the stimulus
package or certainly we can deal with it next year. The Democratic
leadership has chosen to bring it up and force the issue at this time.
It is an important piece of legislation. There are 75 cosponsors in the
Senate. The Senate Finance Committee has worked some on it. The House
has worked on it and passed it.
Is it a perfect piece of legislation? No. It goes a long way to fix a
flawed system, a system at this time that is in deep trouble, a 65-
year-old system that has been treated poorly in the past in many
respects and will not serve the retirees or the railroad system
effectively well in the future.
As a result of an effort on the part of management and labor to bring
this issue together, they have worked hard to do so. There are many on
my side who disagree and some on the other side who disagree. This
issue does not find unanimous support in the Senate. I would hope
issues of such critical nature could find unanimous support, but that
will not happen.
It is important this issue be addressed. I hope the Senate can work
its will. I will support efforts to bring it to the floor. At the same
time, I hope the Democrat leadership understands a recession has been
declared in this country by the institutions that measure our economics
and measure the output of our economy. If we are in recession--and we
are--we ought to deal with a stimulus package that will bring
investment and job creation back to the marketplace.
We ought to be understanding that we are at war. We ought to move
expeditiously, as the House now is, to deal with the DOD package to
make sure our men and women in harm's way are adequately funded, and
that all of the issues of post-September 11 are dealt with in the
appropriate fashion. That doesn't mean we have to stay here for the
next 3 weeks to get that done.
[[Page 23490]]
We do our timely work now; we come back in late January and do the
balance. This is an issue that could have been dealt with in late
January, as can agriculture, as energy, I hope, will be with a date
definite and a vote up or down to pass. If energy is not dealt with in
that fashion, and if the majority leader does not choose to give us a
clear signal as to how energy will be voted on, energy will be an
amendment to any amendable bill that comes before the Senate following
the current effort.
This bill will be amendable. Maybe energy fits well into a railroad
retirement package. It is every bit as critical to a broader base of
the American economy as this bill is very critical to a lot of people
in my State and across the Nation.
To reiterate, I support the railroad retirement legislation. I am one
of the 75 cosponsors in the Senate. In the last Congress, when I was
briefly a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I had an opportunity
to participate in the hearings on the bill and vote in favor of passing
it and sending it to the Senate floor for consideration. While I am a
supporter of this bill, I can understand why some of my colleagues have
genuine problems with it. Does this bill take a flawed system and make
it perfect? No. However, does this bill take a flawed system and
dramatically improve it? Yes.
I am here today to urge my colleagues: Do not let the perfect be the
enemy of the very, very good. It is no small feat that rail labor and
rail management came together, reasoned together in good faith, and
devoted a great deal of energy, expertise, and old-fashioned innovation
to improving a 65-year-old system in a bright and forward-thinking way.
They have fashioned a remarkably good bill. It removes a 65-year-old
requirement that assets of the system be invested solely in Federal
instruments. It permits the kind of investments that any other industry
pension plan might make. As a result, over time the system will bring
in more revenue, and that will permit better benefits for retirees and
surviving spouses, while reducing the contributions needed from rail
employers.
It is important to remember that this bill also provides for the
possibility that the returns on investments might be less than history
suggests they will be. If that should occur, it would trigger an
automatic adjustment mechanism requiring more contributions from the
industry. This protects the federal government and the nation's
taxpayers. On the other hand, if returns are greater than projected,
both labor and management will be able to reduce contributions further.
The new Investment Trust created by the bill will not include any
government employees and will not be appointed by any. Trustees will be
subject to ERISA fiduciary standards. They will be able to hire
professional pension investment advisors. Congress will annually
receive a report on the results of the investment efforts.
Let me also address the so-called ``cost'' of this bill. I agree with
the House of Representatives that changing the investment mix is not an
outlay, but just a new means of financing the government's obligations
under the system. Those who take balanced federal budgets seriously
should have no reason to back away from this legislation.
Mr. President, the thousands of working men and women, retirees, and
surviving spouses who will benefit from this legislation have waited
patiently while this bill has been reviewed again and again. They have
waited long enough. This bill is an enormous step in the right
direction, and one the entire Senate should support.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in opposition on a motion to
proceed. I have great respect for my friend and colleague from Nevada,
but I happen to disagree that moving to railroad retirement is what we
should be doing. Railroad retirement is an issue that some people say
has been considered by Congress. It hasn't been considered. We didn't
have a hearing in the House; we didn't have a hearing in the Senate. We
have a bill written by special interest groups, by railroad companies
and unions. They negotiated a deal and said, great, now have the
American taxpayer pay for it.
If there is ever special interest legislation, this is it. We are
going to say we want to set aside the stimulus package so we can take
this bill up. I have told my friends and colleagues if we take it up,
we will have to have a lot of amendments and a lot of debate.
I read where tier 1 is the same thing as Social Security. But it is
not. It is not the same thing. There are differences. People who
receive Social Security do not get to retire at age 60 with 100-percent
benefits. And this is what this legislation does for railroad retirees.
Under private pension benefit plans, survivors of deceased usually
receive 50 percent; the survivors under this bill receive 100 percent.
We are going to do that? We are going to put that in the statute and
say the Federal Government will pay for it?
People say they want to be treated like the private sector. Private
sector gets to invest in the stock market. Great. Make this a private
sector plan. We can do that. We are going to give them $15 billion,
that is a heck of a cash infusion to a pension system. We have never
done that in the history of America where we have taken $15 billion,
given it to one industry for their retirement system. It benefits
primarily a few companies and a whole lot of employees and retirees.
They have worked it out in a mutually beneficial manner. They both
benefit, almost exactly the same amount. They negotiated a deal to save
$4 billion in 10 years and the employees get $4 billion in new
benefits. And the Federal Government will gives them $15 or $16 billion
in the process.
I question the wisdom of doing that. We have not had a hearing and
have not been able to ask people: Why are we doing this? How does it
work? Where does the money come from?
If we move to this bill, as I expect may well happen but, will have
to have some amendments. We will have to consider should tier 1 really
be equivalent to Social Security. If they are going to be in the Social
Security system and pay Social Security taxes, they pay identical tier
1 taxes to Social Security, shouldn't we give them identical Social
Security benefits? Or do we give them benefits far in excess of what
Social Security provides? We are going to have to consider that.
What about this survivor benefit? They say this is great, we have a
survivor benefit, and it is a big increase. Everyone likes it. If we
are going to increase the survivor benefit for railroads, should we do
it also for Social Security? Or conversely, should survivor benefits,
at least for Social Security, be the same for all Social Security
beneficiaries? There is a big difference. We have to look at that and
we have to look at the cash infusion. The argument is made that this is
just moving $16 billion of Government IOUs over into the private sector
for real investment.
I asked the Treasury Secretary, how are you going to do it? He said:
I am going to go out and borrow $16 billion. We are in a deficit
situation. It is all going to be added to debt, so we are going to add
$16 billion to our national publicly held debt that you and I and all
taxpayers will be paying interest on every year. That means if we are
paying something like 6 percent interest on $15 billion, we are going
to be paying $1 billion per year in interest maybe forever for this
cash infusion to go to this retirement fund which will greatly increase
benefits and also reduce the contributions to that retirement fund.
I used to be a fiduciary and trustee of a retirement fund. You can't
do that. You would have the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
saying: You are not making your minimum allocation requirements to make
these funds adequately financed. You are doing just the opposite. You
have a grossly underfunded actuarial benefit that is required, and you
are not making those payments.
We are doing just the opposite. We have an unfunded plan that has
financial problems in the future, and what
[[Page 23491]]
we are doing is cutting taxes and increasing benefits. Oh, yes, we are
going to transfer a whole bunch of money so it will last a little
while, but it doesn't last even that long. As a matter of fact, it is
kind of startling to find out the amount of money available. This fund
starts evaporating pretty quickly. It is projected in 20 years the
taxes are going to have to be raised as much as 70 percent--in 20
years, because of the shortfall.
My biggest problem is the way we have directed scorekeeping in here
to say we are not going to count that $15 billion. Hocus pocus--write a
check, and it doesn't count. That really bothers me.
There is language in the House-passed bill on page 25 that says:
Means of financing. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and the Balanced Budget Act and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985--and on and on--notwithstanding the purchase or sale of non-
Federal assets--shall be treated as a means of financing--i.e., it
doesn't count; they are kind of clever legal words that say it doesn't
count.
It will be interesting to see how Democrats and Republicans vote on
this bill because we have a little section in here that says ``the
budget doesn't count.''
I ask you, if you can do this for the railroad retirement system, why
can't you do it for Social Security? Why don't we write a check for $1
trillion or $1.8 trillion, or whatever the Social Security trust fund
balance is that is Government-held debt, Government IOUs to itself? Why
don't we just write a check for that entire amount and say now we have
real securities?
If you do it, you are going to have outlays and we are going to have
to borrow money. This $16 billion we are going to have to borrow. We
are going to increase the national debt to do this.
I wonder if people really thought about that and what that really
means. Can we do this for Social Security? Is this real? Are we moving
away from Government T-bills into Government stocks? No, we are not. We
are moving away from Government IOUs, which are on paper, into real
debt that we will have to write checks for and pay interest on every
year--real debt, publicly held debt that could be held in the United
States or overseas, on which we will be writing checks. We will have to
pay interest on it to the tune of $1 billion a year.
We will put it in the railroad retirement fund and at the same time
say: Railroad companies, you don't have to pay as much. We are going to
reduce your taxes. Even though you signed contracts that are very
generous in retirement benefits, we are going to reduce your
contribution. Incidentally, retirees, because you were willing to go
along with this, we are going to increase your benefits. We are going
to give you benefits nobody else has in the private sector. We are
going to give you benefits that are greater than Social Security.
You are tier 1, which is supposed to be equivalent to Social
Security. In Social Security, the retirement age is going to 67. For
tier 1 benefits, the retirement age is going to 60. For Social Security
beneficiaries, for everybody--every Senator, every civil servant,
employee who is on Social Security today--when they receive benefits,
every person in the private sector on Social Security today, if they
retire at 62, they receive 80 percent of their normal retirement
benefit--80 percent.
Not railroad retirement; it is 100 percent under age 62, and under
this bill it will be 100 percent at age 60. And they pay the same
taxes. That is 12.8 percent, 6.4 percent by the employer, 6.4 percent
by the employee for tier 1 taxes and Social Security taxes. These are
the same taxes everybody else pays in America, but they get a lot
better benefit under this bill we are considering.
The House almost passed this bill unanimously. Did they really know
what they were doing? Did they realize the cost implications of this
legislation? Does that really make sense, and can we afford it? Is this
trust fund in such good shape we can give the most generous benefits in
America? Does it make financial sense to do that? I don't think so.
I think people are going to be embarrassed when sometime, at some
point, if and when this bill ever becomes law--and it has not become
law yet because it still has to go through the amendment process, and I
hope we can improve it, I hope we can strike out language that says
this $16 billion check we are going to write doesn't count.
I am on the Budget Committee. I have been on the Budget Committee for
21 years. I am horrified by this language. I am embarrassed the House
passed it, and I am embarrassed we would even consider it in the
Senate. So we are going to have amendments to strike it, and we will
find out whether or not people think when you write a check it doesn't
count. If we say it doesn't count, let's just tear up the Budget Act
totally.
Speaking about budgets, a lot of people are talking about
emergencies. I met with the President last night, and I said we have
been trying to respond to emergency situations in a bipartisan fashion,
but I am looking at spending that is growing rather dramatically. The
President proposed a budget that grew at 6.1 percent. We had an
agreement at $686 billion. We signed a letter. Members of Congress
actually asked the President to sign the letter that said: Here is our
deal. October 2, our budget deal, $686 billion discretionary spending,
a growth rate of 7.1 percent. We added a few billion more for
education. All signed on, this is the deal.
Then we agreed, let's add $40 billion as a result of the September 11
attack. So that moved the $686 up to $726 billion. The growth of
spending now is 13.3 percent. That doesn't include $16 billion coming
in for railroad retirement. That doesn't include $16 billion or $15
billion or $7.5 billion for additional homeland security. That doesn't
count the additional billions of dollars--we don't know how much it is
going to cost--in the victims' compensation fund that is already the
law of the land. That doesn't count the $15 billion we have for airline
security and loan guarantees.
If we add all that together, we are on a spending spree in Congress.
It looks to me as if people are trying to ram through all the spending
they can this year because they know that next year we are in red ink.
Next year we are going to have deficits.
There was a front page story in the Washington Post today alluding to
the situation that we may have deficits for several years, so let's run
this through now and put in little language in the bill that says it
doesn't count.
So I hope to have several amendments to this legislation if we are
forced to consider it. Although, I think it is more important that we
stay on the stimulus package and visit this legislation at another
time. I hope we finish the Nation's business. I hope we get our
appropriations bills done, pass the stimulus package trying to help
this economy which is in a recession, and go home. But if we are going
to say let's come out and spend this kind of money, we are going to
have to rework this program and improve it.
Let's allow the unions and railroad companies to come up with
whatever benefits they want. I don't care if they have retirement at
age 40, as long as they pay for it and don't ask us to pay for it. If
it is their retirement system and they are responsible for it, great.
If they are asking taxpayers to pay for it, wait a minute, we should be
a little more cautious. If they are going to have survivor benefits
greater than almost every survivor benefit in America, that is fine, as
long as they pay for it. But don't ask us to guarantee it.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to move off the
stimulus package and move on the railroad retirement bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. While the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is on the
floor, I ask unanimous consent the time for debate prior to the cloture
vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 10 be extended until 10:30, with
the time equally divided and controlled as under the previous order,
and that the remaining
[[Page 23492]]
provisions of the previous order governing the cloture vote remain in
effect.
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I renew my request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 69, H.R. 10, an act to provide for
pension reform and for other purposes:
Paul Wellstone, Richard Durbin, Byron Dorgan, Harry Reid, Jon
Corzine, Hillary Clinton, Blanche Lincoln, Thomas Carper, Patrick
Leahy, Tom Harkin, Benjamin Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Ron
Wyden, Charles Schumer, Bob Graham, and Barbara Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 10, an act to provide for pension reform, and
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are
required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 343 Leg.]
YEAS --96
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS --4
Gramm
Gregg
Kyl
Nickles
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 4.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
NOMINATION OF JOHN WALTERS
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of all
parents and grandparents, teachers, clergy, mentors, law enforcement,
treatment and prevention coalitions, and all the others who work every
day to prevent illegal drug use from destroying the lives of our young
people. Our country needs John Walters, the President's nominee for
drug czar, to be confirmed. It is shameful that here we are in
November, and Mr. Walters remains the President's only Cabinet member
who has not been confirmed.
To say that the confirmation of Mr. Walters has been obstructed is by
no means an exaggeration. It has been 203 days since the President
announced his choice of John Walters to be the next Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. It has been 177 days since the
Senate received his nomination. It has been 50 days since Mr. Walters'
hearing before the Judiciary Committee. And it has been 21 days since
his nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by a wide
margin and sent to the Senate floor. How many more days, weeks, and
months can we expect this nomination to linger before a vote is finally
scheduled? In my view, we have already waited much too long.
John Walters' confirmation will also add another much-needed weapon
to our arsenal in the war against terrorism. Since the September 11
attacks, there has been much discussion about the nexus between drug
trafficking and terrorism. We know that proceeds from the manufacturing
and trafficking of opium poppy helped sustain the Taliban's control of
Afghanistan. We also know that terrorist organizations routinely
launder the proceeds from drug trafficking and use the funds to support
and expand their operations internationally, including purchasing and
trafficking illegal weapons. I am sure in the coming months and years,
we will continue to learn about the clandestine connection between
drugs and terrorists.
The situation in Afghanistan also bodes ill for the world's supply of
heroin. In 2000, over 70 percent of the world's heroin was produced in
Afghanistan. Stockpiles of Afghan heroin were reportedly dumped on the
market after the September 11 attacks. While officials in America and
Europe are bracing for the onslaught of cheap heroin that will soon be
hitting the markets in all neighborhoods across America and Europe, we
have no drug czar. The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
DEA, Asa Hutchinson, recently referred to the situation in Afghanistan
as a ``rare opportunity'' for U.S. antidrug efforts to act on the
successes of the military campaign and influence the future direction
of heroin production in Afghanistan. While I have great confidence in
the work Asa Hutchinson and the DEA are doing, the administration needs
its lead drug control policy official in place to help formulate a
comprehensive policy designed to reduce significantly heroin production
in Afghanistan.
Mr. Walters will have to work closely with law enforcement and
intelligence authorities to ensure that the international component of
the Nation's drug control policy is designed not only to prevent drugs
from being trafficked into America but also to prevent the
manufacturing and sale of drugs for the purpose of funding terrorist
activities. Mr. Walters is eminently qualified to carry out this task,
and I am confident that he will be a first-rate Director. He is the
right person for this job.
John Walters' career in public service has prepared him well for this
office. He has worked tirelessly over the last
[[Page 23493]]
2 decades helping to formulate and improve comprehensive policies
designed to keep drugs away from our children. By virtue of this
experience, he truly has unparalleled knowledge and experience in all
facets of drug control policy. Lest there be any doubt that Mr.
Walters' past efforts were successful, let me point out that during his
tenure at the Department of Education and ONDCP, drug use in America
fell to its lowest level at any time in the past 25 years, and drug use
by teens plunged over 50 percent. Mr. Walters has remained a vocal
advocate for curbing illegal drug use. Tragically, as illegal drug use
edged upward under the previous administration, his voice went
unheeded.
John Walters enjoys widespread support from distinguished members of
the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police
and the National Troopers Coalition. His nomination is also supported
by some of the most prominent members of the prevention and treatment
communities, including the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals, the American Methadone Treatment Association, the
Partnership for Drug Free America, National Families in Action, and the
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. All of these organizations
agree that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, we need a
comprehensive policy aimed at reducing both the demand for and supply
of drugs. Mr. Walters' accomplished record demonstrates that he, too,
has always believed in such a comprehensive approach. As he stated
before Congress in 1993, an effective antidrug strategy must
``integrate efforts to reduce the supply of as well as the demand for
illegal drugs.''
Despite this groundswell of support, ever since Mr. Walters was first
mentioned almost 7 months ago to be the next drug czar, several
interested individuals and groups have attacked his nomination with a
barrage of unfounded criticisms. Because of these untruths, I believe
his confirmation has been delayed, and I feel compelled to respond to
some of these gross distortions of John Walters' record.
The most common criticism I have heard is that John Walters is
hostile to drug treatment. This is categorically false. He has a long,
documented history of supporting drug treatment as an integral
component of a balanced national drug control policy. You do not have
to take my word on this. You need only look at the numbers. Keep in
mind, just today, just an hour ago, we passed the Hatch-Leahy ``Drug
Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001'' out of the
Judiciary Committee. The bulk of the money in that bill will go for
drug treatment, education, and prevention programs. And we have done so
with the advice and counsel of Mr. Walters. So that is a false
accusation. But look at the numbers.
During Mr. Walters' tenure at ONDCP, treatment funding increased 74
percent. Compare that with the increase over 8 years for the Clinton
administration of a mere 17 percent. This commitment to expanding
treatment explains why John Walters has such broad support from the
treatment community. It is simply inconceivable to believe that all of
the prominent groups that are supporting Mr. Walters would do so if
they believed he was hostile to treatment programs.
Another recurring criticism is that Mr. Walters doesn't support a
balanced drug control policy that incorporates both supply and demand
reduction programs. This criticism, too, is flat wrong and again belied
by his record. For example, in testimony given before this committee in
1991, Mr. Walters, then acting Director of ONDCP, laid out a national
drug control strategy that included the following guiding principles:
educating our citizens about the dangers of drug use, placing more
addicts in effective treatment programs, expanding the number and
quality of treatment programs, reducing the supply and availability of
drugs on our streets, and dismantling trafficking organizations through
tough law enforcement and interdiction measures.
Mr. Walters' support of prevention programs is equally evident. His
commitment to prevention became clear during his tenure at the
Department of Education during the Reagan administration. He drafted
the Department's first drug prevention guide for parents and teachers
entitled, ``Schools Without Drugs'' and created the Department's first
prevention advertising campaign, and implemented the Drug-Free Schools
grant program.
These are not the words or actions of an ideologue who is hostile to
prevention and treatment but, rather, represent the firmly held beliefs
of a man of conviction who has fought hard to include effective
prevention and treatment programs in the fight against drug abuse.
Some have also charged that Mr. Walters doesn't believe the oft-
repeated liberal shibboleth too many low-level, ``non-violent'' drug
offenders are being arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. I, too, plead
guilty, and we have the facts on our side. Data from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, BJS, reveals that 67.4 percent of Federal
defendants convicted of simple possession had prior arrest records, and
54 percent had prior convictions. Moreover, prison sentences handed
down for possession offenses amount to just 1 percent of Federal prison
sentences. It is flatly untrue that a significant proportion of our
Federal prison population consists of individuals who have done nothing
other than possess illegal drugs for their personal consumption.
The simple fact is that the drug legalization camp exaggerates the
rate at which defendants are jailed solely for simple possession. Mr.
Walters, to his credit, has had the courage to publicly refute these
misleading statistics. And to these critics I want to make one other
point perfectly clear. Those who sell drugs, whatever type and whatever
quantity, are not, to this father and grandfather, nonviolent
offenders, not when each pill, each joint, each line, and each needle
can--and often does--destroy a young person's life. Mr. Walters'
critics have shamefully distorted his statements to claim that he
favors jailing first-time, nonviolent offenders.
I am committed 100 percent to expanding and improving drug abuse
education, prevention, and treatment programs, and I know that John
Walters is my ally in this effort. Earlier this year I introduced S.
304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001, a
bipartisan bill that I drafted with my good friend, Senator Leahy,
Senators Biden, DeWine, Thurmond, Feinstein, and Grassley. This
legislation will dramatically increase prevention and treatment
efforts. In drafting the bill, I repeatedly solicited Mr. Walters'
expert advice. I know, and his record clearly reflects, that he agrees
with me and my colleagues that prevention and treatment must remain
integral components of our national drug control policy.
We just passed that bill out of the Judiciary Committee this morning.
I hope it will be called up immediately and passed out of the Senate
because it will make such a difference in the lives of our young people
around this country. If I recall correctly, Joe Califano, the former
head of HEW, Health, Education, and Welfare--now Health and Human
Services--called this bill truly revolutionary and one that he could
support wholeheartedly. He is not alone.
We need to shore up our support for demand reduction programs if we
are to reduce illegal drug use in America. This belief is bipartisan.
Our President believes it. Our Attorney General believes it. Our
Democratic leader in the Senate believes it. My Republican colleagues
believe it. And most importantly, John Walters believes it.
Since being nominated in May, Mr. Walters has made himself available
to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee. He has throughly answered
all questions posed to him by the Judiciary Committee, as well as
questions from Senators not on the Committee. I commend the President
for his selection and nomination of John Walters, and I call upon the
Democratic leader to end the delay, remove all holds, and schedule a
vote on Mr. Walters' nomination as early as possible, this week, if he
could. At a time when we are at war, it is simply not prudent or proper
[[Page 23494]]
to play politics with this nomination. I urge my colleagues to reject
the efforts of those who have wrongfully sought to taint John Walters
and to support an immediate vote on his nomination.
Finally, I urge Chairman Leahy not to let this session end without
holding hearings for the deputy positions at ONDCP. Mr. Walters needs
his team in place. I look forward to working with my Senate Republican
and Democratic colleagues and the administration to carry forward our
fight against drug trafficking and terrorism.
Let me make one or two final remarks. I was pleased to see the
Judiciary Committee pass out the nine additional district judges, one a
circuit court judge nominee and eight district court nominees, and, in
addition, to pass out two other top officials in the Bush
administration and, of course, a number of U.S. Attorneys. I commend
our chairman for doing that. I commend him for moving forward on these
judges.
We have come a long way from when the criticisms reached their
height. We still have a long way to go because there are still 101
vacancies in the Federal judiciary as I stand here today. Frankly, that
is probably 101 too many. Be that as it may, we all know that we have
to do something about them.
As we prepare to recess, there is one startling fact that needs more
attention. On May 9, President Bush nominated 11 outstanding attorneys
to serve as Federal appellate court judges. To this date, nearly three
quarters of those nominees are still pending in the Judiciary Committee
without a hearing. Although all of these nominees received qualified or
well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association, only 3 of
those first 11 nominees have had a hearing. At present, there are 30
vacancies in the Federal courts of appeals. Some courts, such as the DC
circuit, are functioning under a dramatically reduced capacity.
President Bush has responded to the vacancy crisis in the appellate
courts by nominating a total of 28 top-notch men and women to these
posts, a number of circuit court nominees that is unprecedented in the
first years of recent administrations. Yet the Judiciary Committee has
managed to move just five appeals court judges from the committee to
the Senate floor for a vote. Last year at this time we had 67 vacancies
in the Federal judiciary. Since Senator Leahy has become chairman, the
vacancy rate has never been below 100. I am concerned that this number
will only continue to grow after Congress recesses next month.
I urge my colleagues on the other side to use the remaining weeks of
this session to hold hearings and votes on judicial nominees to combat
the alarming vacancy rate.
Having said that, I am pleased that the chairman did allow nine
judges to pass out today. I hope he will continue to work in a
bipartisan fashion with me to pass more out. I am proud to work with
Senator Leahy. I certainly want to cooperate with him in every way I
possibly can. I believe the other Republicans on the committee do as
well.
There is a lot of criticism that goes back and forth on judges. I
have to say, it is difficult to be chairman of this committee. I
sympathize with Senator Leahy on some of the difficulties he has had. I
know there are people on his side who would just as soon not have any
Bush judges go on through, as there were occasionally on our side. It
is very difficult to meet some of the objections and to overcome them
and to resolve some of the political problems that arise. We have to do
it. We have to stand up and work with both sides to get the Federal
courts as full as we possibly can so that justice can proceed,
especially in the case of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, the District Court of the District of Columbia as well, so
that we can handle all of the terrorist issues that will come before
that particular court.
Having said all of that, I hope we can move ahead with John Walters;
if there are any holds, that they will be removed; and if they won't
remove them, I hope the majority leader will ignore the holds, bring
this up for a battle on the floor, and then have a vote up or down and
let the chips fall where they may.
I believe Mr. Walters will be confirmed. I believe he must be
confirmed. If we don't get him confirmed, I believe the rate of youth
drug use will continue to rise. Frankly, we have had enough of that. We
have to get a very tough policy going again on drugs, and that should
include both the supply and demand sides.
I will make sure that this new administration, under John Walters,
will take care of the demand side as well as the supply side. If we
pass S. 304 through the Senate on which Senator Leahy and I have worked
so hard, I believe it will go to the House. I believe they will pass
it, and it will go a long way toward resolving some of the really
serious drug problems we have among our young people.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDER FOR RECESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess today from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m., and that the time be
charged under rule XXII. We will reconvene at 3:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for those who are listening, this is really
important that we do this. We are privileged today that both the
Democrat and Republican caucuses will listen to the Secretary of State,
Colin Powell, talk about world affairs. Then we are going to have a
briefing upstairs.
It is important that all Senators attend the luncheon with Colin
Powell and the briefing upstairs about what is going on in Afghanistan.
We know that a number of Senators have expressed a desire to speak.
The junior Senator from Michigan is here. She wishes to speak. I
understand Senator Carnahan is here. So we will recess at 12:30.
Everybody should be advised that the time until then is open. Perhaps
we could arrange some times, if that is helpful to the parties here. It
is my understanding that Senator Carnahan wishes to speak, but I don't
know for how long. Maybe we can get things set up so people don't have
to wait around. The Senator from Michigan wants to speak for 15
minutes. The Senator from Illinois wants 5 minutes. So we have Senator
Durbin for 5, Senator Carnahan for 10, Senator Stabenow for 15, and
Senator Thompson wants 15.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be recognized
for 5 minutes, the Senator from Michigan be recognized for 15 minutes,
the Senator from Missouri be recognized for 10 minutes, and then
Senator Thompson be recognized for the final 15 minutes. That would
take us to the recess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Illinois.
____________________
ECONOMIC STIMULUS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his
leadership. He works so hard on the floor on a regular basis to make
sure things run smoothly and we get about the business of deliberating
important issues. At this time, there is no more important an issue
than the economic stimulus package. As we move around the Nation,
clearly people have lost jobs and businesses are hurting. We need to
spark this economy, to move it forward.
There was good news yesterday on Capitol Hill. The leaders--Democrats
and Republicans--came together to start a process to lead to a stimulus
package, a recovery package that will truly help all Americans. I have
taken a look at many of the proposals here, and I certainly support the
Democrats' position that we need to help families who have lost their
jobs. If you are unemployed in America today and you
[[Page 23495]]
are lucky enough to have unemployment insurance, you get about $230 a
week on which to live. Imagine for a moment, as you follow these
proceedings, what life would be like on $230 a week, trying to make
your mortgage or rental payment, pay utility bills, buy food for your
family, and provide for the necessities. It is very difficult.
Over half of the unemployed workers don't even have unemployment
insurance. They have left part-time jobs and they have no help. It is
no wonder we are finding that food pantries and kitchens for the poor
across America are being overwhelmed with those coming in asking for
help at the end of the year. It is important that we remember these
people as part of the stimulus package. Money given to these families
is money that will be spent on the necessities of life, and that would
be an expenditure that would not only help them but equally important,
spark the economy because they are going to be making purchases that
help retailers and producers of goods and services across America.
In addition, health insurance is one of the first casualties of an
unemployed family. And $500 or $600 a month for a COBRA plan, a private
health insurance plan, is beyond the reach of most families. Think for
a moment. If you are one of those lucky Americans, such as myself,
whose family is insured, what would it be like to know that tomorrow
your health insurance is gone; you are one accident or one illness away
from disaster?
We don't want that to happen to the families of the unemployed. That
is why the Democrats pushed hard to keep that in the package.
Let me tell you another thing we can do to spark the economy. We need
a tax cut that will have an immediate impact and is fair. One I have
talked about over the last several weeks--
Senator Domenici of New Mexico raised it as well--is a Federal tax
holiday. It means that for a month we would suspend the collection of
Federal payroll taxes on employees and employers across America. What
is the impact? If your family earns, say, $40,000 a year, it means that
in that month-long payroll tax holiday you would see an additional $250
in your paycheck, $250 at the end of the year for important purchases
for your family, for holiday purchases, for year-end purchases that you
might otherwise have put off.
The good thing about this approach is that it is fast, focused, and
it is fair. It not only helps workers, every worker who gets a payroll
check, it is going to help businesses, particularly small businesses.
Let me give you an illustration. If you had a small business with 100
employees, with each employee having an average income of $40,000, it
would mean for your small business, in that month-long holiday period,
an additional $25,000 in tax savings. Why does small business need
that? The last time I talked to people running a small business, they
told me, for example, the increase in health insurance premiums is
causing a real problem and hardship. So they can turn around and make
sure their employees are covered and also have this money through a tax
holiday.
This idea has strong bipartisan support. It certainly makes more
sense for us to spend the $30 billion involved in this proposal rather
than to put it on a tax cut for people in the highest income categories
in America. This payroll tax holiday, which I and Senator Domenici and
others support, would be focused on helping employees and employers
across America. We can do this. The Congress can enact it. We can say
to the American people, even before this holiday season comes to an
end, we are going to provide them a real tax cut and real tax relief.
I hope as part of our bipartisan package we can include this
provision. We can get this economy moving and do it in the right way,
and do it in a fair fashion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from
Illinois for his comments. I wish to associate myself with the comments
of both Senator Durbin and Senator Domenici, who are involved in
advocating common-sense approach to put money in people's pockets
immediately. I congratulate them for doing that.
I also rise to speak about what needs to happen in terms of economic
recovery and an economic stimulus package. I commend our leader,
Senator Daschle, for bringing together the leaders for discussions. I
thank the leaders on both sides of the aisle for sitting down together
to move this measure because we do need to move quickly on a stimulus
and recovery package. But we all know it has to be the right thing.
I am very concerned about what the House Republicans passed and the
fact their approach is so very different from what mainstream
economists are telling us needs to be done in terms of moving this
economy forward quickly. What we saw in the House was an attempt to
place into law another round of large tax cuts for the top 1 percent of
the public, and literally billions of dollars in tax cuts for the
largest multinational corporations--supply-side economics at its best--
hoping that it would trickle down somehow in time to help small
businesses, workers, professionals, middle-income people, somehow that
it would trickle down in order for people to be able to receive some
kind of assistance during this recession.
We know in the past that approach has not worked. I am here today to
encourage us to do what mainstream economists across the board have
suggested we do, which is to put something in place that is immediate,
temporary, and stimulates the economy by putting money directly into
people's pockets. I think the payroll tax holiday is one good way to do
that. It would certainly support small businesses.
We hear a lot of talk about big business in the Congress. Yet small
business is the fastest growing part of our economy, employing millions
of people. They, too, have been affected--many times more so by what
happened in terms of the recession. We need to make sure we are
focusing on support for small business, whether it is being able to
write off investments more quickly, whether it is a payroll tax
holiday. I think supporting small business in this equation is very
important.
I want to share some facts. We know that if we focus on those who
have lost their jobs, whether it is through the airline industry since
September 11 or other jobs in our economy, when we give dollars
directly to those who are unemployed, they turn around and buy
groceries for the family, school supplies, Christmas, or other holiday
gifts. Those activities are important to keep the economy going. It
moves the economy along, and it helps our families. It is a win-win
situation for everyone.
Studies have also shown that for every $1 invested in unemployment
insurance, we generate $2.15 in the gross domestic product. A 1999
study by the Department of Labor estimated that unemployment insurance
mitigated the real loss in GDP by 15 percent. That is real, that is
measurable, and it is an immediate stimulus to the economy. In the last
5 recessions, real loss of GDP was mitigated by 15 percent, and the
average peak number of jobs saved was 131,000 jobs.
Economists are telling us that this is not just about doing what is
fair; it is the best solution. It is the best way to stimulate the
economy. Joseph Stiglitz, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in
Economics, has stated: We should extend the duration and magnitude of
the benefits we provide to our unemployed. This is not only the fairest
proposal but also the most effective. It is the most effective for the
economy. People who become unemployed cut back on their expenditures.
Giving them more dollars will directly increase expenditures and
improve the economy.
We are talking about a demand-side approach. The Republicans in the
House of Representatives have said trickle-down economics, supply side,
that is the way to get the economy going. Economist after economist has
come forward to say the problem is not supply. In my State of Michigan
where
[[Page 23496]]
we make outstanding automobiles, trucks, and SUVs, we want folks to
purchase those vehicles. We know the problem is not supply; the problem
is demand and people having a job, having income, and being able to
purchase that vehicle. It is demand side, and that is what the
economists are all telling us.
I want to speak about the economy and why we need to expand the
unemployment insurance needs and modernize the system and why the
Senate Democratic approach is so important to women in our economy.
When we look at unemployment insurance today, only 23 percent of
unemployed women meet the current unemployment insurance eligibility
requirements. Only 23 percent of unemployed women meet the eligibility
requirements of unemployment insurance. Women who are heads of
households and families dependent upon two incomes are
disproportionately and unfairly affected by layoffs and by our current
unemployment system.
That is why the Senate Democrats have put forward a modernization of
unemployment compensation by covering both part-time and low-wage
workers. This proportionately helps women more than it does men because
women are more likely to be in part-time positions or in lower wage
positions.
Unfortunately, the administration plan and the House plan do nothing
to include part-time or low-wage workers. Sixty percent of low-income
workers are women and 70 percent of part-time workers are women.
I believe it is important for us to understand that those part-time
workers may be care giving for their children, may be care giving for a
mom, a dad, a gramps or grandma who need assistance. They are
fulfilling other family obligations while providing important income
for their family. They should not be left out of the economic picture.
When we are looking for ways to support the economy and working men and
women, we need to remember those women who are working part time or are
in low-wage professions.
Women are the majority of workers in industries that have been
hardest hit by the economic downturn: 56 percent of retail sales, 69
percent of restaurant and wait staff, 65 percent of kitchen workers, 79
percent of flight attendants.
I find it so disconcerting that here we are, long past September 11
when we immediately responded to the concerns--and I supported doing
that--of the airline industry to help them recover from what happened
on September 11, we have yet to pass a bill to support the people who
work in that industry.
We were promised that if we dealt with the industry first, we would
come back to those hundreds of thousands of airline industry-related
workers who had been laid off. Yet we have not done that. Again, we see
that this disproportionately affects women.
Also, women only earn 76 percent of men's median income, and women of
color earn 64 percent of the wages of working men. As a result, women
have a greater need for income replacement when they are unemployed. It
is important to note that we are talking about women who are providing
a significant percentage of their family income, in addition to caring
for their children and caring for older adults and all of the other
work in which women are involved. For poor female heads of households
who work part time, their earnings represent 91 percent of the family
income. If they lose their job, we are talking about 91 percent of the
family income disappearing. Failure to replace the wages of part-time
workers through unemployment insurance benefits detrimentally impacts
working women and their families.
This is about doing the right thing in stimulating the economy. It is
about coming up with ways that support small business, as well as
large, and our workers. It is about tax cuts that go to low- and
moderate-income people who will put that back into the economy.
Also, this is about making sure we remember the large part of our
workforce, our women, who are disproportionately affected by the
current unemployment system. It is designed in a way that unfairly
penalizes women who are working part time while caring for their
children and caring for loved ones at home or working in important but
very low-wage jobs.
This debate about stimulating the economy, about economic recovery,
is incredibly important for everyone. We need to keep an eye on the
fact that the policies we set may, in fact, have different results for
working women than for working men, and we need to remember women and
their families as we put together this economic recovery package.
I urge we do what is right, what is fair, and most importantly what
is effective, what the economists across this country have said we need
to do, put money into the pockets of working people and those who are
unemployed, and make sure we do not forget our small businesses as part
of this economic recovery process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Under the previous
order, the Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to address some of the issues my
distinguished friend from Michigan has been discussing. First of all,
not only can we not agree as to what belongs in the stimulus package,
we cannot seem to agree in the Senate, unfortunately, as to what our
priorities ought to be. We are a nation at war and in recession. Those
ought to be our priorities. Yet we are talking about railroad
retirement, we are talking about farm bills, everything but what we
ought to be discussing.
We ought to be talking about the issues my friend from Michigan has
raised concerning the stimulus package. I will address that for a few
moments myself. There is no doubt for some time now there has been
pretty much a consensus on the idea we need a stimulus package. Later
on in my remarks I will discuss further whether or not that is really
necessarily true. I think there has been a consensus, but there
certainly has been no consensus as to what we ought to do about it and
what belongs in it.
In fact, there is no consensus as to what in fact stimulates the
economy. Everybody has their own ideas. We have our own ideas in this
Chamber, and we state them authoritatively. But it is not only us, it
is the economists. We cannot really say the economists think this or
say that. They think everything and they say everything. They are on
all sides of all of these issues. So are businesspeople, labor people.
Remarkably, their economic philosophy seems to somewhat coincide with
their vested interest, which is not really different from the rest of
us, I suppose. That is the situation we are confronting.
I want to discuss for a moment where we are, examine the validity of
the ideas we are using in support of our positions in general terms,
and then discuss what we should do about it.
Assume for a moment this is not a political issue. One could make
that case. There have been a lot of disparaging remarks about certain
provisions in the House bill. There certainly have been a lot of
disparaging remarks about what came out of the Senate Finance
Committee, all the pork and unrelated items, but we can put that aside
for a moment. We can put aside the remarks of the former adviser to
President Clinton, who in a local publication said it is in the
Democrats' self-interest to defeat a stimulus package or not have one
because it might affect the economy negatively and President Bush would
get blamed for a negative economy. I do not think that is the way most
of my colleagues believe, but those thoughts exist.
Unfortunately, we do spend a little bit too much time in this body
talking about how to divide the pie instead of trying to figure out how
to make the pie bigger, who is going to get what. There is the tax-
cuts-for-the-rich rhetoric, of course, we all have heard, ignoring the
fact that 80 percent of the individual tax cuts would go to small
businesspeople who provided 80 percent of the new jobs over the last
decade.
I must say I find it somewhat ironic that every time we get into the
stimulus discussion, we talk about tax
[[Page 23497]]
breaks for the rich, when the same folks who make those arguments are
also promoting a farm bill where 10 percent of the richest people in
farming get 61 percent of the benefits. So tax cuts for the rich are
bad, but pork for the rich is good.
Let us set all that aside for a moment, take the political aspects
out of it, and talk about the economics of it. Basically, we have two
different economic views in this body--at least two main ones--as to
what in fact does stimulate the economy. We each make statements as to
what will stimulate it and what will not, but we never provide any
authority or any evidence or any historical precedence for what we are
saying.
There are four or more proposals now before us: The House bill, the
Senate Finance bill, the President's bill, a compromise that is being
worked on; a lot of things in common among all of those bills: Rebates
for low-income folks, additional unemployment benefits, health care
provisions. We disagree on the amounts of those, but those are pretty
much common to all of these proposals, and if a stimulus package
passes, that is going to be in there. That is where the similarity
breaks down and the division begins.
There is nothing wrong with philosophical divisions. That is why we
have elections, and that is why we have parties. Everyone is entitled
to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their facts or their
history. Let us examine which side is supported by history or precedent
or facts and which is not.
On our side of the aisle, we basically think the majority of the
package ought to be tax cuts for the private sector, working men and
women who are carrying the load and paying the taxes, and that includes
a speed-up of the reduction of the individual tax rates. That way,
people can get not just an extra check in their pocket one time, but
they can rely on a tax system that is going to be lower, and they can
look at it in the future and base their conduct, whether it is
additional work or additional investment, on a tax code that has been
changed to their benefit on out into the future, not just a check but a
change of policy. That is what we believe.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle basically seem to think
the way to stimulate the economy is spending by the Federal Government,
and therein lie the differences and the debate. Our friends on the
other side of the aisle and some on our side, and many in the media and
some economists, point out we need to get money into the hands of the
consumer by means of the Federal Government, which incidentally is
money that either has to be borrowed or on which people have to be
taxed. That is where the Federal Government gets its money and
redistributes it to others in the form of checks which they will
immediately spend.
The argument goes, the lower the income level, the more likely they
are to spend it. So getting checks into the hands of consumers will
stimulate the economy. The problem is there is not any evidence to
support that proposition. I know it is often said. It might even be
considered to be common wisdom at this stage of the game. But I submit
all of the evidence and historical precedent indicate Federal spending
programs designed to grow the economy have not proven to be successful.
What are my citations for that? I am accusing other folks of not
giving their reasons, historical precedent or evidence. ``Thompson,
what are your citations?'' one might say. I cite studies prepared by
the Joint Economic Committee back in 1988. I cite the 1930s, when in an
attempt to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression, we saw a
percentage of the gross domestic product in this country almost triple
while unemployment doubled.
I cite the case of Japan. They have been trying to do this
fordecades--spend themselves into prosperity. They have had 10 separate
spending stimulus packages in the 1990s, to no effect. France and
Sweden have had similar problems. I ask, if in fact we really run our
economy based on an ATM principle, where we have it figured out, that
we have to put in our card, our solution, our congressional solution,
and out comes the result we want, why do we ever tolerate recession
anyway? Why do we not print some more money? Why do we not send out
some more checks? Why do we ever sustain the average recession of 11
months? Why do we go that long if that is the solution? It is an easy
solution and an easy one to understand. I submit it is because it has
not proven to work.
On the idea the poor will spend more, there is no historical evidence
for that either. It might seem logical, but a lot of things that seem
logical are not borne out in real practice. The last time we sent
checks out, 18 percent of people spent them. According to the
Presidential adviser, Mr. Hubbard, I was reading the other day he says
all the economic evidence is that people spend at various income
levels. People basically spend the same percentage. We already have the
budget with $686 billion in spending, an additional $40 billion that
has been allocated, and an additional $15 billion in airline support.
Certainly, when we hear of economists saying this is a solution, you
would not want to include Mr. Greenspan in that category. He doesn't
say that spending is the way to do this. He says if we do it, we cannot
do it fast enough to have any effect anyway. In fact, by the time it
kicks in, by the time our governmental spending kicks in and the checks
get in the mail, are received and spent, even if it works the way we
want it to, it will be too late. If the average recession lasts 11
months--and ours started last March--we are going to have to hurry up
or the doggone recession will be over before we act and we will not get
credit for anything. There is no way we can possibly have anything that
affects the economy by next February or spring. We could assist it if
we did exactly the right thing. Is it worth $100 billion under those
circumstances, when we cannot agree on the components? I question that.
What about the other side? I have been talking about the philosophy
of Federal spending being the answer to stimulating the economy. What
about this side of the aisle? As to the idea that the private sector is
the source of the solution for recession and that tax cuts, and
especially marginal rate cuts, is an integral part of that, what about
the evidence for that? I submit the historical evidence to support that
proposition is just as clear as the historical evidence that fails to
support the Federal Government spending proposition.
The evidence is, those kinds of tax cuts not only grow the economy
but they produce more revenue to the Federal Government. President
Kennedy pointed that out. He said: It is not a matter of either tax
cuts or higher deficits; the more you cut taxes, the more revenue you
will generate. Of course, he was right.
Incidentally, the rich pay more as a percentage of the taxes paid
when you have the marginal rate tax cuts than beforehand. At every
level it is borne out, and especially marginal rate reductions, which
encourage work, encourage investment, are the kinds of action that get
the economy going. Sending someone a check to buy a pair of gym shoes
will be momentarily beneficial to somebody, I suppose, but that is not
the kind of policy that strengthens our economy or causes that money to
recirculate or to be there for a longer period of time.
What is my historical evidence? I refer to the 1920s, the 1960s and
the 1980s. During those periods, the country went with that approach.
In every instance, we had more economic growth, more revenue to the
Federal Government, and the richer paid a higher percentage of the
taxes that were paid in terms of dollars. From 1961 to 1968, the
economy expanded 42 percent because of President Kennedy's tax cuts,
over 5 percent a year. I would settle for that. We could use a little
of that right now.
When you look at the package from the Finance Committee or what is
being talked about in the Chamber by my friends on the other side of
the aisle, the best I can figure is, only 20 to 25 percent of the
possibly $100 billion package would in any way justify being called
stimulative, if you look at the evidence and do not just pick this
economist's statement who is aligned
[[Page 23498]]
philosophically with one group or another economist aligned with
another group or someone who comports with our own philosophy.
My concern is that in all this compromise language talk, we will say,
OK, let's do what we often do around here and take both of them: Have
the tax cuts and additional spending. That is what got us in trouble
before. We do not need to go that way. Not only would it not be good,
it would be harmful.
We will need that revenue. If we had good reason to believe such an
approach that just gave pennies on the dollar to stuff that would be
stimulative, and the rest would make us feel good and help us with
certain voters in certain segments of the economy--we are all concerned
about the unemployed. I am as concerned about unemployed in Tennessee
as unemployed in New York. They are all unemployed and all deserve our
consideration, and they will under these bills, but they will not
stimulate the economy.
We have only begun to assess the costs of what happened in September.
We know now almost overnight not only will we have to spend a whole lot
more in our defense budget, but we have law enforcement, public health
facilities, nuclear facilities, government buildings, Border Patrol,
post offices, airports, mass transit. Those are all directly at the
feet of the Government and the private sector. We have handling of the
mail, insurance costs, transportation costs. Somebody said it is not
that ``just in time'' philosophy with the average business, it is
``just in case'' philosophy. That will cost money. Slowing
globalization has hit a lot of company pockets; computer security--all
these things cost a lot of money in the public and private sectors.
Unless we are very sure what we are doing with $100 billion or $85
billion, we should not do it.
Now the OMB Director says we will be in deficit at least until 2005.
If we cannot at least get half of a stimulus package that stimulates
the economy, we should not do it. We do not know how long the recession
will be. If it is average, we have already bottomed out and are working
our way back. Nobody knows for sure. But we do know retail sales are
up, unemployment stabilized, low oil prices, and interest rate
reductions have put more money into the consumer's hands faster than
the Federal Government could. The stock market is not doing too badly.
We should give ourselves a chance. There is a good argument to be
made that we can do the right thing, have policy that stimulates the
economy, which is the private sector, and a large portion has to be tax
cuts and rate reductions which are tried and true. We can also make
some compromises and do some things in terms of spending that many
think are not stimulative but within the bounds of political reality,
realizing that has to be part of the package, and have a decent mix and
maybe do some good. Anything less than that, I fear, would do harm.
I hope the President draws the line and says something to the effect,
if part of this package cannot be stimulative, I will veto it. I think
that is a position we ought to take. I don't think we have been talking
about this for so long and the markets are so convinced and have been
convinced that this is what we are going to do and it is such a great
idea. I don't think they are paying that much attention to us in that
regard. I don't think that train is down the track that far that we
have to pass something, regardless. I will not vote for something
``regardless'' that is, in the long term interests, detrimental to the
economy of this Nation. But it will be unfortunate if we do not have
the opportunity to do something that would be beneficial and come
together on something that would be beneficial.
I still hope we will be able to do that because I think that would be
the best solution for the economy and for the Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wonder if the senior Senator, the
distinguished Senator from Tennessee, would respond to a question.
Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.
Mr. CORZINE. I wonder if the Senator is familiar with the Federal
Reserve's view of how they model or look at the economy, and how tax
cuts and spending cuts work through the economy. We just had a Joint
Economic Committee meeting yesterday in preparation for that. We went
back and looked at some of their models which are based on statistics
and observations through time.
When you were commenting earlier, I thought it would be worthwhile if
I mentioned that, at least according to the Federal Reserve's models,
spending has a multiplier effect of 1.4 times in the first year
relative to tax cuts, which have about a half of 1 percent impact in
the first year.
Sometimes when you drag those out over a longer period, you catch up
with the benefits of taxes, depending on the nature of them. But there
is solid evidence in the economic community, and I think among the
Federal Reserve, that spending can have and often does have meaningful
multiplier effects on the economy. That is why so many people would
argue, and I think they would argue based on fact, or at least data,
that there is reason to believe that spending does have a positive
impact on the economy.
Mr. THOMPSON. I will respond to my friend that I do not doubt that. I
do not know the details of how they do that. I am aware that they do
it. I do not doubt, as I have indicated, someone, going down at the
micro level, going down and getting a check and buying some goods has
some effect; that a lot of people doing that might not have some
effect.
I think the difference has to do with short term versus long term.
The history I have read on the subject concerning a concerted effort by
the Government, with Federal spending programs over a period of time--
whether it be the United States in the 1930s, or Japan for the last
decade--has not proved beneficial, has not brought about growth. So we
might be talking about the difference between microeconomics and
macroeconomics. I am not sure. I do not dispute the statistic that the
Senator gave, but I think the studies that were done from the Joint
Economic Committee back in 1998 is the other side of that coin.
Mr. CORZINE. Would the Senator comment on whether he believes
unemployment benefits tend to get expended or not in the process of
going to people who have lost their jobs? Do you think that goes to
savings? Is that what I am reading you to say?
Mr. THOMPSON. No, I think you can assume in most cases, if you are
talking about that very small part of the economy that has to do with
unemployment benefits, that those checks probably are spent.
My concern, I suppose, is that if you expand that concept, then why
not send everybody a check. A lot of people laughed at Senator McGovern
several years ago--what was the size of the check he wanted to send
everybody, $1000? Why not extrapolate that concept, if the concept is
the solution?
I think there is some factual validity to what you are saying. But I
am saying if you expand that concept in terms of the overall economy,
the evidence is not there to support it.
If it is that simple, if that is the solution, why do we ever put up
with a recession? When we first see one, why don't we decide to whom we
want to send the checks and get it over with and the economy will
bounce back?
Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator. I
think there really is--the point that I was trying to make--some
evidence that spending does have meaningful impact on the growth of the
economy. I will make sure I send you over a copy of the Federal Reserve
Bulletin's commentary on this so you can get a sense of what this is
about.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the recess be
postponed until 1 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 5 months ago, America had a projected
budget surplus of $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. The stock
market was
[[Page 23499]]
soaring. The question before us was one that most leaders could only
dream of: ``What should be we with out prosperity?''
At that time, we came to this floor to debate our Nation's fiscal
future--how could we sustain that hard-won prosperity, meet our great
unmet needs, and, yes, provide meaningful tax relief for millions of
American families.
Democrats put forward a balanced plan that maintained our fiscal
discipline, while at the same time making sound investments in our
children, our health, and our security, and provide tax relief.
Because we recognized how fragile and inaccurate budget projections
are, we left room to deal with an economic downturn or an unforeseen
emergency.
Unfortunately, our approach was not the one that prevailed.
Instead of a balanced and fiscally responsible plan, we ended up with
one so top-heavy with tax cuts, it left little room for other
investments, and no flexibility for a change in circumstances.
I made no secret of the fact that I was unhappy with that debate, and
its outcome. But based on the administration's predictions--and
assurances--that we could afford such cuts without running into
deficits or shortchanging our priorities, the majority of my colleagues
voted for it.
Early this morning, just several months after receiving those
assurances, and several months into the administration's 10-year plan,
we now learn that the White House budget director is predicting that
our government is likely to run budget deficits until 2005. This is a
stark reversal from the situation this administration inherited less
than a year ago.
This is a marked departure from the rosy predictions we were being
offered just months ago.
So, how did this happen? Let's start with how it did not happen.
As deeply as the September 11 attacks impact our lives, our security,
and our economy--they are not responsible for the fiscal situation in
which we now find ourselves.
While the attacks of September 11 seemed to change everything in a
moment, the economic trends before September 11 were clear.
As a panel of economists announced earlier this week, our economy had
officially entered a recession in March.
Neither does our current situation have to do with congressional
spending.
We have not spent a dollar more than what the President and the
Congress agreed to, either in the course of the normal appropriations
process, or in response to the events of September 11--not a dollar.
Although we have taken a great deal of action in the aftermath of
these attacks--supporting the President's use of force in Afghanistan,
keeping the airlines solvent, giving law enforcement additional tools
to combat terrorism, and strengthening airport security--to date, we
have actually spent less than $40 billion. So why are we now facing
deficits when just months ago we were looking at years of surpluses?
Regrettably, what we feared then is what we are faced with now. The
economic plan that was passed ate up nearly two-thirds of what was an
optimistic prediction of our 10-year surplus. It left no room for an
economic slowdown, or an unanticipated emergency.
As Robert Reischauer, the former Director of the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office said:
Had we not had the tax cut, it's likely that we would have
skated along with close to a balanced budget, despite the
costs of the war and the effort to contain terrorism.
Even more ominously, the administration warned that decisions about
taxes and spending in the next year ``will determine whether we ever
see another surplus.''
Despite the fact that some of us did not approve of the plan that got
us here, all of us should now work together to make sure that we pass
an economic recovery plan that helps--rather than exacerbates--the
problem.
As we consider a package to stimulate the economy, we need to be
extremely careful to pursue a policy that is temporary, truly
stimulative, and--now more than ever--fiscally responsible.
As I look at the Republican proposals, I am disappointed to see that
they are based on tax cuts that fail these simple yet essential tests,
and they do little or nothing for the dislocated workers who most need
our help.
In the weeks since September 11, Democrats and Republicans have been
able to work together in a way that I haven't seen in all my time in
Washington.
Our ability to speak together and work together is one of the
reasons, I believe, we have been able do so much, so quickly, in
response to the attacks and the continuing terrorist threat. The fiscal
outlook we are now facing is as serious as anything we have faced to
date.
We need to renew that same spirit, if we are to address this problem
as well.
Right now, we have an opportunity to help those who are hurting, and
lift our economy in the process.
It is an opportunity we cannot afford to lose.
I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor because I do fear
with these economic projections--we have said on several occasions we
knew the real possibility existed--that we will revert right back to
the bad old days of deficits and huge new debt. I never dreamed it
would be this soon. I never dreamed we would be talking in the third
quarter--now the fourth quarter of this calendar year and the first
quarter of the new fiscal year--that we would have deficits well into
the third year beyond this year.
That ought to be as strong an indication as we ever need that what we
did last spring was a mistake; that what we did in economic policy with
the passage of that tax cut was a disaster, not only for our economy
but for our ability now to respond to the array of challenges we face
in the aftermath of the crisis of September 11.
How sad it is that the legacy of the last 8 years did not last longer
than a few months. I am very hopeful we will take to heart the
admonition of the Budget Committee chairman who has asked every Member
of our Senate body to look very carefully at the report made by the OMB
Director, to look at it with the recognition that, as we face these
other additional challenges, whether it is the economic stimulus plan
or the array of other challenges we face as we meet the needs of our
current situation in fighting terrorism, that we do so prudently and
with the recognition that a major mistake was made last spring.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, are we under an earlier
agreement for a time limit?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Senator Carnahan will
have 10 minutes, but there is not a particular sequence.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of Senator Carnahan's remarks I be granted 10 minutes in
morning business, and following the conclusion of my remarks Senator
Reed be granted 10 minutes, and that the time be charged against
postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we are to recess at
1 o'clock. Is the Senator asking to extend that time?
Mr. DAYTON. No. I am not asking to extend the time. Maybe the Chair
could clarify exactly what we are in.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 16 minutes remaining before the recess
time. Under the previous order, the Senator from Missouri is recognized
for 10 minutes. That leaves 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that order be
modified: That at the conclusion of Senator Carnahan's remarks, I be
granted 10 minutes to speak as in morning business, after which Senator
Reed be granted 10 minutes to speak in morning business, the time be
charged against postcloture, and the time for the recess be extended
until the completion of Senator Reed's remarks.
[[Page 23500]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am very encouraged to hear that the
leadership has begun negotiations regarding the stimulus package.
Congress has been paralyzed on this issue for weeks now. And while we
sat here at an impasse, economists confirmed that our Nation is in a
recession.
We must act quickly to jump start our slowing economy. It is well
past time for us to find common ground.
As we seek compromise, I encourage my colleagues to keep in mind the
goal of a stimulus package.
In order to truly promote economic growth, the policies we approve
should take effect immediately, they should have a temporary cost, and
they should focus on those individuals and businesses most likely to
spend and invest additional cash.
These are the bipartisan principles that we started with. These
principles ought to guide our negotiations now.
A wide range of proposals will be on the table for this negotiation.
The Republicans have a plan, and the Democrats have a plan. The
Centrist Coalition has its own proposal.
From among all these ideas, we must put together a balanced,
reasonable package.
In the end, the stimulus package needs to promote business
investment, spur consumer demand, and assist those Americans who have
lost their livelihoods during this recession.
Shortly before Thanksgiving, Senator Domenici, with the support of my
colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, added a new and interesting idea
to the debate. They suggested that Congress should provide a payroll
tax holiday for the month of December. This idea has some merit. It
would distribute benefits across a broad range of taxpayers, including
most individuals who earn less than $80,000 a year. And it would
provide needed cash to businesses based on the size of their payrolls.
However, the question remains:
How does this new idea fit into the overall stimulus debate?
It has been suggested that a payroll tax holiday could substitute for
proposed rebate checks to low-income workers.
I have serious reservations about such a tradeoff.
Rebate checks of $300 would go to low-income workers who have not yet
received any tax refund this year.
Let me give you an example.
A single mother working full time at a minimum wage job would
probably be eligible for a $500 rebate check. This money could help her
put food on the table, or cover the rent, or keep her old car going a
few months more.
However, under the Social Security tax holiday, she would receive
about $50 worth of tax relief--not enough to make a real difference.
That is not a fair trade.
I am sure that the single mother who is struggling to make ends meet
would not consider that a good deal.
This is not to say that the payroll tax holiday has no place in a
stimulus package. Rather, I simply suggest that it is not an
appropriate substitute for tax relief for our lowest income workers.
In spite of this observation, I think that the payroll holiday may
have a place in the stimulus package. The payroll tax holiday has the
benefit of providing assistance to both workers and businesses. It is
therefore appropriate that it be included in place of other individual
and business tax cuts under consideration.
I propose that the payroll tax holiday is appropriate in lieu of two
proposals in the House bill: The acceleration of the 28 percent tax
rate cut, and the repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, or
AMT.
Let us first look at the impact of my suggestion for individuals.
Under current law, the 28 percent tax bracket is scheduled to be
reduced to 25 percent by 2006. It has been proposed that it would be
stimulative to implement this cut next year. This tax cut would benefit
married couples filing jointly with income over $45,000, and
individuals who earn more than $27,000. This is approximately one-
quarter of all income tax payers.
On the other hand, a payroll tax holiday will help almost all
taxpayers.
Americans are subject to payroll taxes on the first $80,400 of income
per year.
In other words, every worker who has earned less than about $80,000
by the end of November would get a tax break. And very importantly, the
payroll tax break is immediate and temporary.
If we accelerate the rate cuts next year, it will still cost us money
in 2003, in 2004, and in 2005.
In all, over the next 10 years the accelerated tax cuts could cost
$78 billion. But only the money put into workers' hands now can
stimulate the economy. The payroll tax holiday would inject more money
into the economy now. It would cost less in the long run than
accelerating rate cuts. And it would benefit a much greater number of
workers. In short, the payroll tax holiday meets our basic principles
for stimulus and accelerating rate cuts simply does not.
Now I will discuss the impact of my suggestion for corporations. The
House-passed stimulus bill and the proposal made by Senator Grassley
would repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax. Elimination of this
tax would cost approximately $25 billion next year.
Let's be clear. This is a tax paid by profitable corporations that
would otherwise pay no tax at all. By contrast, a payroll tax holiday
would benefit all corporations.
Under current law, corporations pay a Social Security payroll tax
equal to 6.2 percent of each employee's income up to $80,400 per year.
With a payroll tax holiday for the month of December, these businesses
would save $19 billion.
This is additional cash infused into virtually all businesses. It
would help our small businesses, the true engine of our economy. The
size of the tax benefit is linked directly to the wages the company is
paying to its employees. This tax cut would make it easier for
businesses to keep workers on their payrolls, and that is the whole
goal of this stimulus package, to keep America working.
Congress ought to act quickly to reinvigorate this country. In order
to do so, we must be willing to compromise. While I may not think that
a payroll tax holiday is the perfect way to stimulate our economy, I
understand compromise, and I am willing to support Senator Domenici's
proposal, if it is offered in place of these other tax cuts that are
unpalatable to me.
This is a compromise that makes sense to me. It makes sense to that
single mother who is trying to make ends meet. It makes sense to most
businesses which would not benefit from a repeal of the corporate AMT.
And it makes basic sense, based on the principles that were laid out by
the House and Senate Budget Committees at the beginning of this year,
that the effects of the stimulus be temporary, immediate, and focused
on those most likely to spend the investment.
I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this sensible
compromise.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, during the last few weeks we have all
heard about and discussed many ideas and proposals for inclusion in the
economic stimulus legislation. In fact, one of our difficulties is we
have so many meritorious proposals that we could not possibly fit them
all in, even if we could all agree on them.
One proposal of which I have heard recently, and one I believe may
have merit, deals with tax provisions which apply to many families and
small businesses throughout the country. Many were taxed for years
under subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code. In recent years, with
the liberalization of the rules under subchapter S of the code, many of
these businesses have elected a sub S status, which means, in general,
all corporate income is taxed at the shareholder level, not to the
corporation as a separate legal entity.
One exception to this rule applies to built-in gains which are taxed
at the
[[Page 23501]]
corporate level in full and at the shareholder level in full for 10
years after a C corporation converts to an S corporation.
The original and primary purpose of this tax on built-in gains was to
prevent C corporation shareholders from converting to subcorporation
status and thereafter immediately being able to liquidate or mix
corporate distributions with only the single level of taxation
applicable to an S corporation as opposed to the double layer taxation
applicable to a C corporation.
Unfortunately, however, this proper purpose also prevents the
shareholders of an S corporation from selling corporate assets without
incurring a double tax even if the proceeds are not distributed to
shareholders but instead are reinvested in the business to help create
new jobs and stimulate the U.S. economy.
This tax burden makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many
families and small businesses that have elected S status to access the
capital of the business to help stimulate our economy.
This proposal would provide for the elimination of the built-in gain
tax where the entire proceeds of the sale are reinvested in the
business. In other words, it would permit the business owners to do
what we should want any good business to do as much and as often as
possible: expand the business and create new jobs. That should be the
foundation of our economic stimulus legislation. It will also be the
foundation of our national economic recovery.
All of us know that small businesses provide most of the jobs in
America. Their abilities to do so have been longstanding concerns of
Republican and Democratic Members of this Senate body for many years.
When I worked as a legislative assistant in 1975 and 1976 for one of
Minnesota's greatest Senators, Walter Mondale, one of my areas of
responsibility was to staff him on the Senate Small Business Committee.
The committee operated then, as I understand it does now, largely in
the spirit of bipartisan cooperation to help encourage and assist in
the creation and growth of as many American businesses as possible.
This proposal presents us with an important opportunity to take
another step in that direction.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 39 seconds
remaining.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I also wish to express my strongest possible support
of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. I
would like to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch for offering this
important legislation.
My office has received hundreds of calls and letters from current and
retired railroad employees. From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Brainerd
to Duluth--from everywhere in Minnesota--railroad retirees and current
railroad employees understand the critical need to pass this
legislation now.
My very good friend Tom Dwyer, originally from Hibbing, MN, has been
working on railroad retirement issues since 1973. He also was a clerk
for different railroad companies for 35 years until he retired in 1997.
Tom is now the legislative director for the National Association of
Retired and Veteran Railway Employees.
Advocating for retired railroad workers, widows, and widowers is
Tom's life work. He reminds me that this debate is not over Government
money. This bill is about the pensions that workers have paid into this
fund. It is their money.
Throughout our country, there are 673,000 railroad retirees and
families and about 245,000 active rail workers. Minnesota's Eighth
Congressional District, up in the northeastern part of our State, ranks
10th in the Nation in the number of retired and active railroad
employees. Throughout our State there are over 18,000 retirees and
their families depending on railroad retirement benefits.
In addition, over 5,500 Minnesotans are presently working for the
railroads. They will eventually need pensions for their retirement.
All of these fine men and women have worked hard, and they all
deserve the best possible retirement program. They know better than we
what kind of retirement program is best for them. They paid in the
money, out of their paychecks, for all their working years, and all
they are asking us to do now, by passing this legislation, is to return
to them their money in a way that is best for them.
What could be controversial about that? Which one of us, if we were
in their shoes, would not want the same and think we deserve it. They
are right. And they do deserve it.
This bipartisan legislation presents a historic opportunity for our
Nation's railroad retirement system. Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch
deserve tremendous credit, and they have my gratitude, for bringing
together railroad companies, labor organizations, and retirees to work
together to modernize this system. The result of all that hard work is
this legislation, which provides better and more secure benefits, and
which does so at a lower cost. What could be better than that?
I say, let's vote on this bill today and pass it.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that, at
the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Gregg be recognized for 10
minutes, and upon the conclusion of his remarks, the Senate stand in
recess under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am privileged to serve as the vice
chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. The Democratic staff of the
Joint Economic Committee issued a very pressing report about America's
economy. I would like to read from the first paragraph of the Executive
Summary.
New reports from the Bush Administration's Office of
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office
confirm that the combination of the large tax cut and the
worsened economic situation have essentially eliminated any
expected on-budget surplus for the next five years. Indeed,
there is a growing possibility that the government's fiscal
position could be even worse, with no surplus at all by the
end of the decade and with a national debt that might be even
higher in ten years than it is now.
What is particularly prescient about this report is the fact that it
was not issued this morning, hours after Mr. Daniels of OMB declared
that the fiscal policies of this administration have locked this
Government into deficits for the next several years. This report was
issued on September 7, 2001.
It is also interesting to note that this report suggests very
strongly, prior to the attack on America on September 11, that the
fiscal policies of this administration had headed us down a road to
deficit after deficit after deficit.
The attack on September 11 was a dreadful assault on this country,
but it is not the cause of the current deficit we are staring at over
the next several years. It may have accelerated the timing, but the
fundamental core was the irresponsible tax policies of this
administration.
If we look across several years, we see a situation where our
colleagues on the other side resisted, in 1993, President Clinton's
plan, which mercifully passed by a very narrow margin, which set the
fiscal context, together with monetary policy, for the largest
expansion of our economy perhaps in our history. Yet when this party
came to power, not only in the Senate and the House but in 2001 in the
Presidency, it took them a scant 9 to 10 months to reverse years of
economic progress and prosperity and cast us back again into deficit
after deficit after deficit.
The consequences are severe. We are approaching critical choices
about Social Security and Medicare. Just a year ago, we had surpluses
which we could use to make these difficult choices. Those surpluses are
gone. But the demographic timebomb of the baby boomers is not gone. It
will be here. It is virtually on our doorstep. So we now have to
respond to these issues bereft of a surplus that was hard-earned over
years of effort during the 1990s.
[[Page 23502]]
There is something else, obviously, that is one of the direct
consequences of September 11. We are at war. This is a war that will
demand increased expenditures which we cannot decline to make, not just
in the military operations, which are expensive inherently, but if we
are not to repeat the mistakes that were made previously in the area of
Southwest Asia. We have to maintain a presence there. We have to be one
of the international participants to help in the reconstruction of
Afghanistan. We have to take steps across the globe to eliminate other
terrorist threats, sometimes more sinister than the dreadful events we
saw in New York.
We have to recognize there are loose nuclear materials around the
world, particularly in Russia, loose biological agents around the
world. All of these things will cost money. And the war on terror will
not end simply with the defeat of al-Qaida. It will be a constant
ongoing battle, perhaps akin to the Cold War--increased expenditures
now, because of this tax cut policy, without the benefit of a surplus.
There is something else we must recognize. We are looking at short-
run economic consequences of this tax policy. But what is going to
happen in the next several months and days and years ahead is that the
administration's response will be OK, we can't shun funding defense. We
will have to cut back in every other area of effort.
The key to our long-run economic prosperity is the productivity of
America. That productivity is not simply machines and tools and
computers. It is human capital. It is healthy, educated Americans who
can use these tools, who can invent new tools, who can continue this
growth. When we cut education and when we refuse to fund special
education and when we go ahead and cut back on health care and we do
all these things, we are harming our long-run productivity.
That is the dilemma we are in today. It is a dilemma that was
entirely avoidable by a more responsible fiscal policy of this
administration.
There is no surprise about Mr. Daniels' announcement yesterday.
Perhaps the only shock, if you will, was the timing. It was inevitable
after we passed this tax cut. Now as we go forward, we are seeing the
consequences. Those consequences will be very difficult to bear. What
is worse than that, our colleagues are compounding this terrible
situation by advancing the same policies in the guise of a stimulus
package: Accelerating marginal tax cuts further and proposing corporate
AMT that is retroactive. That is not going to get this economy moving.
That will simply make the hole we are in much, much deeper and the
climb out much steeper and longer and harder, particularly for working
Americans.
Again, there should be no surprise about Mr. Daniels' announcement,
but there should be surprise, shock, and perhaps even anger, that
having brought us down this path, they refuse to see the error of their
ways. They refuse to recognize that, yes, we do need a stimulus package
but one that would truly stimulate the economy by getting consumers
back in the marketplace, by ensuring that middle- and low-income
working Americans get access to additional dollars that they will spend
quite quickly. We must in fact protect ourselves through increased
expenditures on homeland defense.
I hope yesterday's announcement represents not just waking up to the
reality of their policies but changing the policies, that in working
collectively with the leaders in the House and in the Senate to script
and craft a fiscal package that will move America forward, we will
begin our slow climb out of this deficit situation. But there should be
no confusion about the fundamental cause of our current economic
situation--a precipitous collapse from surpluses to deficits. It was an
unwise, irresponsible tax plan promoted and proposed by the President
and regrettably accepted by this Congress.
I hope the searing news that Mr. Daniels gave us yesterday will
provide something more than heat, that will provide a little
illumination to those who seek to lead this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Hampshire is recognized for 10 minutes.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of
the problems we have had over the last few months, which is a failure
of the majority party to address the issue of nominations sent up by
the President. This failure has been most blatant, of course, in the
area of judicial nominations where we now have well over 100 openings
in the judiciary which have not been filled, which is an extraordinary
number, especially when you put it in context of the prior
administration. It is almost 100 percent larger than what the prior
administration experienced under a Republican Senate.
There are also, independent of the judiciary nominations, a number of
other nominations critical to the operation of the Government which are
being held up by the majority party.
I rise to speak to one specifically. That is the nomination of Eugene
Scalia to be the solicitor of the Department of Labor. Most people have
never heard of the term or the individual solicitor of the Department
of Labor. It is, however, a significant position within a significant
department.
It is the fair arbiter of the laws within the Labor Department. It is
the place at which the Government represents its cases, the individual
who carries forward a great deal of the policy of the Government, as it
has been set forth by the Congress and the Executive.
Why is Mr. Scalia not being brought to the floor? First off, you have
to understand that it is not because the nomination hasn't been
pending. The nomination has now been pending for 213 days. That is the
longest period of time that any nomination has been pending around this
body. Ironically, I think the reason it is not being brought forward is
that it is tied to something that occurred 351 days ago, and that was
the case of Gore v. Bush, or Bush v. Gore--the issue settled in the
Supreme Court as to how the Florida law would be applied and the prior
election, therefore, resolved. You see, Eugene Scalia, through family
ties, appears to be tied to that case by the majority in the Senate.
There is a lot of frustration about that case on the other side of
the aisle. Many of my colleagues, with great energy, believe it was
decided the wrong way. Many have taken it personally, I suspect.
Obviously, they have taken it personally because they are applying it
personally in the case of Eugene Scalia, a relative to one of the
decisionmakers in that process --of course, Justice Anthony Scalia--and
who was one of the majority in the decision of Bush v. Gore. Well,
Eugene Scalia is his son.
So we now have a scenario where the son has come up for a nomination
to serve in the Government. I suppose you can argue, well, maybe he is
not being approved because he was sent up quickly. I pointed out it was
313 days ago. You may argue he is not qualified. Actually, he is
extraordinarily well qualified. He is one of the finest attorneys in
the area of labor law in the country. In fact, five former Solicitors
General of the Department of Labor have said he is unquestionably an
extraordinarily qualified individual. To quote them, they say:
We are unaware of any prior solicitor nominee with his
combination of academic accomplishment, prolific writing on
labor and employment matters, and many years of practice as a
labor and employment lawyer.
That is five prior Solicitors of the Department. They have said this
is a great nomination. It is not because he holds views that are
antithetical or inappropriate to the position. In fact, he strongly is
supported by some of the leading civil rights attorneys in this
country; for example, William Coleman, who is one of the leading civil
rights attorneys in our Nation's history, said that Eugene Scalia would
be among the best lawyers who have ever held the important position--
the position of Solicitor of the Department of Labor. He went on to
say:
[[Page 23503]]
Eugene Scalia is a bright, sophisticated lawyer whose
writings are well within the mainstream of ideas.
So he is not being attacked because he doesn't have the ability. He
has all the ability you could possibly want. In fact, it is great that
we can attract people of his talent and capability to public service.
No, Eugene Scalia--Scalia the younger--is being attacked because of
Scalia the elder. You might say, well, maybe he came up too quickly. We
pointed out that isn't right.
Maybe he doesn't qualify. That is not true either.
Maybe he holds outrageous opinions. Actually, during the hearing
process, the only significant attack made on his writings was a
disagreement over his position on ergonomics. Eugene Scalia committed
the ``cardinal sin'' of opposing the ergonomics rule as put forward by
OSHA, so he was aggressively attacked during the hearings--not
personally but on that issue relative to policy.
Well, that is OK. You can disagree with him on that policy point, but
you have to acknowledge that on that policy point he agreed with the
majority of the Congress. The Congress found the regulation that was
promulgated by OSHA to be too officious, bureaucratic,
counterproductive, and we--the Senate and the House of
Representatives--threw the regulation out.
In my experience in the Congress, that has only occurred once or
twice. We as a Congress actually rejected the regulation of OSHA on the
issue of ergonomics, confirming the arguments that the younger Mr.
Scalia had made on that issue.
So it is pretty hard to come to the floor with a straight face and
say this man should not be confirmed as Solicitor of the Department of
Labor because he took a position on ergonomics, when that position was
consistent with the position taken by the Congress earlier this year.
No, regrettably, the younger Scalia is being held hostage because of
attitudes toward the elder Scalia. That isn't the way we should govern.
We should not prejudice an individual because of their race, their
ethnic background, their gender, and we certainly should not prejudice
an individual because they happen to be the son of an individual who
some people do not agree with and who feel antipathy towards.
Eugene Scalia's nomination should be brought to the floor of this
Senate. If people want to vote against him, that is their right. Then
if he is defeated on the floor of the Senate, so be it. But let's not
shuttle him off and hold him hostage to try to make a point to his
father. That is not right and that is what is being done by the
leadership of this Senate at this time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 3:30 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 1:17 p.m. recessed until 3:31 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper).
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The assistant majority leader.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be
in a period for morning business from now until 4:30 p.m., that the
time be divided equally, and that at 4:30 the Senate go in recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any time that
is used be charged against the 30 hours under postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
____________________
PROUD NEW YORKERS
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for their
understanding for my State and my city of New York over the last 2
months. I particularly thank the majority leader, the Senator from
South Dakota; the majority whip, the Senator from Nevada; the Senator
from Montana, Mr. Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee; and the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd; as well as all
of our Senate colleagues for being there for New York in its greatest
hour of need.
I spoke with the mayor of New York this morning, and we were
commenting to one another about what amazing fortitude New Yorkers
have. The spirits are high. The desire grows to stay the course and
rebuild our city and make it greater than ever before. The desire of
New Yorkers to stay in New York, if one looks at the poll numbers, is
higher than ever before. The number of people when asked if they expect
to be living in New York 5 years from now increased since September 11.
We know all about the bravery of the firefighters and the police
officers and the rescue workers, but maybe we do not know enough about
the fortitude and the love of the city had by so many in New York City
and the metropolitan area of New York have. They are brave people.
As New Yorkers, we come from all over the globe. New York takes us
and shapes us and makes us into Americans, and we are proud of that. We
now know more than ever that America is proud of that as well.
That is the good news. The good news is the fortitude, the strength,
the courage, and the good grace of the people of New York. The bad news
is that despite our confidence that our nightmare will soon end, we are
in trouble. Two months after the attack, the economic damage to our
city is becoming increasingly apparent and has been documented in
publication after publication. The damage is enormous.
Let me give some statistics. Our streets are littered with 37 miles
of high-voltage electricity lines that are but one prankster away from
shutting off power to our Nation's financial center. Over 40 percent of
the lower Manhattan subway infrastructure has been destroyed, adding
hours to the daily commute of 375,000 people who work in New York City.
All our major river crossings: The Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queensboro
Bridges, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, have been and continue to be
subject to nightmarish traffic jams because of security requirements.
Two weeks ago, they were all shut down again because of the crash of
flight 587. Twenty-five million square feet of commercial office space
was destroyed or heavily damaged. The amount destroyed--nearly 20
million square feet--surpasses the entire office space inventory of
large, important cities, such as Miami and Atlanta. Over 125,000 jobs
have at least temporarily vanished from the area and the city estimates
that 30,000 of those jobs, at a minimum, are gone for good.
Noxious fumes continue to emanate from the hole at the World Trade
Center, creating great concern among the workers and residents for
their personal health. There is even a possibility that the Hudson
River retaining wall, which is underground and stops the Hudson from
washing in, will break and flood the area as the debris is removed.
Insurance companies are another problem--problems come from all
sides--demanding 100 percent increases from companies doing business in
New York simply because they are located in a confirmed terrorist
target zone. Those offers are some of the better ones. There are many
insurance companies offering no insurance at all.
Mayor Guiliani has had to cut $1 billion from the city budget just to
prevent an immediate fiscal meltdown at
[[Page 23504]]
a time when the need for city services is at an all-time high, and
Mayor-elect Bloomberg will have to cut much more than that and begin
thinking about it the day he enters office because the city is staring
at a $3 billion deficit next year as a direct result of this crisis.
Governor Pataki has it even worse. The State's revenue loss is
projected at $9 to $12 billion. The comptroller of the city of New York
places the economic loss to the city and its businesses at $105 billion
over the next couple of years.
We were so proud as our city grew and grew and grew and added over
800,000 people in the last decade. It was a record. But now we have had
the first decline in the city gross product in over 9 years.
In short, we have taken a hit for the Nation. None of the problems I
describe was of the making of New Yorkers. None of these problems was
the result of a single thing New York did or didn't do. And so we find
ourselves in extremely difficult times.
Now, with Chairman Byrd and Senator Daschle at the helm and broad
support of Senate colleagues, I believe we will ultimately get the
disaster aid needed to rebuild our damaged and destroyed
infrastructure. That is coming through. Some Members would like it to
come through more quickly, but it is coming. We don't have much of a
dispute about that.
We thank everybody. Senator Clinton and I are extremely grateful to
all of our colleagues for the support they have shown New Yorkers.
What we are here to talk about today is the need for tax provisions
for New York to deal with the kind of economic damage I have mentioned.
As we all know, the FEMA dollars go to the Governor, as they have for
disaster after disaster. They go to replace the subway lines and
streets that were destroyed. They go to pay for the cleaning up of the
refuse. They deal with the firefighters and the police officers and
their overtime. But none of that will give one iota of help to keep the
businesses in New York or get the jobs growing to where they were.
Senator Clinton and I put together an economic stimulus package. We
had great help from the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and members
of the Finance Committee, and help from the staff, led by Russ
Sullivan. We were extremely grateful when it was included in our
stimulus package that we presented.
The reason I take the floor today, it appears there is a good chance
we will have a stimulus package. I remind my colleagues how much we
need that part of the package that went for New York to remain in the
package. The provisions in it are designed to counter the uncertainty
and fear we believe may lead many companies to walk away from us. We
believe if we do not do it now, it will be too late.
Company after company, the large ones, the small ones, are making
their decisions over the next few months as to whether they stay in
lower Manhattan and in New York City or whether they leave. Once they
decide to leave, we can be as generous as we want, but come next spring
it won't do any good. Their leases will have been signed, their
decisions will have been made.
There is urgency to do this now. It is not related to the FEMA
spending or even the extra help in some of the appropriations measures
that we have asked of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd has
been extremely generous to Senator Clinton and myself. We have been in
constant conversation with him. But this relates to tax cuts. This
relates to keeping the businesses in New York lest the financial
center--not just of New York but of America--dissipates. That would be
a real blow to our country--not just our city but our country--because
so much of the capital to build the factories and the homes and so much
of the capital to start new businesses comes from the financial center
located in downtown New York. It is the greatest capital market in the
world.
Whether you live in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Albany, or even if
you live in Omaha, Seattle or Wilmington, you have a real interest in
seeing that financial center remain as strong as it has been. It has
helped create the unprecedented prosperity we have seen.
The need to act is now. The amount of money we are asking for in a
huge budget is modest. We hear, as we talk about the stimulus package,
of many other needs. We are aware of them and want to be helpful, too.
Maybe I am a bit parochial, but I can't think of a better need than
this one--a need for New York, a need for America.
Let me outline to my colleagues--and I know many are familiar with
this--the three complimentary provisions included in the stimulus
package. There is $4,800 for an employee tax credit to companies that
retain jobs and to not abandon New York in the area immediately around
ground zero.
There is the creation of special private activity bonds to lower the
cost of redevelopment projects.
There is a provision that would permit companies that replace
equipment destroyed in the World Trade Center bombing to take a special
deduction if they replace that property in New York, minus the
insurance costs they will get back. We all know an insurance company
will give $500 for a 2-year-old computer and you have to replace the
computer with $1,000 in costs; the difference would be deductible.
There is a one-time residential tax credit designed to encourage
residents in Lower Manhattan to continue to live there. They are all
afraid. Many visited Senator Clinton and myself here yesterday. They
are scared. They are worried. These are their homes. They don't know if
they should stay. This will be an incentive for them to stay and
overcome the fear and disruption that has been visited upon their
lives.
And there will be permission for New York municipal bond issuers and
hospitals to issue advance additional refunding to help enable them to
refinance their debt service.
Not a single aspect of the provision is designed to take business
from another part of the country. We want to just keep what we had,
what bin Laden and al-Qaida tried to take away from us.
The provisions are designed very carefully. We worked closely with
both the business and labor communities. They are designed very
carefully to do just enough--not more, not overly generous but just
enough--to keep the businesses in New York.
I am making a humble plea. There are many, many needs and many, many
conflicts embodied in the stimulus package. We need your help. I have
tried in my few years as Senator to be generous.
I have tried in my years here to respond when other areas of the
country needed help. I did not do it thinking New York would. We do not
have the kinds of natural disasters we are accustomed to seeing in many
other parts of the country. But when I heard about and read about the
earthquake in California, the hurricane in Florida, the floods in North
Dakota and North Carolina, I knew they needed help. Now, unexpectedly
but in a devastating way, we were hit by, not a natural disaster but
one very real. We need your help.
I thank Chairman Baucus. These provisions for New York he championed,
not because of politics but because it was the right thing. He has done
the right thing. I believe the Nation, with his stimulus bill which
will also extend unemployment and COBRA to hard-working Americans, is
the right thing to do. I thank Senator Daschle who has stood with us
through thick and thin. Among all my colleagues I have hardly heard a
word of dissent. There was tremendous sympathy.
At our Thanksgiving table this year, we closed our eyes and had some
moments of silence as we thought of the thousands and thousands of New
York families who, that same day, were having their Thanksgiving
dinners--their turkeys and stuffing and corn bread--but at whose tables
there was an empty seat. Someone wasn't there who had been there for
all the previous Thanksgivings. That person will never come back. Those
families' hearts will remain broken for the rest of their lives.
We remember them. We think of them. But when we talk to the families
[[Page 23505]]
who have survived, they tell us: Rebuild New York. Don't let those
deaths be in vain. Don't let Mr. bin Laden and his evil band succeed in
permanently hurting our country and our city. This is a mission. It is
a mission to rebuild New York. It is a mission to rededicate ourselves,
in the name of so many in the New York metropolitan area who lost their
lives. We hope and we pray that all of you will join us in this effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________
RAILROAD RETIREMENT REFORM
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001.
For years, our Nation's railroad workers have played a vital role in
moving commerce and passengers around this country, and it is my belief
and hope that America will benefit from their hard work for years to
come.
This bill is designed to strengthen the Railroad Retirement System
and ensure that these men and women who have helped build, run, and
maintain our railroads, have adequate resources to care for themselves
and their families when they finally complete their years of hard
labor.
The current system, which has been around for over 65 years,
currently serves more than 690,000 retirees and their family members,
and more than 245,00 active employees.
Because the Railroad Retirement System, unlike other industry pension
plans, is funded by payroll taxes on employees, it is easy to see why
this program, that pays retirement benefits to almost three times as
many people as there are paying for those benefits, is in desperate
need of reform.
Most Americans are concerned about the future of Social Security for
similar reasons--because the number of retirees in America will greatly
increase in the coming years as baby boomers retire. Well, the problem
for Railroad Retirement is here and now, and so is the right time for a
commonsense solution.
Railroad Retirement has always been restricted to investing only in
government securities, and while this may have been a good policy 65
years ago, it does not make sense in today's economy.
Because of this policy, the system's annual average investment return
has been far lower than that of private multiemployer pension plans.
This bill would solve that problem by allowing Railroad Retirement to
be operated more like a private pension plan, by establishing a private
trust in which assets of the system can be invested in various ways,
including private securities.
Moreover, the legislation would shift greater responsibility to the
railroad industry, and away from the government, to ensure adequate
funding of the system.
Better financing means enhanced returns to provide for an improved
benefit structure for Railroad Retirement beneficiaries.
These benefits would include a lowering of the incredibly high
payroll taxes currently paid by railroad workers and employers; a
lowering of the retirement age for those with 30 years of service to
age 60; reducing the vesting period in the system from 10 years to 5;
and improving the benefits paid to widows and widowers.
All of these improved benefits are desirable reforms, and they can be
achieved without compromising the solvency of the system, which the
Railroad Retirement Board's actuary has projected out to 75 years under
this legislation.
Because this legislation is the right solution at the right time, it
has received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Houses of
Congress.
Last year, when the bill was first introduced, it was approved on the
floor of the House by a vote of 391-25, and had the support of 80
Members in the Senate. However, after it was reported favorably by the
Finance Committee, it never made it to the Senate floor.
After its reintroduction in the current Congress, the bill has again
been approved by a landslide on the floor of the House, and now awaits
action here in the Senate, where it has enjoyed the support of 74
cosponsors.
I urge your continued support of this legislation, and speedy passage
of the reform that railroad workers and their families throughout this
country so badly deserve.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
____________________
THE SENATE AGENDA
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are hopefully working down to the end
of this session. We have completed most of those things that we need to
do. We need now to focus on those remaining items that I think are
imperative for us to complete. Obviously, there are lots of things that
could be done. The fact is, we have spent an extraordinary amount of
money. We are going to exceed our budget with the budget activities
and, of course, about $50 billion in addition to that. I agree that it
should indeed be spent for those things. We are in an emergency
situation with the terrorists. We are in an emergency situation with
the economy.
The two things I believe we have to do are, No. 1, finish our
appropriations. We are moving along. The House passed one of the most
difficult bills yesterday. We will now undertake to do Defense
appropriations. There are about four more with which we need to deal.
Then we need to finish a stimulus package. The President has called
upon the Senate to pass a responsible economic stimulus bill.
It is difficult to identify what will have a short-term impact on the
economy. Our economy is much lower than we would like. Indeed, as has
been said, we are in a recession. But we need to do something that will
have some impact.
The President has suggested a package that would extend unemployment
benefits for 13 weeks for Americans who lost their jobs as a result of
the terrorist attacks; making $11 billion available to low-income
people to obtain health insurance in a manner such that the system
would not become mandatory in the future; $3 billion in special energy
emergency grants to help displaced workers. That has to do with health
care coverage.
Then, of course, the other portion has to do with helping create
jobs, which, after all, is really the result we would like. We would
like to help people without jobs. Most importantly, we provide
encouragement to companies and corporations by accelerating
depreciation so they will invest in new material; partial expensing to
encourage the purchasing of new equipment; and also have payments for
low-income workers and get the money in their hands so we can see
increased purchasing.
Those are things on which I hope we focus. I know we are talking
about agriculture. We are talking about railroad retirement. They need
to be completed. But there is a question of whether they need to be
completed now with this emergency. We really need to evaluate the
money. We have already made available $12 billion in new spending for
many of the things we talked about. The President and the
administration determine where it will go.
I am hopeful that we can focus in the relatively short time we have
left. I am pleased that we seem to be making progress in terms of the
economic stimulus. The bill that came out of the committee was not a
bipartisan bill. We did not work on it from both sides. Now we have a
House bill that is somewhat different. We have a Democratic bill that
is somewhat different. The
[[Page 23506]]
President's bill is somewhat different. Of course, we need to find a
reasonable agreement among those groups to come up with something that
works. I certainly encourage that we do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to make my remarks while seated at my desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
____________________
THE NORTH SHORE ROAD MUST BE COMPLETED
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for some time I have felt inclined to
discuss in the Senate a matter for the Record and of importance to the
people living in the far western counties of North Carolina and in the
beautiful mountains adjacent to the Tennessee border.
The matter involved is the federal government's finally fulfilling
after a fashion a commitment made in 1943 in writing by the U.S.
Government to the citizens of Swain County. The federal government
proposed to build a road along the north shore of Fontana Lake which
was created in World War II to provide power to the TVA. This written
commitment was made to citizens who voluntarily gave up their homes to
support the U.S.'s World War II defense efforts.
The federal government has not yet fulfilled its commitment, and that
has caused a great deal of resentment and mistrust of the government
among the citizens of Swain County and other surrounding counties on
the North Carolina side of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
These citizens understandably believe that the federal government
should now live up to its written commitment made during World War II
because these people gave up their homes in order that Fontana Lake
could be built so that power could be generated by TVA.
But, there has been a curious development. A small group of citizens
in Swain County now proposes to ask that the federal government buy
them out, thereby voiding that federal government commitment made in
1943. They presented the proposal that they be bought out to the Swain
County Commissioners, and, praise the Lord, the commissioners rejected
this suggestion.
So as a result of the $16 million appropriation in the fiscal year
2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, this project has at long last begun to move. The National Park
Service and the Federal Highway Administration have restarted this
process to complete that road as promised, in writing, in 1943 to the
citizens of Swain County and western North Carolina.
Mr. President, I have a letter in hand, along with the text of the
resolution adopted by the Swain County Commissioners which expresses
their thanks for the $16 million that provided for continued road
construction and improvements that were included in the fiscal year
2001 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
The commissioners of Swain County want that road completed. The
people of Swain County want that road completed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letter
and resolution be printed in the Record, following which I shall resume
my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
November 9, 2001.
Jesse Helms,
Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator Jesse Helms: I again take this opportunity to thank
you for the continued support you have showed for projects in
Swain County.
Attached is a statement, which you should have received
earlier, thanking you for the work you have done on behalf of
Swain County and the North Shore Road.
Sincerely Yours,
Jim Douthit,
Chairman, Swain County Commissioners.
____
Swain County Board of Commissioners
Statement regarding the appropriation of $16M for construction of and
improvements to the North Shore Road
The Swain County Board of Commissioners would like to thank
Senator Jesse Helms, Congressman Charles Taylor, and
President Bill Clinton for making available from the Highway
Trust Fund for Swain County 16 million dollars for
construction of and improvements to the North Shore Road in
Swain County North Carolina.
With the completion of this road, the federal government
will have fulfilled their contract with Swain County known as
the 1943 Agreement, then trust can be restored between Swain
County and the federal government. We feel this appropriation
will go a long way in helping Swain County.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, roads in national parks are vital pieces of
economic infrastructure that fuel the engines of economic growth. In
fact, the National Park Service itself recognizes as much on its Web
site. Let me quote: ``Recreation travel accounts for 20 percent of
travel in the United States. Park roads are a vital part of America's
transportation network, providing economic opportunity and growth in
rural regions of the country. In addition to the park access, motor
tourism has created viable gateway communities en route. In some areas
entire economies are based on park road access. Examples include
communities near Yellowstone, Glacier, and Great Smoky Mountains
National Parks, and the Blue Ridge Parkway.''
Why on Earth, then, are these economic benefits denied to the people
living in the counties on the North Carolina side of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park? I will tell you why. The Department of the
Interior and the National Park Service have been held hostage by self-
proclaimed environmentalists and their sympathizers in the Interior
Department who are horrified, obviously, by their pretended
apprehension that environmental Armageddon will somehow result from the
construction of a simple ``two-lane dustless road,'' as specifically
called for in the 1943 agreement, signed by the Federal Government.
Mind you, this would be a Blue Ridge Parkway-type road allowing for
greater access on the North Carolina side of the park just as long ago
occurred on the State of Tennessee side a few miles west.
Additionally, according to the National Park Service statistics,
there are 5,000 miles of paved roads and 3,000 miles of unpaved roads
in the National Park System of this country. My question is, can
anybody seriously suggest that 30 more miles will cause an
environmental Armageddon? The thought is laughable. Of course not. But
that is the ringing cry of these professional environmentalists.
In fact, the Federal Government began building the road back in 1963,
and did build 2\1/2\ miles of it. In 1965, they built another 2.1
miles. Then in 1969, they built an additional mile, plus a 1,200-foot-
long tunnel.
That was when, Mr. President, the self-appointed environmentalists
created an uproar and forbade the Federal Government from going
further, which has caused, by the way, economic problems for the four
North Carolina counties surrounding the park that I am talking about.
Road engineering has improved enormously since that most recent
section was built in 1969. Many more improved methods are now available
to address the concerns thrown up by these self-appointed environmental
opponents of progress.
Let me make it clear, I have no problem with our Tennessee neighbors
who are ably represented by Senators Frist and Thompson, but I am
obliged, as a Senator from North Carolina, to emphasize some meaningful
and relevant statistics of the National Park Service.
In the 2000 report, which has the most recent statistics available,
the Park Service stated that 4,477,357 visitors came to the North
Carolina side of the park, while 5,698,455 visitors came to the
Tennessee side of the park. Of course, for anybody who wants to figure
it out, it is a difference of 1,221,098 visitors.
Additionally, according to the latest available retail sales per
capita figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, the four Tennessee counties
surrounding the
[[Page 23507]]
park have averaged $9,431.25, but the average for the four North
Carolina counties that need that road for more tourists to come there
have averaged $7,964.00, a difference of $1,467.25, if you want to get
down to the penny.
The North Carolina State average is $9,740.00 per capita, and the
Tennessee State average is $9,448.00 per capita. The four Tennessee
counties surrounding the park averaged just $16.75 under the Tennessee
State average. The four North Carolina counties, on the other hand--the
four counties of which we are talking about in terms of building this
road along the north shore of Fontana Lake--come in $1,776.00 under the
North Carolina average.
Now then, these figures are among countless indications of the
inequities between the North Carolina side and the Tennessee side of
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Let me assure the Administration of this: I have met with the
distinguished Director of the National Park Service, Fran Mianella and
she is a very pleasant lady--to let her know that this is a significant
issue with citizens of western North Carolina who have been neglected.
I am hopeful she and Secretary Norton will give this matter their
highest priorities and will continue to move this project well away
from those who have for too long been holding it hostage.
I will continue my opposition to a Federal buyout of the Federal
Government's commitment in 1943 to the citizens of Swain County and
western North Carolina. I commend the commissioners of Swain County for
standing flatfooted against it as well.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
GINA'S LAW
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have today written a letter to the
Attorney General and to the head of the Office of Management and Budget
expressing my great concern over regulations that should now have been
in place as a result of a law that was signed by the President last
December. That law would have required regulations to be published by
the Justice Department in July. No such regulations have been
published.
Here is the background of this issue. I, along with my colleague,
then-Senator John Ashcroft, authored legislation that became law, when
signed by the President, dealing with the transportation of violent
criminals around this country. Private companies have been contracted
by State and local governments to transport prisoners around America
from one prison and one location to another.
These private companies were transporting violent criminals, and all
too often those criminals were walking away. We decided the companies
that were hauling violent offenders were not adhering to standards or
regulations and there should be some regulations. The President signed
a bill, authored by myself and then-Senator Ashcroft, establishing
regulations with respect to private companies that are transporting
violent prisoners.
The law is called Gina's bill. It is named for an 11-year-old girl in
Fargo, ND, who was murdered brutally by a man named Kyle Bell. Kyle
Bell was being sent to a prison in Oregon after being convicted of
first-degree murder, being transported by a private company in a bus.
They stopped for gas. One guard was asleep; the other apparently went
in to get a cheeseburger. The other guard was filling the bus with
gasoline. Kyle Bell slipped out the top vent of the bus, walked in
street clothes into a parking lot of a shopping center and was gone for
3 months. They found him. He is now in prison.
This has happened all too often: Violent offenders, including
convicted murders, walking away from private companies that are
transporting them. There should have been regulations in place in July
of this year that establish how these private companies are
transporting violent criminals. As for me, I don't believe any State or
local government should ever contract with a private company to turn
over a murderer to be transported somewhere. Law enforcement officials
ought to transport convicted murderers.
As long as some State and local governments are using private
companies for that transport, those private companies ought to be
subject to regulation as is required by the law signed by the President
in December, regulations such as what kind of restraints are used, what
color clothing is required to be worn by the violent offender being
transported, the training of the guards, and so forth.
Since July, when the regulation should have been in effect, in
Wisconsin a private company was hauling a violent criminal and that
violent criminal escaped and stabbed a law enforcement officer in the
neck. Down South, a private company was transporting a violent
offender. The violent offender escaped and went on a bank robbing
spree.
When we passed the law, I told the story of a retired sheriff and his
wife showing up at a prison to pick up five convicted murderers with a
minivan. The warden said: You have to be kidding; you and your wife are
here to pick up five convicted murderers to transport them?
He was not kidding. They put them in the minivan. Those five
convicted murderers escaped, of course. That is why we wrote the law
and why the President signed it. That is why in July the Justice
Department had a responsibility to put the regulations in place. To
date, nearly 5 months later, those regulations do not exist.
I have written to the Attorney General and the Office of Management
and Budget to say lives are at stake. The public safety is at stake.
Get this done and get it done now.
This law, called Gina's bill, named after this wonderful 11-year-old
girl who was brutally murdered by Kyle Bell, is a law designed to keep
violent offenders behind bars, keep them in the arms of law enforcement
officials, and make certain if they are transported by those other than
law enforcement officials, they are transported safely.
I don't want any American family to drive to a gas pump somewhere and
have a minivan drive up next to them with a retired law enforcement
officer and his brother-in-law calling themselves a transport company
hauling three murderers in the back seat and not having the basic
safety standards in place to make sure that transportation is safe. I
don't want any family to come up to a gas station and have that
situation next to them and put them at risk. That is why we wrote this
bill. That is why the President signed it into law.
I hope my letter to the Attorney General and the Office of Management
and Budget will stimulate them to do what they should have done in the
month of July. I know there are reasons that bureaucracies act in a
slow way and drag their feet from time to time. There is no good reason
for this to have happened. I ask the Attorney General for his
cooperation. I ask the head of the Office of Management and Budget to
cooperate. Get this done. The Congress required you to do it after 180
days. That was July. This is December. It should have been done 5
months ago.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the recess
be
[[Page 23508]]
postponed for 10 minutes, and that the Senate stand in recess following
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ELECTION REFORM
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor for a
moment because I feel the need to talk about a lot of unfinished
business, as we consider what remains for the balance of the time we
have here. We will be going into our caucus shortly.
This morning, prior to the opening of our session, I held my daily
news conference and made mention of the fact that among those issues
that are of greatest importance to us is the issue of election reform.
I don't know of another bill that is pending in this Congress that has
the unanimous support of our caucus. It is rare that one ever sees all
of the members of our Caucus--51 in this case--as cosponsors of a bill.
But election reform has that distinction. All 51 of our caucus members
have endorsed the bill introduced by Senator Dodd earlier this year.
The reason that they have endorsed that bill unanimously is because
of the extraordinary degree of concern that exists within our caucus
about the need for election reform as quickly as possible. Because of
the tragedy of September 11, and the crisis of being at war, we haven't
had the opportunity to focus on the many, many problems associated with
the last presidential election--not just in Florida, but across the
country.
The studies and the reports that have been issued have made the
problems quite clear: outdated and unreliable technology, confusing
ballots, language barriers, lack of voter education, lack of poll
worker training, and inaccurate voting lists that prevented
legitimately registered voters from casting ballots. All of those
concerns were of such gravity and magnitude that 6 million voters
across the country were disenfranchised.
So it probably should not surprise anybody that almost immediately
following the beginning of this session of Congress, Senator Dodd went
to work as chairman of the Rules Committee. He worked with Members on
both sides of the aisle in both the House and the Senate to try to
respond to the growing awareness of how serious the situation really
is: how problematic, how incredibly unfair, how undemocratic were the
results reflected in the degree of difficulty with our election
processes--while we should proclaim our democracy with each and every
election. So as a result of just a tremendous amount of work, Senator
Dodd and members of the Rules Committee produced a bill that, as I
said, generated 51 cosponsors.
I simply wanted to come to the floor this afternoon to say this: If
between now and the end of this session, Senator Dodd is able to reach
an agreement with our Republican colleagues on a bill that we can bring
to the floor to address all of these issues, these serious concerns, it
is my intention to bring it to the floor. If somehow that is not
possible and the negotiations continue, and we are able to reach an
agreement prior to the next session of Congress, one of the very first
pieces of legislation I expect to bring up will be election reform. If
at any time during the coming year that agreement can be reached, my
intention will be to bring the agreement to the Senate floor very
quickly. But I will say this: Even absent an agreement, we will come to
the floor and we will have a debate about election reform. We will make
a comprehensive proposal to deal with this issue. We have no choice. It
will be part of the agenda of the second session of the 107th Congress.
I simply wanted to come to the floor to emphasize that and relate my
concern, and the concern of a lot of members of our caucus, about the
importance of this issue, and reiterate our determination to deal with
it in this Congress. We cannot simply sit idly by and watch 6 million
people--maybe more next time--as they are disenfranchised when they
attempt to exercise their constitutional right to vote and participate
in our political process.
I appreciate the attention of my colleagues on this issue, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the comments of
the distinguished majority leader on this issue. From the very
beginning, he has been a very strong and vocal advocate of this body
and the Congress of the United States in fashioning a piece of
legislation that would address not just the events of last year. As the
majority leader properly points out, this was not a one-time event in
one jurisdiction. In the consistent reports, whether by MIT, CalTech,
or the General Accounting Office, and surveys done by the media, that
analyzed the election last year in Florida, all of these organizations
that analyzed it, including the Carter Commission, the story has
ultimately been about who wins or loses. That has been the headline.
The real story is about the pathetic and tragic situation of our
electoral system of this country. It didn't happen in one event and in
one State. It is in all 50 States--some worse than others--and has been
going on for years.
So those of us who have been involved in this issue over the last
several months, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, my
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, members of the Rules
Committee, have been stalwarts in this effort going back to the
earliest days in January, cosponsoring legislation, reaching out,
trying to fashion some proposals that would make the Federal Government
a true partner with our States and localities in trying to correct a
wrong that is in desperate need of being addressed.
Senator McConnell of Kentucky is the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, as the majority leader knows. He has a deep interest in this
subject matter. I want the majority leader to know that Senator
McConnell and his staff--Senator Kit Bond of Missouri and his staff--
brings a separate set of issues that he is particularly worried about,
the issue of fraud. We have been working with Senator Schumer's staff,
our staff. There have been serious negotiations, I say to the leader,
over the last number of weeks, actually going back even further than
that, but most intensely in the last few weeks. We have not yet arrived
at a product we can present to this body that is a bipartisan proposal.
I will let Senator Schumer speak for himself, but it is my fervent
desire, I say to the leader and to my friends on the other side--
Senator McConnell and Senator Bond, obviously, they do not need me to
speak for them, but I know it is their desire as well to fashion
legislation of which all of us can be proud.
I know the events of September 11 have obviously taken over the
agenda and debate. It is hard to imagine a year ago what we were in the
middle of. We were in the middle of one of the worst debacles in terms
of a national election in the history of the United States, and it was
not just about Florida. It was in almost every jurisdiction. In my
State alone, we have not bought a new voting machine in 26 years, and
the company that made them no longer exists. We had an election in one
of my communities in Connecticut a few weeks ago where the incumbent
officeholder did not receive a single vote in his own hometown because
the machines did not record them, which shows us we can go anywhere we
want and we will find this system is in need of work.
I say to the leader I appreciate immensely his comments. We are
pretty close to getting an agreement. I hope we can. I also take to
heart what he has said, that we have been patient in trying to work
this out. My hope is we can come to the Senate with a bill that
involves ideas and thoughts that we can all live with that will address
the problems. I also appreciate his comments that if that is not
possible we will come to the Senate with a bill to debate this issue
and bring people to the table. We cannot go on and not address this
issue.
The majority leader has said it far more eloquently than I can. It
would be a travesty of significant proportions if
[[Page 23509]]
this Congress were to convene and adjourn in the wake of what happened
in the election of 2000 in this country and not step up to the plate
and offer the kind of assistance our jurisdictions so desperately need.
For those reasons, I thank the leader for his comments, and I yield to
my colleague from New York.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are out of time under the unanimous
consent agreement. I ask unanimous consent that we not enter into
recess until we have accommodated the remarks of the Senator from New
York and the Senator from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know we
have other business to do. I thank the majority leader, who I know has
to get over to the Democratic caucus, for his wonderful leadership on
so many issues. This is a man who believes strongly in so many things,
including the right to vote. I say to the majority leader, Senator Dodd
has done a superb job. He has had the patience of Job and the
persistence of whatever Biblical character was very persistent.
We are all proud of the job he has done. His leadership in bringing
up this issue as soon as we can come up with a compromise, or next year
if, God forbid, we cannot, is vital to America.
I wish to add one point, aside from my thanks to the Senator from
Connecticut, our chairman of the Rules Committee, for doing such a
great job on this. I have been proud to be working with him. My point
is this: He made an excellent point, that we almost have forgotten
about, the wrenching agony we all went through, whatever party, a year
ago last November. There is one point that, if anything, September 11
should increase our ardor and our fervor to bring forward a good bill,
hopefully a bipartisan bill. The terrorists hate our right to vote.
They want a group of religious leaders controlling everything and not
letting people make any determination.
The beauty of America is we can vote, and our job as Senators, our
job as citizens, is to perfect that right so nothing stands in the way.
Unfortunately, too much stands in the way. Usually not by design but,
rather, because we have not paid attention. Malfeasance, we are going
to correct that.
The Senator from Connecticut has taken on a great leadership role and
brought together Senator McConnell and Senator Bond and myself in hours
and hours of painstaking meetings. We talked today. We are willing to
move in the direction necessary to get a bill. It is heartening to know
we will be voting and debating on this issue in this Congress, if not
this year, no matter what happens. I just pledge myself to the Senator
from Connecticut to follow his leadership to continue those efforts
because the issue of the right to vote, the ability to vote, the
enfranchisement of all Americans, no matter how rich, poor, or of
whatever race, there is no higher duty.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his remarks. I
note again our staffs are working. I want these remarks to be seen as
constructive and positive. We appreciate immensely the work being
conducted by my friend from Kentucky and my friend from Missouri and
their staffs who have spent a lot of time on this issue. It has not
gone smoothly. It has had its ups and downs. It has been a roller
coaster ride. I hope when the process is over, sooner rather than
later, we will present the Senate a bill for which they can be proud.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
____________________
CHRISTMAS EVE IN THE SENATE
Mr. CRAIG. Senator Bond and Senator McConnell are not in the Chamber.
I know their work with the Senator from Connecticut is dedicated to the
end we all want to see in reform because there is an obsolescence to
the voting system that has to be addressed. I think that is without
question. I guess my only frustration by the majority leader's comments
was earlier this week he talked about bringing a farm bill to the
Senate. We now have a railroad retirement bill. We still have
appropriations to do, and several conference reports coming out of
that, and we hope yet a stimulus package now that we know America truly
is in a recession. We have known that for some time, but it is now
officially proclaimed.
Not in any way to lessen the importance of a debate over election
reform, and that is important, I cannot yet quite understand how we get
all of this done in time to get out for Christmas.
Before the Thanksgiving recess, I had offered Senator Boxer of
California an opportunity to join with me--she from the Democratic
side, I from the Republican side--to organize Christmas caroling for
the Senate so we could join together in unity, as we have for the last
several weeks, and sing Christmas carols on the eve of Christmas.
I suggest if we are going to do election reform, if we are going to
do a stimulus package, if we are going to do a farm bill, and I add an
energy bill because I think right now energy is every bit as important
to the American consumer as election reform is to the American voter,
and let us see what else is on that schedule--oh, yes, I forgot,
railroad retirement reform--then it is going to be a merry little
Christmas in Washington for all Senators who cannot make it out the
night before to their home States. My State is about 2,500 miles
further away than the Senator from Connecticut. So I say to Senator
Dodd, have yourself a very merry little Christmas.
____________________
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
There being no objection, the Senate at 4:48 p.m., recessed subject
to the call of the Chair and reassembled at 5:30 p.m. when called to
order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Reid).
____________________
THE SENATE SCHEDULE
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have just completed our caucus. I know
the Republicans were caucusing. I am not sure whether they have
completed or not. I want to report to the Senate about our current
circumstances and what the schedule might be for the remainder of the
week.
Senator Lott and I have been discussing the current schedule and our
circumstances involving the railroad retirement bill. My hope is that
we can move to proceed to the bill sometime within the next hour. If
that is the case, it is my intention to file cloture on the bill at
some point this evening.
It is also my intention that we seek unanimous consent to vote on
cloture on Monday. We will not be in session on Saturday, but we will
be on Monday. We will also entertain amendments. It is my understanding
that Senator Lott may be recognized to offer an amendment, and we will
have a debate on that amendment tomorrow and on Monday.
My expectation is that there will not be any votes tonight or
tomorrow but that we will have votes on Monday at approximately 5
o'clock.
Senator Murray reports to me that the Transportation conference
report has now been completed, and it is my hope that we can vote on
the Transportation conference report perhaps as early as Monday. If not
Monday, then on Tuesday. My hope is that if we can achieve cloture on
the railroad retirement bill on Monday, we can bring debate on the bill
to a close by Wednesday.
It is then my intention, as I have said on several occasions, to make
a motion to proceed to the farm bill. That is a must-pass piece of
legislation. It is my hope and expectation that we can complete our
work on that, maybe even as early as the end of next week.
I also note that we have made the decision over the course of the
last few hours, and in consultation with Senator Lott as well as our
caucus, that we will be in session and voting the week of December 10.
That has been an open question until now. But we have now made that
decision. Our expectation is we will be voting every day the week after
next. Senators ought to be on hand and prepared to vote all week. Of
course, it may be that we will have
[[Page 23510]]
to vote and be in session the week after that. But clearly, for the
next 2 weeks the Senate will be in session and Senators need to be
prepared to be on the floor and voting, to accommodate the remaining
schedule we have for the remainder of this session of Congress.
I also presented to the caucus what amounts to an informal agreement
on how we will proceed on the economic stimulus bill. I am pleased to
report that our caucus has agreed with the proposal that has been
presented to me by the Speaker, as we consider how to proceed on the
economic stimulus bill. If we can reach a procedural agreement tonight,
it is my expectation we can move to substantive negotiations on the
economic stimulus bill tomorrow morning. It is my hope we can work on
it through the weekend, if that is possible, in order to try to
expedite our work on that bill and our efforts to reach some final
agreement early next week.
The procedural agreement would call for consideration of the Senate
Finance Committee bill, the House-passed economic stimulus bill, and
other issues relating to those two bills. We do not exclusively limit
our consideration of economic stimulus to those two vehicles. There are
a lot of other issues out there.
Senator Durbin in particular has expressed to the caucus on numerous
occasions, and here on the floor, how important it is that we consider
a payroll tax holiday. That is an issue I have indicated I am
particularly interested in and intrigued with. I don't know whether or
not we have the ability to work it into the agreement. I know Senator
Domenici has expressed an interest in the proposal, and Senator Lott
has noted his support for the proposal.
On our side, I don't think there has been any more ardent a
supporter, any more articulate an advocate of the so-called payroll tax
holiday than the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois. I applaud
him and appreciate his tutorial to the caucus on the issue. He has been
able to bring us to a better understanding of how it would work. I must
say I am indebted to him for all of his work in advocating that
particular issue.
But my point is that that, along with other vehicles, is going to be
considered as we debate the issue in the hope that we can bring some
resolution to our negotiations sometime early next week.
I see the Senator standing. I am happy to yield to him.
(Ms. STABENOW assumed the Chair.)
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the leader for his kind remarks.
I hope that in the course of this economic recovery or economic
stimulus package we can still stick to our principles that what we do
will help the economy, help the right people in the economy, and not do
any long-term damage to the economy.
I think this proposed Federal payroll tax holiday, month-long
holiday, meets the criteria. Frankly, it will go to workers across
America who draw a paycheck. They will see it on payday. It will come
as quickly as we can pass the bill and enact it into law. That is money
that families can use for important purchases at the end of the year.
It is money that will go right into the economy and spark some growth
and some activity that we really do need. It is also money that is
going to go to workers, to those making incomes up to $80,000--$80,400
is the limit on the Federal payroll tax. So that really gives it to
working families.
In addition, it is focused to help small businesses because I think
forgiving this tax for employers will say to small businesses, we are
going to help you meet some of your expenses, whether they are health
insurance premiums or security needs, for your business after September
11.
I have spoken to Senator Domenici. I thank my friend and the majority
leader for his reference. I hope in the course of this conference,
putting together the stimulus and recovery package, that this can be
included.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois. His comments make my
point. He is not only knowledgeable and articulate on the issue, but he
has certainly persisted in ensuring that this piece of legislation be
considered along with many others.
Madam President, there are several key areas the Democratic caucus--
and it goes to the point raised by the Senator from Illinois--will be
advocating.
First and foremost, I want to emphasize again because I feel the need
every time we talk about economic stimulus to ensure that people
understand our real priority. Our priority, first and foremost, is to
help the 7.5, now almost 8 million workers who are unemployed.
In the last recession, we extended employment benefits four times. We
have to consider the fact that those weeks are running out now, for
those who are eligible for unemployment assistance, and we have to
extend it again this time.
But we also have to understand that 54 percent of those who are
unemployed today are not entitled to unemployment benefits, so we have
to broaden eligibility. That is certainly going to be a key area for us
as we attempt to negotiate some successful solution.
I would say as well that none of them can afford health benefits.
When you are given a few hundred dollars a month in unemployment, it
is almost impossible--after you have paid the rent, after you have paid
for the groceries and the heating bills and other necessities of the
family--to buy health insurance. We have to assist these unemployed
workers to pay for their health care during the time they are
unemployed as well. That would be a priority for us.
We also will try to ensure that the issue of rebates is addressed for
those who pay a lot of payroll tax but were not entitled to an income-
tax rebate last year. That ought to be on the table, and we will be
talking about that.
Business tax relief is also something we care a lot about. The
expensing for small business is something for which we are going to
fight.
We are also going to try to assure additional depreciation for all
businesses. The high-tech community said that is one of the most
important issues for them. That will be a priority for us.
We have a number of very key issues we hope to present to our House
colleagues. But I also remind all of my colleagues that whatever we do
on the finance side--whatever we do on the revenue side--is only half
of our interest. There is an economic stimulus involved here. It is our
interest to pass homeland security as well--Senator Byrd and I have
been meeting all day long--as we consider the Byrd amendment to ensure
that homeland security is part of economic stimulus as we take up the
Defense appropriations bill early next week.
Just as soon as that bill comes over to the Senate, we will take it
up in committee. Senator Byrd will be offering his amendment on
homeland security. It is my hope we can get a bipartisan vote on that
as well.
Nothing will stimulate this economy faster than raising people's
confidence about their own security. Nothing will help them more in
that regard than if we increase law enforcement assistance and provide
ways in which to ensure, on bioterrorism and all the other potential
possibilities for attacks to our national security, we are more
prepared than we are today.
That, too, is economic stimulus. That, too, is part of our plan. But
that will be running on a separate track. I want to emphasize how
critical we think that piece is, and how important it is to our long-
term resolution. They have to go hand in glove. They are going to run
in tandem. We are going to be taking both of these sequentially, and
both are important to us.
I make that point, as we have made it before on the Senate floor.
I appreciate very much the interest of all Senators.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a
question?
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes. I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader if
he would entertain a question. I would like to inquire further of the
majority leader on this subject of the farm bill. I know it was the
stated intent of the majority leader to attempt to offer a motion to
proceed to the farm bill this
[[Page 23511]]
week, perhaps midweek, late in the week, yesterday, or today. I know
that was thwarted by the filibuster on the motion to proceed to the
bill that the Senate was prepared to debate. The majority leader was
unable to make the motion to proceed to the farm bill. The filibuster
we have had and cloture vote that was required now puts us into next
week.
The majority leader indicated it is still his intention to file a
cloture motion to proceed following the disposition of the bill that is
on the floor.
Is that correct?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. I have
noted on several occasions my intention to move to the farm bill just
as soon as we complete our work on the railroad retirement bill. It can
be next Monday or Tuesday. It can be whenever we finish. But we will
move to that bill next. We have to move to it.
These are must-pass pieces of legislation that have to be done. We
can take them in any order. But it is my intention to follow through
with the order that I have already announced, which is to complete our
work on the farm bill next.
We will have the Defense appropriations bill, the stimulus bill, and
the terrorist insurance bill. All of those have to be addressed.
But as I noted--I see the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in
the Chamber--the farm bill will be the next bill after the railroad
retirement bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just another
moment, that is a reassuring answer. I know how strongly the majority
leader feels about the need to write a farm bill.
I observe that the House of Representatives has passed a farm bill.
We have now passed one out of the committee under the leadership of
Senator Harkin. We need to get it to the floor of the Senate and then
to conference.
The goal here is to get a bill on the President's desk for signature.
This is about family farmers hanging on by their financial fingertips
and struggling to survive. It is our obligation to get this done.
I know it is not the fault of the majority leader. It was his full
intention to bring that to the floor. It would have been on the floor
today had we not faced the filibuster.
I wanted to, once again, ask. And I received the answer that I
expected I would. The majority leader is a strong advocate of family
farms and the need for a better farm program. I am deeply reassured by
that answer. I look forward to being here with the majority leader and
with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee fighting hard for a farm
bill that will give family farmers in this country a decent chance to
survive.
I thank the majority leader for his answers.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota and I have
been through a lot of legislative battles over the years on rural
issues. As he has noted, nothing is more important to rural America
than passage of this bill to allow us to go to conference first and to
allow us to resolve the outstanding issues that remain between the
House and the Senate membership on farm policy so we can get the bill
to the President in time to provide all the assurance and confidence we
can to farmers and ranchers all over this country. We understand their
economic plight.
I note, as the Senator from North Dakota has on several occasions,
that last month--the month of October--we saw the single biggest 1-
month depression in prices that we have seen in all the time the
Department of Agriculture has been keeping records. We have never seen
the prices plummet as dramatically in 1 month as we saw them plummet
last month.
If there is no other reason to move forward on farm legislation than
that, it would be enough.
I am hopeful that people understand the urgency of the issue--the
urgency of the issue of completing our work on the bill in time to go
to conference, resolve our differences, and enact it into the law.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I congratulate the majority leader for
defining our schedule. It makes our lives more definite. I think we
have the schedule outlined. As I heard the majority leader say, we are
going to be in session starting Monday with votes, perhaps over the
next weekend, and the next weekend until we finish.
Regarding the Agriculture bill--the farm bill--I think the Senator
from Iowa has done an outstanding job not only in the product that came
out of the committee but his willingness to take on issues that are so
important. Everybody in America is affected by this farm bill. The
conservation provisions in this bill are the best we have ever had, and
they are getting better.
I think this farm bill is so important because of the problems the
Dakotas, Nebraska, and Iowa have. The farm bill is so important. This
bill affects the whole country. It is not just a farm bill.
I also say to the majority leader that I was given a statement by
Senators as I walked into this Chamber indicating that Alamo and
National car rental companies have filed for bankruptcy. This is really
astounding. These two large rental car companies filed for bankruptcy.
I have had a number of conversations and meetings with the
distinguished majority leader about companies and individuals who
depend on tourism. For 30 States in the United States, their No. 1, No.
2, or No. 3 most important economic force is tourism.
I know the majority leader has stated publicly--and I appreciate it
very much--that one of the items we are going to be looking at in an
economic stimulus package is how the tourism industry can be helped. It
is in such desperate shape--helping rental car companies and other
entities that so depend on tourism.
I am very happy that there has been a framework developed. We can
move forward. This is not inventing the wheel. In fact, we have done
this before on very important issues since September 11. It will go
down in history as remarkably good legislation. We have done it on four
occasions. We did it with the appropriations for New York City, plus
the $20 billion for added defense for the country. We did it with
airport security and antiterrorism. There is one other that I can't
remember.
That sets the framework for doing some good work on the stimulus
package.
I hope the leader will do something about this. I believe we will be
very successful in working it out.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant
Democratic leader for his comments. He is absolutely right. The tourism
industry has been very hard hit. This is yet another indication of the
difficult time they are having. I wasn't aware that these two companies
declared bankruptcy. But it certainly illustrates yet another instance
of just how difficult a time many of these companies are experiencing.
So I appreciate his comment and especially appreciate so much his
sensitivity to the agricultural situation. He noted he does not have a
lot of farmers, but he has been extremely supportive and understanding
about the farm situation. I appreciate that very much.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I say to the majority leader, we don't have a lot of
farmers; we have a lot of people who eat the food.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I move to proceed to the railroad
retirement bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I believe we
have no further requests for time on the motion to proceed. We are
ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
[[Page 23512]]
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 10) to provide for pension reform, and for
other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending
substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending substitute. There is no
pending amendment.
Amendment No. 2170
(Purpose: To modernize the financing of the railroad retirement system
and to provide enhanced benefits to employees and beneficiaries.)
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr. Hatch,
for himself and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered
2170.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the
pending substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2171 To Amendment No. 2170
(Purpose: To enhance energy conservation, research and development, and
to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the
American people, and for other purposes)
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. LOTT), for himself, Mr.
Murkowski, and Mr. Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered
2171 to amendment No. 2170.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending Lott
amendment:
Trent Lott, Frank Murkowski, Robert Bennett, Phil Gramm,
Sam Brownback, Don Nickles, Pat Roberts, Mike Crapo,
Larry Craig, Jon Kyl, Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici,
Mitch McConnell, Judd Gregg, Conrad Burns, Craig
Thomas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle for
Hatch and Baucus substitute amendment No. 2170 for Calendar
No. 69, H.R. 10, an act to provide for pension reform and for
other purposes:
Paul Wellstone, Richard Durbin, Byron Dorgan, Harry Reid,
Jon Corzine, Hillary Clinton, Blanche Lincoln, Jack
Reed, Jean Carnahan, Mark Dayton, Carl Levin, Tim
Johnson, Bill Nelson, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden,
Debbie Stabenow, Barbara Mikulski, and Tom Daschle.
Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No.
69, H.R. 10, an act to provide for pension reform and for
other purposes.
Paul Wellstone, Richard J. Durbin, Byron L. Dorgan, Harry
Reid, Jon Corzine, Hillary Clinton, Blanche L. Lincoln,
Jack Reed, Tom Carper, Tim Johnson, Daniel Inouye,
Christopher Dodd, Ron Wyden, Jeff Bingaman, Joseph
Lieberman, John Breaux, Paul Sarbanes.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, just for explanation to all Senators,
we have now moved to proceed to the railroad retirement bill. The
distinguished Republican leader has offered an amendment for which
there will be a cloture vote at 5 o'clock on Monday. Following that
vote on cloture, there will be a vote on cloture on the bill at
approximately 5:30 on Monday as well. So under the current arrangement,
there will be two votes on Monday at about 5 o'clock.
There will be, hopefully, a very good debate tomorrow on the Lott
amendment. There can be debate tonight on the amendment or on the bill.
But I hope Senators will use the time that is now allotted for the
debate to express themselves and to participate in whatever debate may
be required. But those cloture votes will occur at 5 o'clock. And there
will be no other votes until that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if the distinguished majority leader will
yield to respond to an inquiry, I thought also we would have a vote on
the Transportation appropriations conference report at some point in
the sequence on Monday.
Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. The Senator is right. I appreciate his
reminding me. If the Senate has been presented with the papers on the
Transportation conference report by Monday, it is our intention to have
a vote on the Transportation conference report as well.
I am told the House is planning to act tomorrow. I know there has
been a little bit of a debate. I don't know if
[[Page 23513]]
that has been resolved. But if the papers arrive, it is our intent--and
I had announced it earlier--to bring up the conference report on
Transportation as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I could be heard with regard to the
situation as it now exists for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
actually, what has transpired over the past few minutes procedurally is
that Senator Daschle has offered the railroad retirement substitute to
a House bill.
That had to be done to get us on the railroad retirement subject
itself. Then, as is in order, I offered an amendment to the substitute.
So that will be the issue that can be debated, along with the railroad
retirement bill, if Senators so desire.
Let me talk about the content of the amendment that was filed on my
behalf as well as Senator Murkowski and Senator Brownback and others.
Regardless of the merits of the railroad retirement bill, I had hoped
that the Senate would stay focused on appropriations conference
reports, the defense appropriations bill, and the stimulus package that
would create economic growth and jobs creation in this country. I am
pleased that now an effort is under way to get a conference negotiation
going on the stimulus package. That movement yesterday afternoon
affected the decision that was made earlier today not to fight the
motion to proceed on the railroad retirement bill.
My question is, why we are moving to bills that are not an emergency,
not related to appropriations and the stimulus package or even the
reinsurance issue? It seems to me we should focus on those urgent and
emergency issues that need to be addressed as a result of the events of
September 11 and since then, before we go out for the holiday season,
for the Christmas period.
That has not been the case. Now we are on the railroad retirement
issue. There are other issues we believe urgent and need to be
addressed and should be addressed. That is why this amendment is the
Murkowski energy bill, basically H.R. 4, the House-passed bill, that we
believe and have been believing since June needed to be brought up in
the Senate. We need a national energy policy. That needs to be broad-
based. It needs to address the need for additional production of oil
and natural gas. Clean coal technology needs to be moved forward, the
use of nuclear power, alternative fuels, transmission line problems, as
well as conservation, which is a very important part of this package.
We see right now circumstances that really bother me. We are
dependent on OPEC oil, Russian oil, and Iraqi oil, approaching now well
over 50 percent of our energy needs. It is imported oil, and that is
extremely dangerous. Just last week we saw where the OPEC countries
were lobbying others, including Russia, to cut their production so that
the prices could be driven back up. Unbelievably, or perhaps
gratefully, we see that the Russians resisted that and said, no, we are
going to continue with our production.
Apparently now they have come to some sort of agreement and I guess
there will be some reduced production and prices will go up some. But
we are on a yo-yo. This past June and the June before that, we saw
prices shoot up on gasoline inexplicably and probably unjustifiably in
some instances. So we don't have a national energy policy. We were told
we would do it later. Then there were the September events and October
had other things we were working on. Now we are told we will get to it
in January or February.
Every day we lose puts us at risk one more day. We should have a full
debate about a national energy policy. We are going to have it. This
amendment is offered to the underlying bill because this is an issue
that needs to be voted on by the Senate. We are going to see who
believes energy is something we need to do or whether there is a
potential threat there.
This is not only a national security issue; it is an economic issue.
If you want to help the railroads with some of their problems, let's
have a reliable energy policy. Let's reduce the cost of what they take
to run the industry if you want to help farmers in America. Let's deal
with the cost of the energy they need all the way from producing
ammonia to diesel. So this is an economic issue.
Remember this: If the OPEC countries decided to cut us off, we would
be on our knees economically in less than 30 days. America doesn't
depend on anybody else in the world for anything else for our existence
but energy. We can not have that. The simple solution, is to have the
debate. Let's have the vote.
By the way, this doesn't displace the railroad retirement bill. It
would be added to it, and so we would have an opportunity to pass a
railroad retirement bill, presumably one that might be amended
substantively as we go forward, with an energy package.
The second part of the amendment I offered also puts a 6-month
moratorium on cloning. It doesn't say we won't have it for therapeutic
research. It doesn't say what we will do. It says ``time out here.'' We
have a lot of serious questions that we need to ask and have answered
and think about what we want to do. So it is the energy bill and the 6-
month moratorium on cloning. This should make for a good debate. It is
long overdue.
In the case of energy, in the case of cloning, if we don't do it now,
we won't be able to do anything until February or March, and this issue
will march forward with uncertainty and concern. Senator Brownback has
been advancing the need for us to take some action to have the
moratorium. The House acted months ago, overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan
manner. We will have the opportunity to do the same here.
I urge my colleagues to take time tonight and tomorrow and Monday.
Let's talk about these two issues. We should not invoke cloture on this
amendment. We should have a vote. We should not stop the debate. We
should have a vote on the substance itself, and then we could move to
the underlying bill and could get it done.
Instead of taking shots at each other, we could actually address
three big issues in one swoop. That is why I offered the amendment. It
is also to serve notice that if we keep going off track on what we need
to do to get out of here, other issues will be brought up.
This is the Senate. Wonderful place that it is, no one person and no
one party dictates what we can do. Marvelously, any Senator can offer
any amendment on any subject he or she wishes at any time. Lots of
times it takes 60 votes, but that is the way it works. Therefore, we
will have an opportunity now to have a full debate on energy and on
cloning as well as railroad retirement.
I thank the Chair and my colleagues for the opportunity to briefly
describe what we are doing. I am sure Senator Murkowski and members of
the Energy Committee will be here to describe what is in this energy
package. Senator Brownback is waiting to describe the details of his
moratorium.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the minority leader, and
I now ask unanimous consent that we go into a period of morning
business. We want to be as lenient as we can. I know the Senator from
Alaska wants to speak for an extended period of time. Others also want
to speak. Therefore, we will have the 10-minute limitation, with the
understanding that people can ask unanimous consent to speak for any
period of time they want.
Again, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning
business with Senators permitted to speak
[[Page 23514]]
therein for up to 10 minutes, and we divide the time, even though it
appears that maybe there won't be the need to do that. I ask unanimous
consent that we----
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, would this be OK with
the leader? I ask if I may have my 10 minutes starting now if it would
be OK with the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. REID. If I may reclaim my time, I think we would be better off
not having a 10-minute limitation. I ask unanimous consent that we now
go into a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak
therein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, as Senator Landrieu indicated that
her children were getting hungry, I suggest the Chair recognize her
first.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the request is that we go into a period
for morning business with a 10-minute limitation--I will state it
again. It is that we go into a period of morning business, that Senator
Landrieu be recognized for 10 minutes to begin with, and Senators
thereafter be limited to 10 minutes, with the understanding that there
will be a number of Senators asking for more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, in order to accommodate Senators,
let's be more realistic and make it 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. I have no problem with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 3090
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
majority leader may turn to the consideration of H.R. 3090 with the
consent of the Republican leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
____________________
ENERGY SECURITY
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I know the Senator from Kansas is on
the floor to speak on several important issues, and the Senator from
Alaska will be addressing the Senate later this evening on the
important issue of energy security for our Nation. I agree with so many
of the points of the Senator from Alaska, as well as the Senator from
Mississippi, who has been taking with us this evening on that subject.
I want to talk about a subject that is actually somewhat related. The
subject I want to spend a few minutes on tonight is most certainly
related to the issue of energy security for our Nation. It is related
to the situation that we find ourselves in, combating this new war
against terrorism in many different ways and in ways very different
than our past conflicts would have us be engaged. Let me just try to
bring this into focus.
We have troops in Afghanistan and, luckily and thankfully, and
because we have the best equipped, best led, and bravest and most
courageous fighting force in the world, we are making extraordinary
progress on our front in Afghanistan. You can see the headlines in all
of the newspapers that would attest to the great effort that is being
made. But we all know, and we are all learning quickly, that this war
on terrorism is something we are going to have to fight on many
different fronts. One of those fronts is in our own homeland.
We hated to see what happened on September 11, and we were all heart
broken and angry and justifiably angry at the devastation and the
horrific attack on our Nation.
As I was saying, we now have to fight this war on many different
fronts, not just the front in Afghanistan but the front here at home.
We were all terribly horrified and righteously angry. We have to turn
that righteous anger into concrete steps to protect ourselves in the
future. Many of us in our various capacities and many different
committees are about doing that. We are stepping up airport security.
We are trying to step up the security of our cyberinfrastructure in the
Nation. We are looking at ways to set up medical response teams on
health care, our public health system. And all of these efforts, if we
do them correctly and come up with good policies and funding streams,
will most certainly help to protect our Nation against these attacks
that, unfortunately, are going to certainly come. Even if we are
successful--and we have been--in cornering bin Laden and taking down
the Taliban regime and capturing or destroying that particular cell, it
is likely, based on everything that we know--not to alarm people or
frighten people, but we know that it is likely that there will be
future attacks.
The point of my short presentation today is to simply say that we are
not sure where these attacks will be aimed. We never imagined that a
group of people, with three of our own airplanes filled with fuel,
would take down some of the most important buildings in this Nation. So
we have to think: What might the next attack be? What could possibly
come at us?
There are so many things that could happen that we have to be smart
and strategic about how we spend our resources.
One of the issues that I am going to argue for a few minutes on the
floor today is some of the critical infrastructure in our Nation--some
of it is rail, some transportation issues, such as highways and
tunnels, some of it is critical infrastructure protecting our nuclear
powerplants, our electric grid, our cyberinfrastructure that we now
rely on to run so much of our communications, transportation, health
care systems, et cetera. We can't do all of it at once, but we can most
certainly begin taking some steps.
I think we need to identify where we can--whether we do it in the
supplemental bill or in the energy bill, or whether we do it in the
stimulus package--some projects that are worth giving some attention to
in the event that there would be some effort to cut our resources. One
of those resources is energy.
Let me be very clear. In Louisiana, there are many critical highways,
as there are in many States. There is a highway that is of critical
importance not just to our State but to the whole Nation. It doesn't
look like much because it is a small highway. Right now, it is a two-
lane highway. I will show you a picture of it in a moment. It is
Louisiana 1. I think it is called LA-1. It is rightfully named because
it is the one highway in Louisiana, and perhaps in the Nation, that we
rely on so heavily for our oil and gas production in this Nation.
Oil and gas production takes place, as you know, primarily off the
southern shore of our Nation, off the coast of Texas and Mississippi
and Louisiana and Alabama, primarily.
We get 18 percent of our imported oil off of the loop facility, which
is right off the coast of Louisiana and down this highway, which I am
going to show a picture of in a minute. One can see clearly from this
picture there are a thousand trucks a day on this highway on a regular
day. This is not a fancy highway. It is a small highway. It runs from
Port Fourchon all the way up to the 90 loop. There are a thousand
trucks a day that bring pipes, supplies, men, women, equipment, and
engineering services to produce oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico that
help this Nation to be secure every day.
So when people walk into this Chamber or they walk into their
building at Cisco or IBM or eBay or whether they walk into Shaw
Enterprises or any number of the shipbuilders in Louisiana and they
turn the lights on, lights come on. When they fire up those plants,
that energy runs. This energy comes, in large measure, off the coasts
of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. This highway is the highway that
is the bridge to Port Fourchon, where these trucks and this equipment
are located.
Even in a slight rain this highway goes under water. Imagine if there
was any kind of purposeful attack on the infrastructure with some minor
effort. This highway in the shape that it is in and the condition that
it is in could cause a major disruption in energy flows to the United
States.
[[Page 23515]]
The Gulf of Mexico has 20,000 miles of the most extensive network of
offshore oil and gas pipelines in the world. There is only 2,000 miles
from the east coast to the west coast, approximately, as the crow
flies, in the Nation. Ten times the amount of the length of our country
are the miles of pipeline that come out of Louisiana to bring oil and
gas to the rest of the Nation.
This highway is the only way one could basically get to the point
where this oil and gas comes off of our shore. The loop facility is the
only offshore oil terminal in the country. There are not three. There
are not four. There is one. It is the loop facility, and it is just a
few miles off the shore of Louisiana. The only way to get to the loop
facility, other than helicopter or ship, is to come down this highway
to Port Fourchon, at the end of Louisiana, and to get to the loop
facility, where 18 percent of our imported oil comes into the Nation.
It comes up through the pipes and again all the supplies for the coast
come through this highway.
It is time that this highway be designated as a special highway for
the Nation, a high priority corridor for this Nation. There are such
designations in the Transportation bill for many of our highways, and I
am sure every Senator could stand up and claim there are at least one
or two highways in their States that are particularly important,
whether it be for trade or for commerce. We could say that, too, about
all of our highways, particularly for I-10, that is connecting Houston
in the southern part of the State; I-49 that is now going to be a trade
route hopefully to Canada and down through Louisiana; I-20 that
connects our State, of course, east and west to other parts of the
United States. But clearly LA-1, which is primarily responsible to help
this Nation keep its oil and gas supply not only operating but in a
vigorous, robust manner to supply the rest of the Nation, deserves to
have a special designation.
I am requesting by the amendment I am offering to the Transportation
bill to get Louisiana-1 designated as a high-impact corridor so we can
be in line for appropriations to change this from a two-lane highway to
a four-lane highway to give it some of the protections a highway of
this magnitude deserves.
Let me show what happens when there is a turnover of an 18-wheeler,
one of the thousands that are in this lane. The traffic is backed up
for hours. There is no way around it. The services to the rigs out in
the gulf are basically shut down for all practical purposes. If one
cannot get to the port, they cannot basically get service to the rigs
or the supplies or the pipes that are needed.
I hesitate to actually give this speech. Frankly, I hope no terrorist
is watching because it would be so easy in some ways to disrupt the
supply of the oil to this Nation, but one thing September 11 has to
teach us is putting some of our resources into building up the critical
infrastructure in this Nation so we are not so vulnerable. I wanted to
give this speech because I would feel terrible if something happened
and people said: Well, Mary, you did not tell anybody about this
highway and, after all, it is not a major interstate and we did not
know about it.
So I want to give my colleagues fair warning there is a little
highway in Louisiana. It only has two lanes, but it has a thousand
trucks a day that are bringing supplies and equipment to the offshore
of this Nation that helps turn on lights in every schoolhouse and
hospital and office building and run factories from Louisiana to
Illinois and from Maine to California. If we cannot find a few million
dollars in these trillions of dollars of budget to help us improve this
highway so we can withstand a natural occurrence of a hurricane or a
man-made attack that we would be better equipped to handle than what we
have now, then I do not want to be held responsible for not bringing
this into the light.
I have been in this Chamber many times talking about all the critical
infrastructure around our Nation. I have several bills and amendments
to try to direct some of our resources to fund those projects, but this
one comes to mind as one of the most important we should address. I
urge my colleagues to look carefully at our needs for LA-1 to help us
to direct through any of the bills that are moving forward. I am
prepared to stay in this Chamber and to come back many times until we
can get some relief to get some funding for Highway 1. I should also
mention I-49 and I-10 which handle the bulk of our domestic production.
Production in the United States of America is basically limited to
this area of the country. There is virtually no production off the
eastern shore, as the Senator from Alaska will say in his speech later
tonight. There is virtually no production going off of the eastern
shore. All of the offshore oil and gas production is coming off of this
part of the gulf.
So the infrastructure, for the Port of New Orleans, for the Port of
Mobile, for the Port of Galveston, for the I-10 corridor that links
basically Houston and New Orleans into Florida, is critical for the
development and the spreading of the gas and the oil that comes off of
the gulf to the different parts of the Nation.
Finally, we are not complaining about producing the oil and gas. We
recognize it brings jobs and wealth to our State. While others do not
want production, we want production that is environmentally
responsible. We are happy with the jobs and the wealth that it creates.
I need to say, though, we are not creating the wealth and the jobs and
the energy for our State. We are creating it for the entire Nation. So
it is only right, it is only fitting, that some of the taxes that are
paid by the oil companies from this exact production would come back to
help us reinvest in Highway 1, in I-49, in I-10, in I-69, because it is
those roads that support the oil and gas drilling.
I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding to me. He knows this
subject in many ways even better than I know the subject. He has been
in the Senate longer than I have, but it is so obvious to some of us
that we have to dedicate some resources to protecting the critical
infrastructure of this Nation. This is at least one highway that
deserves to be No. 1, as its title would suggest.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to enter a short colloquy with
my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana, and ask her if the
anticipated opening of ANWR would not require construction of 19 double
hull tankers, some of which would be constructed in her State, from
Mississippi or Alabama, costing about $4 billion? I think we have
several of those ships underway now, creating 5,000 jobs each for 17
years. These are figures that have been released to me by the American
Petroleum Institute, estimating that 19 new double hull tankers of a
millennium class will be needed if ANWR is open. The assumption is that
ANWR will produce 10.3 billion barrels of oil. That is about what has
come out of Prudhoe Bay, for a 60-year production life, and the new
tankers would be needed because the old North Slope tankers are being
phased out in their entirety by the year 2015. That is when the double
hull requirements come into effect.
There would be more jobs created because the Jones Act requires that
the American oil be transported in U.S.-flagged vessels, built in U.S.
shipyards, with U.S. crew, transported within the United States, which
is from Alaska and the west coast, which he agreed, according to API's
analysis, assuming ANWR passes, it will include any ban on ANWR oil
being exported outside the United States. It also assumes that ANWR oil
will be transported by tankers to refineries primarily in Washington,
California, and Hawaii.
I would like the Senator's confirmation on the estimate it would pump
almost $4 billion into the economy, create 2000 construction jobs in
the U.S. shipbuilding industry, some perhaps in the State of
Washington, and approximately 3,000 other jobs. They predict this will
compute to approximately 90,000 job years by estimating it will take
approximately 17 years to build all the 19 ships at almost 5,000 jobs
each year. The prediction is one ship
[[Page 23516]]
must be built each year in order to coincide with the schedule of
retired existing tankers.
I wish we had the capacity to build the ships in our State of Alaska,
but that is not the case and will not be the case. However, Louisiana
has been prominent in its shipbuilding and supply of various resources
for Alaska's oil development.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for that inquiry. As he knows, and
I completely agree, more production in the continental United States
and Alaska is definitely a step we should take to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil and to increase job opportunities here in our own
country. Particularly at this critical time, not only is it part of our
overall energy strategy but now it is part of our security strategy for
homeland defense and homeland security to reduce our dependence on oil
and gas, liquefied natural gas that may come from other sources.
We are very proud of the shipbuilding we do in Louisiana and the
engineering and the construction of the landforms and infrastructure
that make it possible to drill in extraordinary conditions, in very
deep water, leaving a minimal footprint. In days past, there were
terrible environmental consequences to drilling. We simply did not have
the know-how or the technology to handle some of the negative
environmental impacts. That has changed dramatically over the last few
years. While there is risk associated with every human activity, we
have minimized the risk to the environment in tremendous ways.
The Senator knows we build some tremendous ships and off- and onshore
oil and gas equipment in Louisiana. We agree the production numbers
need to get up.
For the record, the Senator from Alaska should know that one-fifth of
the entire Nation's energy supply depends on LA-1 and its connection to
Port Fourchon. The Department of Interior mineral management identifies
Port Fourchon as the focal point of deep water activity in the gulf.
There is perhaps a deep water or perhaps a focal point in Alaska. I am
not familiar with that focal point, but in Louisiana it is Port
Fourchon. Eighty-five percent of the deepwater drilling rigs, working
in the gulf, are supported by Port Fourchon. We have a highway that is
not worth skating down, let alone with the 1,000 18-wheelers a day
trying to supply the Nation with the energy it needs to operate.
I look forward to working with the Senator as we try to improve and
increase production. I see the Senator from Hawaii on the floor. He has
been an outstanding spokesman of conserving where we can. It will be a
combination of strong conservation measures and alternative energy and
more production in Alaska and all the States, and in many places in the
lower 48.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I have appreciated
the good relationship between our two States.
Madam President, this is a fairly significant moment from the
standpoint of those interested in passing a comprehensive energy bill.
We have that bill, finally, on the floor of the Senate this evening.
Procedurally, Senator Daschle has offered a substitute amendment.
Senator Lott offered a second-degree that adds the provisions of
energy, as well as cloning. At 5 p.m. Monday there will be a vote on
cloture on the Lott amendment. The significance of this is clear to
those who said we never bring up energy for a vote, are never able to
resolve the merits of whether or not the President's request that we
pass a comprehensive energy policy will become a reality.
I rise today to say that that time has come. Today it is a reality. I
hope in the coming debate we can separate much of the fiction that has
been associated with this issue.
I rise today in support of the amendment to the underlying
legislation offered by Senator Lott. Division A through G of the
amendment will provide a balanced and comprehensive energy policy to
guide this Nation into the future.
Where does the American public stand? I have the results of a poll
recently done by the IPSOS-Reid Corporation, with offices in
Washington, New York, Toronto, Minneapolis, Vancouver, San Francisco,
Montreal, Ottowa, Winnipeg, and Calgary. It is a public opinion poll on
energy issues. It was not done last year; it was done in November.
Let me share, with you the results of this poll. This independent and
objective poll, conducted by a highly respected research firm, clearly
shows that Americans place a high priority of passing an energy bill.
The highlights are enlightening because 95 percent of Americans say
Federal action on energy is important. That doesn't surprise me.
Continuing, 72 percent of Americans say passing an energy bill is a
higher priority than any other action Congress might take. I hope that
message is loud and clear. Again, 72 percent say energy is a higher
priority than any other action Congress could take. That includes
campaign finance reform, railroad retirement, stimulus.
Continuing, 73 percent of Americans say Congress should make the
energy bill part of President Bush's stimulus plan. Surprisingly
enough, 67 percent say exploration of new energy sources in the United
States, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is a
convincing reason to support passing an energy policy bill.
We have a significant portion of America's public saying we should go
ahead and pass an energy bill. That is what is before the Senate, H.R.
4. That bill passed the House of Representatives. Clearly, the House
has done its job. Now it is up to the Senate to do its job.
We have heard from our President many times, indicating that:
We need the energy, we need the jobs, we need a
comprehensive energy bill from the Senate. This plan
increases our energy independence and therefore our national
security.
The Secretary of Energy:
We need an energy-security policy and we need it soon.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi:
We are engaged in mortal combat with an enemy who wants to
see us fail in securing an energy policy.
The Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao:
The President's plan will create literally thousands of new
jobs that will be needed to dramatically expand America's
capacity for energy production.
Let's look at those who have gone overseas and fought wars over oil--
the American Legion:
The development of America's domestic energy resources is
vital to our national security.
That is what they wrote to Senator Daschle.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars:
Keeping in mind the horrific event of September 11 and
mindful of the threats we are facing, we strongly believe
that the development of America's domestic energy resources
is a vital national security priority.
That is in a letter to Senator Daschle.
The American Veterans Association:
As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the
United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-
exporting companies, many existing in the unpredictable and
highly dangerous Persian Gulf. . . . [We] firmly believe that
we cannot wait for the next crisis before we act.
A letter to Senator Daschle.
The Vietnam Veterans Institute:
War and international terrorism have again brought into
sharp focus the heavy reliance of the U.S. on imported oil.
During these times of crises, such reliance threatens our
national security and economic well being. . . . It is
important that we develop domestic sources of oil.
Another letter to Senator Daschle.
The Catholic War Veterans of America participated.
How about organized labor? This issue, our energy security, is
expressed first by the Seafarers International Union, from Terry
Turner, the executive director:
At a time when the economy is faltering, working men and
women all over the country would clearly benefit from the
much-needed investment in energy development, storage, and
transmission.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jerry Hood:
America has gone too long without a solid energy plan. When
energy costs rise, working
[[Page 23517]]
families are the first to feel the pinch. The Senate should
follow the example passed by the House and ease their burden
by sending the President supply-based energy legislation to
sign.
The Maritime Laborers Union participated in numerous press
conferences; the Operating Engineers, Plumbers and Pipefitters Union;
the Carpenters and Joiners Union.
We have a significant group of America's organized labor in support
of this because this is truly a jobs bill, much of which could be done
without any cost to the taxpayer.
We are talking about stimulus. Let me just indicate what opening ANWR
would do as a stimulus to the economy. It would create about 250,000
jobs. Those are direct jobs. The number of secondary jobs--making pipe,
making valves--is anybody's guess. Some have come up with as high as
700,000 jobs associated with developing it.
What is the other stimulus? This is Federal land. As a consequence,
the Federal Government would lease the land under a bidding process. It
is estimated to generate about $3 billion in Federal funding coming
into the general fund.
If one considers the number of jobs, the revenue, and the reality
that it will not cost the taxpayer one red cent, it is pretty hard to
find a better stimulus. If you or anyone else in this body can identify
a single more beneficial stimulus than opening ANWR, I would like to
know what it is.
The Hispanic community, the Latin American Management Association,
has written:
As we head into the winter season in a time of war, these
worries multiply. The possibility of terrorist attacks on oil
fields or transportation in the Mideast are very real. This
would force energy prices to skyrocket and immediately impact
the most vulnerable families across the country.
That is by the Latin American Management Association. They fear bin
Laden will disrupt, perhaps, the refining or pipelines either in Saudi
Arabia or initiate some terrorist action in the Straits of Hormuz,
which would cut off our supply.
We have the Latino Coalition:
The Senate must act on comprehensive energy legislation
before adjourning. Not addressing this issue immediately is
both irresponsible and dangerous to America as a nation and
particularly to Hispanics as a community. America must
increase the level of domestic production so we can reduce
our dependency on foreign oil.
It is signed by Robert Despoda, the president of the Latino
Coalition.
The U.S. Mexico Chamber of Commerce:
We urge the Senate leadership, both Democrats and
Republicans, to pass comprehensive energy legislation before
adjourning. This is not a partisan issue. Millions of needy
Hispanic families need your support now. History would not
treat inaction kindly, and neither would Hispanic voters next
year around.
It is signed by Mario Rodriguez, Hispanic Business Roundtable
President.
The seniors organizations have spoken out. The group 60 Plus, which I
might add I have joined at some time:
It's time the Senate leadership quit demagoguing and come
to grips with the energy legislation they bottled up. Our
economy depends in no minor way on the passage of an energy
plan. Much more important, our security depends on it.
It is signed by Roger Zion, chairman, 60 Plus.
The Seniors Coalition participated in support--the United Seniors
Association.
I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes and I am going to yield
to some of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Jewish organizations have come aboard. I ask
unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish
Organizations,
New York, NY, November 16, 2001
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, HSOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The conference of Presidents of Major
American Jewish Organizations at its general meeting on
November 14th unanimously supported a resolution calling on
Congress to act expeditiously to pass the energy bill that
will serve to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of
oil. We believe that this important legislation has, in
addition, to the economic impact, significant security
implications. We hope that Congress will move quickly to pass
this vital measure.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your
colleagues on this and other matters of importance to our
country.
Mortimer B. Zuckerman,
Chairman.
Malcolm Hoenlein,
Executive Vice Chairman.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish
Organizations, in their conference, at a general meeting of November
14:
. . . unanimously supported a resolution calling on
Congress to act expeditiously to pass the energy bill that
will serve to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of
oil.
That was in a letter to Senator Daschle.
The Zionist Organizations of America say in their letter:
At a time when our Nation is at war against international
terrorism, it is more important than ever that we work
quickly to free ourselves of dependence on oil produced by
extremist dictators.
Further, they say on behalf of that organization, which is the oldest
and one of the largest Zionist movements in the State:
We are writing to express our strong support for your
efforts to make our country less dependent on foreign oil
sources by developing the oil resources in Alaska's national
wildlife refuge.
So there you have a fair segment of Americans represented through
these organizations.
Then we go to American business, the National Black Chamber of
Commerce:
Our growing membership reflects the opinion of more and
more Americans all across the political spectrum that we must
act now to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources by
addressing the nation's long-neglected energy needs.
It is signed by Harry Alford, president and CEO.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Bruce Josten, executive vice president,
U.S. Chamber:
The events of the last month lend a new urgency to our
efforts to increase domestic energy supplies and modernize
our nation's energy infrastructure.
And the National Association of Manufacturers:
The House of Representatives has answered the President's
call. It has taken our obvious energy needs into account--
along with concerns of many interest groups--and produced
reasonable and comprehensive legislation that will help
provide stable energy prices and long-term confidence in our
economy. But the Senate is dragging its feet. Some seem
willing to let politics stop the will of the majority that
wants to move forward with comprehensive energy legislation
this year. In light of current economic conditions and on
behalf of NAM's 14,000 members, I strongly urge Sen. Daschle
to move an energy bill to the floor without further delay. It
is high time to put the national interest ahead of parochial
political interests.
It is signed by Michael Baroody, National Association of
Manufacturers.
Last, the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth.
They indicate, representing 1,100 businesses, large and small, and
over 1 million employees:
All of the members of the Alliance enthusiastically welcome
the President's strong appeal for action on a national energy
policy. We are also committed to work with Senate Majority
Leader Daschle to move forward in a spirit of bipartisanship
with comprehensive, national energy legislation.
The Alliance spokesman is Bruce Josten.
That completes my comments to some extent. I will not tax the
Presiding Officer further at this time. I will take a little break.
But I think it is important that we all listen carefully to these
groups. They are sending a message to the Senate to get on with its
obligation to move an energy bill. We have that energy bill here in the
Chamber. It is the pending business for the first time in several
years.
I think it is very important that we look at the political
ramifications associated. We have elections coming up. We have a great
deal of unknown exposures relative to the instability in the Mideast.
I remind my colleagues that in about 1973 we had the Arab oil
embargo, and
[[Page 23518]]
the gas lines were around the block. The public was blaming everybody.
They were outraged and inconvenienced. Just one terrorist act could
bring that situation back.
Some say it will take time. In 1995, this body passed a bill. It
included ANWR. The President vetoed it. Had he not vetoed it, we would
very possibly have oil flowing from ANWR today and oil coming down in
new U.S. ships. But that was the loss of yesterday which is reflected
in the vulnerability of our country today.
I urge my colleagues to think seriously before voting Monday about
what you are voting for. Are you voting to be responsive to America's
somewhat extreme environmental community that has used their ANWR issue
as a cash cow to generate revenue and funding for their organizations?
When this passes, they will move on to something else. You might say I
am perhaps being overly critical. I have seen their actions. I know
what this issue means to them. It gives them a cause.
Members are going to have to determine whether it will be a
responsive vote for the environmental groups that oppose this effort or
a responsive vote to do what is right for America at a time when we are
not only at war but we are having a recession in this country.
Indeed, this energy bill would be a significant economic stimulus and
would dramatically help remove our dependence on imported oil--
particularly at a time when we are contemplating moves in the Mideast,
and our dependence on Saddam Hussein's oil is over a million barrels a
day. Yet at the same time we are enforcing a no-fly zone. In enforcing
that no-fly zone, we are probably using his oil in our aircraft to take
out his targets, and he is using our money to pay his Republican Guards
and to develop weapons capability. We already lost two U.S. seamen the
other day when that tanker sunk.
My time has expired. I defer to the next Senator seeking recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the
pending business, which is the amendment put forward by Senator Lott
containing the energy bill of Senator Murkowski and a number of other
Members in a bipartisan fashion.
It also contains a 6-month moratorium on the issue of human cloning.
That is the pending business. We are in morning business. I want to
speak to that particular issue, the pending business itself.
I think the Senator from Alaska has adequately and very well
described the need for an energy bill and what is in that energy
package. He has been very aggressive in expressing the need to do that.
I wholeheartedly agree with what he is saying. We need an energy bill.
We need an energy package, and we need less energy dependence.
If we move soon to address the issue of mass destruction in Iraq, we
are going to be in far worse shape if Iraq starts cutting down their
oil and not making it available to the United States. If some other
countries follow suit, then that means we are going to feel a great
pinch. Even though we are doing the right things to address the weapons
of mass destruction, we are going to feel a real pinch if they cut down
on oil supplies when we have such an international dependence on oil
from the Middle East in particularly.
I think what the Senator is putting forward for reducing our energy
dependence abroad--particularly from the Persian Gulf--and having our
energy sources here is a valuable thing, a necessary thing, and
something we need to do today. We need to get it addressed today. I
applaud the Senator from Alaska. That is why I am a cosponsor of the
amendment which is the pending business on the floor.
Cloning
The issue I wish to address specifically is another issue of great
concern and immediacy. It needs to be addressed. I think the world was
shocked when they read the papers Sunday about the first human clone.
It is something that was theoretical and something that was talked
about. It was something in the movies. Now there is a ``Star Wars''
movie coming out this year called ``The Clone Wars.'' It has been
something everybody has been discussing.
I think people were shocked when they read this headline about the
first human clone. It isn't something that happened in Europe or South
Africa. It was in the United States of America.
People were looking at this and saying: I thought this was in a
theoretical mode. I didn't realize we were actually at a point of
cloning humans.
The House of Representatives passed a bill to address this issue,
saying we should not be cloning humans. The President addressed this
issue and said: Send me a bill to ban human cloning; I don't think this
is something we should be doing.
The Senate is the only body of the three that has not addressed the
issue yet.
In the underlying amendment today on the issue of cloning is a 6-
month moratorium. It is not a complete ban. It is a 6-month moratorium
on all cloning to say time out. Let's hold up just a little bit while
we start catching up philosophically and thoughtfully in this body on
what is taking place on human cloning in the United States of America
today--not tomorrow, not next month--that we need to address this
before we get more stories such as this or we start seeing the face of
a child appearing before this body takes its position on addressing the
issue of human cloning. Presently, this country has not addressed it.
You can clone in this country, if you choose to do so, even though I
have a list of other countries that have acted on this issue. Twenty-
eight other countries or bodies such as the European Parliament have
already acted on the issue of human cloning. We have not. The Senate
has not yet acted on this. Twenty-eight other mostly developed
countries have already acted on this issue in some way or another.
What does the public say about it? I want to read from today's Roll
Call magazine on page 10 about the issue of cloning. There was a poll
of the American public. This is in today's Roll Call magazine, November
29. It says:
The majority of Americans clearly remain opposed to
cloning, with 87 percent telling ABC News interviewers in
early August that cloning humans should be illegal.
Respondents were told the following about therapeutic
cloning:
There is a debate going on about that. I am opposed to reproductive
cloning. Some people are saying they want to try to do therapeutic
cloning, which I think is a misnomer of the highest order. Therapeutic
cloning is where you create a human clone. You grow it for a period to
two weeks. You kill it. It is certainly not therapeutic to clone. You
harvest the cells out of that for some supposed research or other
benefit for another individual. That is so-called therapeutic cloning.
I call it destructive cloning. Some call it therapeutic.
Let's see what the respondents said. This is how the question was put
forth:
Some scientists want to use human cloning for medical
treatments. They would produce a fertilized egg, or human
embryo, that's an exact genetic copy of a person, and then
take cells from this embryo to provide medical treatments for
that person. Supporters say this could lead to medical
breakthroughs. Opponents say it could lead to the creation of
a cloned person because someone could take an embryo that was
cloned for medical treatments and use it to produce a child.
That was the question. That is the way it was phrased on therapeutic
cloning. It might produce medical breakthroughs but also a reproductive
clone.
How did the people respond to the question?
Sixty-three percent said therapeutic cloning should be illegal and 33
percent held the opposing view.
Even framed on just the issue of therapeutic cloning, 63 percent say:
No, I don't want to do that. I don't want us to go there. Yet we
continued to dawdle in this body. We did not take up the issue. We
would not hear it or bring it up on the floor until now. It is the
pending business with a 6-month moratorium. It is not a complete ban.
It is a complete ban for the 6 months. But after that, this would
sunset.
I think this is a very prudent move that this body should take in
addressing this highly controversial, highly
[[Page 23519]]
problematic and monumental bioethical issue. Our Nation is currently
wrestling with monumental bioethical issues. As I mentioned, the House
of Representatives has dealt with this issue. They have passed a ban on
human cloning with a 100-vote margin. The President keeps calling for
it. This body has not acted.
On these bioethical issues, many of which I have raised on the floor
previously--and I am going to keep raising in the future--we need to
debate all these issues, but we need to act now to have a moratorium on
human cloning so the Senate can properly debate the issue and hopefully
resolve it in the coming 2 or 3 months. That is what we are asking for
in the underlying amendment.
I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the profound
moral issues that this Nation is going to need to wrestle with and the
Senate is going to need to wrestle with for us to deal with the issue
of human cloning.
Human cloning demands the public's attention, in part, because it
implicitly revolves around the meaning of human dignity, around the
meaning of human life, and the inalienable rights that belong to every
person. Should a clone belong to someone or should a clone not belong
to someone? I think we ought to resolve that issue before it starts
being forced upon us by private companies creating clones.
Some will argue that the issue simply needs to be studied before any
research begins, a notion which does not respect the rights of the
clone. Some people say: Let's just create a group of clones out there,
and let's see and let's research and let it evolve.
Shouldn't we fundamentally deal with the issue first about what is a
clone? Is it the property of somebody who created it? Is it a person?
It is genetically identical to the person from whom it was created. It
is physically identical. Is this a person or is this a piece of
property?
We should be debating that ahead of them being out there in the
public. Should we allow people to create clones of themselves for spare
body parts? That would be down the road a longways, but people are
thinking about those sorts of things now. We now have the creation of
the first human clone.
I think clearly we should err on the side of caution at this point in
time. We should call a timeout. We should have a 6-month moratorium so
we can all sit down and think about this.
This is not going to kill the research into helpful areas of
research. Some people looking at this are saying: OK. They are
confusing it with embryonic stem cell research, which I personally have
a deep problem with because you are destroying an embryo to create that
research. But this moratorium does not apply to embryonic stem cell
research. That is going on. There is even Federal funding for some
embryonic stem cell research, as the President outlined in an August
speech with the NIH, much with which I continue to disagree.
I think we ought to focus on the adult stem cell. Be that as it may,
the embryonic stem cell work is going on and would not be affected by
this moratorium.
What this moratorium goes at is saying: Do not create human clones
for any purposes. Do not create that. After a period of 6 months it
expires.
So for those purposes, I think this is an entirely appropriate issue
for us to push the pause button. The alternative of this is for us to
do nothing. But if we do nothing, if we do not put a pause on this, you
are going to see a lot more headlines such as the one shown on this
magazine. You are going to see a lot more human clones or you are going
to hear about them being implanted in women once they get to the point
where the technology is such that that can take place. You are going to
see all that taking place and this body will not have even spoken. We
will not have said, yes, we agree or we disagree. The President has
spoken and the House has spoken, but we will not have even said, OK, we
agree we should or we disagree. We will not have done anything.
That is why I plead with the sponsors of the bill that we should take
up this particular issue. We would allow this amendment that has the
important energy language in it for energy security that contains the
important moratorium on human cloning. And that would be allowed to be
voted on by this body. We would not have a cloture vote that rules out
the vote on these two imminently important issues that need to come
before this body at this particular time.
So I plead with my colleagues, do not vote on a procedure that knocks
off these two very important issues. Let us have a vote on these two
issues.
We are going to be in town. We should take up these very important
issues that are of immediate importance and need to be considered. I
look forward to discussing this further with my colleagues as we get a
chance to bring this amendment up for a vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Ohio.
____________________
AN ENERGY POLICY AS STIMULUS
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment to the
underlying bill before the Senate.
I think the Senator from Kansas has spoken eloquently on the need to
pass a moratorium on human cloning. It is interesting to note that
about 80 percent of the people in this great Nation agree with that. It
is also interesting to note that the other portion of the amendment
calling for an energy policy for this country is also supported by
about 80 percent of the people in this country. Although I do not
ordinarily pay that much attention to polls, I say, in this case, the
polls reflect good public policy for the United States of America.
Mr. President, with all the debate that has been going on in this
body and throughout the Nation as to whether or not we actually need a
stimulus bill, I reiterate my view that, yes, we do need a stimulus
bill.
It is important that we pass a bill from several points of view.
Psychologically, the American people need a stimulus bill. For all
the talk over the last couple of months about how much we need a
stimulus bill, the public has now grown to expect we will pass a
stimulus bill. I think that has been taken into consideration in the
decisions the American public has been making. They see it as a
positive measure, one that will bring us out of our economic doldrums
and put things back on track.
As my colleagues know, the National Bureau of Economic Research
reported earlier this week what many of us knew; and that is, our
country is in recession. The people in my State of Ohio have known that
since last year.
We need to spark our economy by getting businesses to boost
investment. We need a stimulus package to help raise consumer
confidence and get the American people spending again. As you know,
consumer spending makes up two-thirds of our economy. We have to get
buying. That is what we need to do: We have to get buying.
We need an economic stimulus bill that will put money in people's
pockets, one that will restore consumer confidence, give businesses the
money they need to survive by letting them recapture taxes they paid in
the past.
We need a bill that will lower people's tax rates by expanding the
amount of earnings that are taxed at the 10-percent marginal rate. We
need a stimulus package that provides a ``life preserver'' to the
unemployed by giving them 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits
and one that responds to their health care needs.
One proposal that responds to what Americans want is the Centrist
Coalition package that the Presiding Officer is completely familiar
with and that has been sponsored, on a bipartisan basis, by the
Presiding Officer, Senators John Breaux, Olympia Snowe, Zell Miller,
and Susan Collins.
Regardless of what we do involving a stimulus bill, the American
people expect us to work together in a bipartisan fashion. They see
President Bush doing that. He is more worried about protecting the
Nation's interests than in partisan politics.
Indeed, some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have been
critical of
[[Page 23520]]
the President because he has not been partisan enough. In fact, he has
gone the extra mile, I believe, to be nonpartisan.
The American people believe that Congress' motives are the same as
the President's. If they become convinced otherwise, that we are
working for special interests or succumbing to our past bad habits of
playing politics, the consequences are going to be devastating.
It will lower their confidence in us and in the economic future of
our Nation. Things changed on the 11th of September. Those of us in
Congress should never forget it.
There is one other action we need to take to stimulate our economy,
improve and enhance public health and the environment, secure our
competitive position in the global marketplace, and secure our homeland
and national security. That action is the adoption of an energy policy
for this Nation.
That is why I am so enthusiastic about the amendment to the
underlying bill. Given the tragedy of September 11 and the actions that
have occurred in the aftermath, enacting an energy plan is much more
relevant than ever before.
As far as I am concerned, and many others, our adoption of an energy
package is, in the long term, more important to this country than the
economic stimulus package.
Because of the situation in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and
Southwest and Central Asia, we are more vulnerable today than ever
before.
You can see from this chart that one-fourth of our crude oil imports,
27.18 percent, come from the Middle East. Consider the following
numbers: Iraq, 6.83 percent; Kuwait, 2.9 percent; Saudi Arabia, 16.79
percent; the United Arab Emirates, about three one-hundreths of 1
percent; Oman, less than three one-hundreths of 1 percent; Yemen,
three-tenths of 1 percent. Given the near constant instability in the
region, it should give my colleagues little comfort to know that we are
so reliant on that part of the world.
OPEC, which produces approximately 40 percent of the world's oil
supply, has threatened to cut oil production 4 separate times this
year, and they cut oil production a total of 3.5 million barrels per
day or 13 percent this year. I know this is a figure that can be
difficult for people to comprehend, but every day, the United States
receives 750,000 barrels of oil from Iraq. If we look at the chart,
over 6.8 percent of the oil we import every day comes from Iraq.
In December, the United Nations will be conducting a periodic review
of Iraq's oil-for-food program. In the past Iraq has suspended exports
during the review in order to press their case that the program be
allowed to continue uninhibited by the United Nations. This could
happen again.
As many of you know, Iraq could be next on the list of nations that
we go after because of their threat to world peace. It would be surreal
if we were importing oil from Iraq at the same time we were engaging in
antiterrorist activities against that nation.
It was strange enough that when we had the last oil crunch last year,
we were providing them with technology to increase their oil production
while at the same time we were conducting air sorties over their no-fly
zone. We were bombing them on one hand and providing them technology so
they could increase their oil production at the same time. It doesn't
make sense.
The attack on Washington and New York could make things even more
unpredictable as support for the United States by oil-producing Arab
nations could bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacks on them. It is
important to make it clear that Osama bin Laden would dearly like to
bring down the Saudi government because of its Western influence and
the alleged exploitation by the United States of Saudi oil. Remember,
the Saudis provide 16.8 percent of our oil imports.
On the domestic front, we are also in trouble. The refinery fire in
Illinois this past August decreased the available supply of gasoline
while our inventory was already low. That caused prices to jump in my
State of Ohio and other Midwest States. The price of gasoline jumped up
30 cents per gallon in Ohio over a 2-week period because of a fire at a
refinery.
We have had no new refineries built in almost 26 years, while the
number of refineries has dropped from 231 in 1983 to 155 today. While
the refineries today are more efficient, they are not getting the job
done. When a refinery shuts down for repairs or accidents such as
fires, it creates price spikes that can be felt across the Nation.
We should not be lulled into complacency because of the temporary low
cost of gasoline. If you travel the country, the price is down. We must
do more to increase domestic production of oil in the United States.
Our transmission system also needs to be improved and opened up. We
don't have the infrastructure in place to transmit natural gas and the
pipelines to transmit oil. Last year one of the reasons we had the
large increase in gasoline prices in the Midwest was because of a break
in an oil pipeline coming up from Texas and another one coming from
Wolverine, MI. Those two events skyrocketed the price of oil in Ohio
and many other States in the Midwest.
Because of this, last month I introduced the Environmental
Streamlining of Energy Facilities Act with Senator Landrieu. Our bill
will streamline the siting process for pipelines and transmission
lines.
Utility costs are another major factor in our Nation's competitive
position in the global marketplace. Long before the events of September
11, utility costs were exacerbating the recession in Ohio and the
Midwest. We need to assure Americans that they can count on reasonable,
consistent energy costs if we expect to get their confidence back in
terms of the economy.
As a major manufacturing State, energy is the backbone of my State,
and Ohio and the Midwest are the backbone of this Nation's economy.
Twenty-three percent of our Nation's gross State product for
manufacturing is concentrated in five States which comprise the
Midwest; Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. For example,
when you compare Ohio's manufacturing production with the New England
States, Ohio's gross State product for manufacturing is higher than all
six of the New England States combined. Energy is the backbone of the
U.S. economy. And without a reliable supply, we are not competitive in
the world marketplace.
Congress needs to act on an energy bill as soon as possible. It needs
to be done on a bipartisan basis.
This chart is really very illuminating. It looks at projected demand
for energy in this country between now and 2020. The green line is what
we are going to need. The red line is based on current production and
shows what we will have available to meet the demands for energy in
this country. As my colleagues can see, there is a large canyon between
the lines that needs to be filled. That means that we are going to have
to produce more oil, more gas, use more coal, produce more nuclear
energy, if we are going to take care of this large gap.
Many of my colleagues would argue that the solution to our need for
energy is the issue of renewables and other alternatives. The fact is,
today, renewables, that includes hydro- and non-hydropower, take care
of only a fraction of our energy needs in the United States of America.
That is surprising, because I have had some colleagues come to the
floor and argue that all we need are acres and acres of windmills and
acres and acres of solar panels and that will take care of our energy
problem. The fact is, solar and wind power make up only one-tenth of
one percent of our energy needs. There is no way that we are going to
be able to deal with our energy problem with renewables because if you
look at the bottom line, this purple line, going out to 2020, you can
see that it is going to represent a very small part of the production
we have in America.
There is no question, we need more energy. We need more oil. We need
more gas. We need more nuclear. We need more coal. While conservation
helps, it is not going to meet our estimated consumption without
drastically changing America's standard of
[[Page 23521]]
living. We cannot kid ourselves and think otherwise.
Although it won't get the entire job done, a good beginning in our
goal of achieving a solid energy policy is a bill that is currently on
the Senate calendar, H.R. 4, and which is part of the amendment to the
underlying bill before the Senate that was submitted today by Senator
Lott.
It is a good beginning. Those of us who have been on this issue for a
long time would like to see amendments dealing with an ethanol
component which will help decrease our dependence on foreign oil. We
need to use more ethanol. We need to have an electricity title to
improve nationwide delivery. We need more funding for clean coal
technologies and a nuclear title, including Price-Anderson
reauthorization.
It is a beginning, a big beginning, a bill that passed the House of
Representatives and one that should be passed in the Senate.
I hope when Monday comes and this body has an opportunity to vote on
the issue of cloture dealing with the amendments to the underlying bill
that we will vote to allow those amendments to be debated by the
Senate. It is important not only to the economic well-being of our
country, but it is important to our national security.
We cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of
complacency simply because energy prices have stabilized. People say,
``Natural gas prices are down, George,'' and, ``Oil prices are down,
George.'' The fact is that they have been down before and we have seen
them go up. These prices are like a yo-yo, up and down and I am worried
that one day, we are going to end up hanging at the end of the string.
It is time for us to act. As sure as the Sun will rise, so too will
prices. OPEC will make sure it happens. The longer we wait to pass an
energy bill, the more vulnerable this Nation will be to supply
disruptions, which will, in turn, have a dramatic impact on our
economy, our environment, our health and, yes, our national security.
The time has come for the Senate to act and adopt an energy policy
for the United States of America.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for
outlining his position on the legislation we are discussing, the energy
bill, H.R. 4. His presentation certainly summarized the fact that this
indeed is in the national security interest of our Nation. He pointed
out that our continued dependence on such unreliable sources as Iraq,
at a time when we are not sure what our next move will be, puts us in a
rather embarrassing position. He has certainly highlighted the
vulnerability of this country, which is growing; there is absolutely no
question about that.
The question we have--legitimate question--is just whether or not
H.R. 4, which has passed the House of Representatives and is before us,
does the job as a comprehensive energy bill. I am going to spend a
little time on that because I think the public deserves to know what is
in H.R. 4.
I will again ask my colleagues to reflect on the vote that is going
to take place on Monday. This is not a vote on the issue of ANWR; this
is a vote on the entire bill that passed the House of Representatives.
A vote will be seen and read strictly as a vote on passing an energy
bill. I think that is significant. It is a vote for or against passing
an energy bill that has passed the House of Representatives.
With that, of course, is the cloning ban. I support that. The Senator
from Kansas made an excellent presentation on the merits of that. It is
rather unusual to see such devoid issues brought together, but that
sometimes happens in this body. It is important to point that out and
highlight that Senator Brownback's presentation is simply a 6-month
ban. What we are seeing here on cloning is the scientific and medical
movement is so fast that we are not sure where the ethical evaluation
should come down. Therefore, a 6-month moratorium on cloning is
certainly in order. I certainly support that.
Here is what H.R. 4 does for the Nation. The amendment is the
legislative portion of the President's comprehensive energy policy. It
aims to secure America's energy future with a new national energy
strategy that is designed to reduce energy demand, increase energy
efficiency and supply, and enhance our energy infrastructure and our
energy security.
I think that should address the issue some have raised that this is
nothing but a very narrow bill containing ANWR. Let me tell you what we
have in here in the sense of reducing demand. This bill reauthorizes
Federal energy conservation programs and directs the Federal Government
to take leadership in energy conservation with new energy-saving goals.
Secondly, it expands Federal energy savings performance contracting
authority. It increases the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
LIHEAP. It provides weatherization and State energy program
authorization levels to meet the needs of low-income Americans. It
expands the EPA and the Department of Energy's so-called energy star
program. It directs the EPA and the Department of Energy to determine
whether energy star labels should be extended to additional products.
We used to see seals of the Underwriters Laboratories. This is much
like that, but these stars are awarded for reduction in energy use. In
other words, you can get a better, more efficient refrigerator, but you
probably won't because your other one is working just fine. But these
new ones deserve a particular rating and some identification. That is
what the energy star program is all about. It highlights that this is
indeed an energy-saving device and technology that has been put on your
iron, refrigerator, or dishwasher.
We need to encourage Americans to go out and buy these. But,
obviously, some are reluctant because theirs is working fine. But they
can reduce energy consumption and therefore their energy bill. It
directs the DOE to set standards for appliance standby mode energy use.
It reduces light truck fuel consumption by 5 billion gallons over 6
years. Now this is the CAFE--people are saying, ``Where are your CAFE
savings?'' It directs the DOE, in the sense of light truck fuel
consumption, to reduce it by 5 billion gallons over 6 years. It also
improves Federal fleet fuel economy and expands the use of hybrid
vehicles.
What do we mean by Federal fleet? We say before we put mandates on
the general public, let's put it on the Government fleet and see how it
works. That is kind of the old saying that charity begins at home. So
it will improve the Federal fleet economy. It increases funding for the
DOE's energy conservation and efficiency R&D programs designed to
reduce consumption of energy. It expands HUD programs to promote
energy-efficient single and multifamily housing. That should answer
pretty much the concern some have raised, well, you don't have anything
in your bill to reduce demand. I think we do.
On the issue of increased supply, we have provisions for
environmentally sensitive oil and gas exploration on the Arctic Coastal
Plain. That is ANWR. I will talk about ANWR later. Clearly, the
reserves are there. It is estimated to be between 5 and 16 billion
barrels. We have an average somewhere in between 5 and 16. It will be
as big as Prudhoe Bay, now producing the 13 billionth barrel. We can
get 10 out in the field--the largest field ever found before. I have a
chart here that shows a comparison with our good neighbors from Texas,
and I am sure my staff can find it in a moment or two. As they look, I
will move into the other areas of increased supply.
I think we all assimilate in our minds domestic oil reserves coming
[[Page 23522]]
from the great State of Texas, and the great State of Texas has been
producing a lot of oil for a long time. This says: ANWR, More Oil Than
Texas. This is from the Energy Information Administration which reports
that Texas proven crude oil reserves are 5.3 billion barrels.
In 1998, the USGS estimated there is a 95-percent chance of more than
5.7 billion barrels from ANWR, a 50/50 chance of more than 10 billion
barrels of oil and a 5-percent chance of more than 16 billion barrels
of oil. So if we want to use the average, ANWR has more potential than
Texas.
I have heard my friend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, speak
in generalities about why this should not be open. I have never heard a
good explanation as to whether or not he believes there is evidence to
suggest it cannot be opened safely, but he does generalize that it is
insignificant.
If the oil in ANWR were to be the average of 10 billion barrels, ANWR
would supply 321,428 barrels per day to the State of Massachusetts.
That would last the State of Massachusetts 85.2 years. The State of
Connecticut uses 216,000 barrels per day. It would last Connecticut 126
years. South Dakota uses 59,000 barrels a day. It would provide South
Dakota with 460.3 years for their petroleum needs. I throw that out
simply as a matter of comparison when individuals say the increased
supply is insignificant. It is not insignificant.
Further, increased supply authorizes new oil and gas R&D for
unconventional and ultra-deep-water production. We are seeing that in
the Gulf of Mexico. That is where our new finds are, in deep water. The
industry has done an extraordinary job of advanced technology, and they
have been very fortunate. They have had very few accidents. It provides
royalty relief incentives for deepwater leases in the central and
western Gulf of Mexico. It streamlines the administration of oil and
gas leases on Federal land. It authorizes the Department of Energy to
develop accelerated clean coal power initiatives. So it recognizes the
significant role of coal, which makes up nearly 50 percent of our power
generation in this country.
It establishes alternative fuel vehicles and green school bus
demonstration programs. That should appeal to many Members. It reduces
the royalty rate for development of biothermal energy and expedites
leases. It provides for regular assessment of renewable energy
resources and impediments to their use. It streamlines the licensing
process for hydroelectric dams and encourages increased output. It
provides new authorization for fossil, nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, and
renewable R&D.
These things are included to increase the supply, but they are not
only in ANWR. There is authorization for new technology, hydrogen,
biomass, renewable R&D, because we want to remove our dependence even
greater on imported oil. The difficulty many people fail to recognize
is America and the world move on oil because we do not have any other
alternative. We wish we did. We can generate electricity from coal,
from gas, from nuclear, from wind, but we cannot move America and we
cannot move the world. That is why we are becoming so dependent on
Mideast sources.
If this bill passes this House and this Senate, two things are going
to happen. We are going to send a message to OPEC. The message is going
to be loud and clear that the United States is committed to reduce its
dependence on OPEC. OPEC, I think, will read that and decide, all
things being equal, they had better be careful how they operate that
cartel because if they move it up too high, why, obviously it is not
going to be in their interest. So I think it will be a curb on prices
because the more we produce domestically, the less we will import. As
we know, those countries need those gas fuels, particularly the Saudis.
Finally, in the area of enhanced infrastructure and energy security,
it sets goals for reduction of United States dependence on foreign oil
and Iraqi imports. It initiates the review of existing rights of way on
Federal lands for energy potential. It directs the Department of Energy
to implement R&D and demonstrate use of distributed energy resources.
It invests in a new transmission infrastructure R&D program to ensure
reliable electricity.
It requires a study of boutique fuels and issues to minimize refinery
bottlenecks and supply shortages because, as we remember, it was not so
very long ago under the previous administration, when we had a shortage
of heating oil in the Northeast in the wintertime, the decision was
made to open up SPR. We took 30 million barrels out of SPR. Suddenly we
found we did not have the refining capacity because we had not built
new refineries in this country in 20, 25 years, so all we did was
displace what we were importing. That is kind of the situation. So this
does provide some relief.
It initiates supply potential for renewable transportation of fuels
to displaced oil imports, it offers scholarships to train the next
generation of energy workers, and it prohibits pipelines from being
placed on national registers of historic places. That is what the bill
does.
Last night the majority whip, Senator Reid, my good friend, came to
the Chamber, and I do not know whether he was ill informed or not, but
in any event I will comment a little bit on his statement. I assume it
was an attempt to support the majority leader's priorities from the
standpoint of the remaining time we have in this session and what those
priorities should be. I know many of my friends on both sides of the
aisle feel very strongly about the railroad retirement legislation, but
the majority leader stated he thinks it is more important this body
consider the railroad retirement legislation than comprehensive energy
legislation. That is contrary to polling information I just presented.
That polling information, as I said, indicated that 95 percent of
Americans say Federal action on an energy bill is important. That is
not enough because 72 percent of the Americans say passing an energy
bill is a higher priority than other actions Congress might take.
We have seen polls from time to time. We take them or leave them, but
this was an IPSOS-Reid poll done in November. So clearly there is a
little bit of difference expressed by the polling information on what
the priorities should be.
Now, evidently, the leader thinks it is more important that we
consider a farm bill. It is kind of interesting about how we set
priorities because the farm bill does not expire until the end of next
year. Does it have the same prioritization as the exposure we are
seeing in the Persian Gulf, the danger of terrorism to Saudi Arabia in
bringing down the Royal Family, a couple of tankers colliding in a
terrorist attack in the Straits of Hormuz, terrorizing oil fields?
These are the crises that would come about, and clearly with our
increased dependence on Iraqi oil and the fact we are looking to
finalize things over there against those who sponsor terrorism, it is
beyond me how the leader would consider the farm bill as being more
important, particularly when it is not due to expire until the end of
next year.
I know what good soldiers are about. I have been in the majority and
I have been in the minority, and sometimes we are asked to defend the
indefensible. That is politics. I think the whip is doing a good job as
we have come to understand he always does in the Senate. However, I
really cannot stand by and watch the facts simply evaporate. As I
indicated, we simply cannot stand by and watch the facts simply
evaporate. I emphasize ``facts.''
During his comments, the majority whip stated that the overall
benefits to the country for developing a small area of the Arctic
Coastal Plain were ``nonexistent.'' I find it rather ironic that he
would make that blatant statement. Nonexistent? Did the majority whip
really say the overall benefit to the country would be nonexistent when
we have seen the Teamsters, the unions, the veterans, the minority
groups in this country say they think this is the most important thing
for the Senate to take up, and the fact that the House has passed it
sends a strong message. We have some work to do.
When he said that would be nonexistent, I asked myself, can he really
[[Page 23523]]
believe that? Does he really think the facts support his assertion?
Knowing that the majority whip would never deliberately mislead other
Senators, I only conclude he doesn't know all the facts. He, as well as
the majority leader, have never taken the time to visit the area. We
have made repeated offers. I have taken many Members there.
It is ironic we only have to justify on the side of the proponents
the merits of the issue based on our personal experience, the
experience of my senior colleague, Senator Stevens, and Representative
Don Young. The administration has seen the area, physically gone up
there. The Secretary of Interior has been up there twice. I took her up
last February. We took off with a wind chill factor of 72 degrees below
zero. It is tough country.
One chart shows the bleakness of the Arctic in the wintertime. I am
also convinced the only way the Senator might learn those facts, if he
doesn't visit the area, would be if I were to share more and more facts
with him in the hopes he will understand. I am here to make the Nation
aware of the significance of what this could mean to our energy
security. I will also make the Nation aware of the benefits to the
country in opening a small sliver of the Arctic Coastal Plain for
development.
Today, I will share with the Senate what the Clinton administration
said about ANWR. I think my colleagues should know what the previous
administration said about ANWR, as related by the Energy Information
Agency in May of 2000, an agency created by Congress to give unbiased
energy information. I will come back to this in a moment.
ANWR is the area on this chart to the right on the map of Alaska.
Also shown is the State of South Carolina for a size comparison. There
are 19 million acres in ANWR. We have 365 in the whole State. ANWR, on
the big chart, the 19 million acres, is already predestined by Congress
for specific designation. The darker yellow is part of the refuge. The
lighter yellow is in a wilderness in perpetuity. That is about 8
million acres. The green at the top is the 1002 area, or the ANWR
coastal plain. The geologists say this is a very productive area. It is
60 miles from Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, of course, is the field that
has been producing for some 27 years.
The TAPS pipeline is an 800-mile pipeline traversing the length of
Alaska. Interestingly enough, when that was built 27 years ago, we had
arguments in the Senate whether that could be built safely. What would
happen to the animals? What would happen to a hot pipeline in
permafrost. Would it break? All the same arguments are being used
today. There was a tie in the Senate, and the Vice President came in
and broke the tie. I cannot recall how many hundreds of billions of
barrels we have received, but for an extended period of time that was
flowing at 2 million barrels a day. It is a little over 1 million
barrels at this time.
This map shows another area worthy of some consideration. That is the
red dot. That is the footprint associated with the development. In the
House bill that is 2,000 acres. I know the occupant of the chair knows
what 2,000 acres is. Robert Redford has a farm in Utah of 5,000 acres.
Keep in mind this authorization is for 2,000 acres, a permanent
footprint, out of 19 million acres. Is that unreasonable? I don't think
it is.
Some are under the impression this is a pristine area that has not
been subject to any development or any population. Of course, a village
is at the top of the map. Real people live there. They have hopes and
aspirations for a better lifestyle and better working conditions, jobs,
health conditions, schools. There is a picture of some of the Eskimo
kids going to school and nobody there to shovel the walks. There is
also a picture of the public buildings, in front of the community hall,
with pictures of the Eskimo's two modes of transportation: One is a
snow machine and the other is a bicycle. That should take care of the
myth that nobody is up there. Real people live there.
The Coastal Plain comprises approximately 8 percent of the 19 million
acres. ANWR is along the geological trend that is productive in the
sense that the oil flows in the same general area. This is the largest
unexplored potential production onshore base in the entire United
States, according to the Energy Information Agency.
I return now to the statement of the Clinton administration: This is
the largest unexplored potential onshore base in the United States. The
Energy Information Agency, under the Clinton administration, did not
think the benefits of ANWR would be nonexistent on our Nation's energy
supplies. That is why I am amused that the majority whip would use the
term ``nonexistent.''
The Department of Interior says if the Energy Information
Administration isn't good enough, how about the Department of the
Interior under Bruce Babbitt?
I am wondering if that argument isn't enough to convince the majority
whip that the benefits of ANWR are not nonexistent on energy supplies.
According to a 1998 Department of the Interior study under the
previous administration, there is a 95-percent probability--that is 19
in 20 chances--that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil in ANWR is
recoverable. That is about half what we would recover initially from
Prudhoe Bay. There is a 50-50 chance that there is 10.3 billion barrels
of recoverable oil. And there is a 5-percent chance at least 16 billion
barrels are recoverable.
These are not my numbers. These are not coming from Frank Murkowski
or Don Young or Ted Stevens. These aren't the environmental fundraiser
groups' numbers. These are Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's
scientific numbers.
I fail to recognize how the majority whip can add these up and
suggest that it is nonexistent, as was stated by the whip. How much oil
is there reason to believe is there? We don't know. We won't know until
we get in there. Senators might wonder how much these numbers add up
to. How much impact would oil from ANWR have on our Nation's energy
security, our economy, our jobs?
Let me try to put that in perspective. According to the Independent
Energy Information Administration, at the end of 2000, Texas had 5.27
billion barrels of proven reserves. That means there is a 95-percent
chance that ANWR has more oil than all of Texas. Think of the jobs
associated with the oil industry in Texas.
California has 3.8 billion barrels of proven reserves. There is a 95-
percent chance that ANWR has more oil than all of California.
New Mexico has 718 million barrels of proven reserve. There is a 95-
percent chance that ANWR can recover almost 8 times as much oil as is
proven to exist in New Mexico.
Louisiana has 529 million barrels of proven reserves. Oklahoma, 610
million; Michigan, 56 million; Pennsylvania, 15 million; Nevada,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut had no proven reserves.
In fact, the Energy Information Agency states that the lower 48
States have total proven reserves of 17,184,000,000 barrels of oil.
That's it, 17 billion. This could come in at the high end. If we are
lucky enough to hit Secretary Babbitt's high number of 16 billion
barrels, ANWR would almost double U.S. reserves.
These are not my figures. They are figures of the previous Secretary
of the Interior. Are these benefits nonexistent, as the whip has
indicated last evening?
I hope this will clarify the issue for the majority whip, and any
other Senators who might wonder whether ANWR would have an impact on
our energy security, economy, or our jobs. To repeat, ANWR could
potentially double our reserves overnight. Do I know it will? No. Does
anyone else? No. But I will certainly take the word of the Clinton
administration scientists over the word of the environmental
fundraising groups. They have never wanted this issue resolved because
they would no longer have their best fundraising issue to lie their way
into well-intentioned American wallets. It is easy to understand how
people might be misled. These groups have simply not been telling the
truth, period.
[[Page 23524]]
I am happy to debate any and all, at any time, on the merits of this
issue. If there are those who do not believe me, or the Clinton
administration, how about organized labor? Teamsters, maritime,
construction trade unions, the AFL/CIO, operating engineers, and many
other unions have joined us in support of this legislation. They think
it will have a great impact on the economy, on our national security,
on our jobs. They estimate between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs will be
created here at home by opening ANWR.
They do not believe the benefits to our Nation are nonexistent, as
the majority whip has indicated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent I may have another 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take a note here,
relative to the number of ships that would have to be built if, indeed,
ANWR were opened. A lot of people overlook the reality that Alaskan oil
is unique. It has to move in U.S.-flagged vessels because the Jones Act
requires that. Any movement of goods and material between two U.S.
ports has to be moved in a U.S.-flagged vessel. So all the oil from
Alaska moves down in ships built in U.S. yards, with U.S. crews, and
flying the American flag.
This is the largest concentration of U.S.-flagged tankers in
existence in our country, in this particular trade. They would require,
if ANWR opens, 19 double-hulled tankers which would add about $4
billion to the economy and create 5,000 jobs each for 17 years because
these new ships will come on as replacements for others.
I do not know if those benefits are nonexistent, but to the States--
Maine, where they are likely to build some of these ships; Alabama,
Mississippi, Texas, Washington, California--these are jobs. These are
good jobs, good jobs in U.S. shipyards.
What about these other ships that bring in oil, the 56 percent that
are coming from overseas? They bring their oil in foreign-flagged
vessels. They don't have the deep pockets of an Exxon.
I will conclude because I see other Senators are here waiting for
recognition. But I want to ask again, the benefits are nonexistent? I
hope this will clarify the issue for the majority whip and any other
Senators who might wonder whether ANWR would have any impact on our
energy security, the economy, and jobs.
To repeat, ANWR could almost double our reserves overnight. Do I know
it will? Does anyone? No. But I, again, would take the word of the
Clinton administration scientists over the word of the environmental
fundraising groups. They have never wanted this issue resolved because,
as I indicated, they would no longer have the best fundraising issue to
lie their way into well-intentioned American wallets.
It would be easy to understand how they might be misled but, as I
have indicated, they pulled the wool over the public's eyes. This is an
issue that involves our national energy security. It is a very
fundamental issue.
I will conclude by, again, referring to the other organizations--the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans
Institute--which think it is good for the national security. They do
not believe the benefits to our Nation are nonexistent, and they ought
to know. They fought the wars.
The House acted on national energy security legislation before
September 11. Frankly, they have shown up the Senate. In that body,
committees were allowed to advance energy legislation, debate it, and
pass it to the floor for further consideration.
Here, the majority leader seized the bill from the committee of
jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am
a ranking member. I used to be chairman. He has seized the bill from
the committee of jurisdiction and has substituted his will for the will
of the committee. He has bypassed the committee process entirely.
I am very disappointed that we were not able to bring around the
majority to recognize this matter should go to the committee of
authorization and not be taken away from it, but I am not chairman of
that committee anymore.
Finally, I offer up this question to the Senate: If, indeed, the
benefits to this country were nonexistent, there was so little oil
there, then why is there such a huge campaign to deny Americans that
oil? We can all ask ourselves why--16 billion barrels of oil, times $30
a barrel, is almost one-half trillion dollars.
It is about $480 billion; $480 billion is nonexistent? If that is the
price about the time ANWR comes on line, that means $480 billion stays
at home rather than being spent abroad for oil. With that kind of
money, we can better provide for our schools, our security, our health
care system, our elderly.
Here we are today rising before this body at last to take up an
energy bill. The amendment offered by Senator Lott is the underlying
legislation. Divisions A through G of the amendment will provide us
with the remainder of a comprehensive energy policy to guide this
Nation into the future.
As I have indicated specifically, these provisions provide ways to do
the following: Reduce our demand for energy, increase our domestic
supply of energy, invest in our energy infrastructure, and enhance
energy security.
I will go into more detail at a later time.
But for the past decade, America has lacked a comprehensive energy
strategy. We are aware of that. Without such a guidebook, our record of
economic expansion and resulting growth in demand has outpaced our
energy production. We saw a similar situation last year in the sense of
a perfect storm, if you will. All the parts of our energy supply were
stretched, and there were limits on output. We actually saw that occur.
As we know, when supply doesn't meet demand, prices go up. When you
have a cartel such as OPEC, they are able to do things that antitrust
laws in the United States simply prohibit. They are able to set prices
by reducing supply. As we all know, when supply doesn't meet demand,
the price rises.
Rising energy prices have already been blamed by many economists for
putting us into the recession we now face. It is a matter of particular
importance that we develop a comprehensive national energy strategy for
our economic and our national security.
Under previous control of this body by the Republicans, the Senate
had a very aggressive timetable. That timetable was to get a
comprehensive energy bill passed by the Fourth of July. We were working
on this bill and introduced it shortly after we came in last year in
late January. We had a change. And the GOP left a legacy to the other
side. We have done our part.
When I was chairman, our committee had 24 hearings. We heard from 160
witnesses, and we introduced the Murkowski-Breaux bipartisan bill and
were ready to move. The President's national energy policy framed the
debate.
I can see no reason why the Democrats should not have kept this
schedule. But since they took control, we have had a few hearings and
heard from some of the same witnesses. We started a markup on the bill
of the new chairman in August. We engaged in good-faith discussions to
come to a consensus only to find our committee stripped of its
jurisdiction by the majority leader because he pulled the plug on the
Energy Committee's deliberations and simply took over the process
bypassing the authorizing committee and bypassing Senator Bingaman, who
is the chairman. I can only guess why.
We had the votes in committee to pass out an energy bill. We asked
the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for a date certain. We asked the
chairman of the committee, Senator Bingaman, for a date certain. The
statement from our Senate leadership is there will be no new energy
bill this year. That statement has been made.
At least we are in the Chamber tonight. We have an energy bill up for
consideration. I thank all my colleagues who played a role in assuring
this would come about, because I made
[[Page 23525]]
a commitment that we were going to bring this matter up before we go
out on recess. Now we are in it.
In recent weeks, there has been considerable talk of the need to
address the Nation's problems in the old spirit in a bipartisan manner.
I wish we could. We have seen this with respect to an antiterrorist
package, the airline security measure, and several other pieces of
legislation. Sadly, this air of ``bipartisanship'' has broken down with
respect to energy policy. We now find ourselves in a partisan standoff.
I think, though, we all agree we need an energy policy. We have one
which passed the House. That is before us. It is up to us to address
whether we are going to simply walk out of here without an energy
policy or take this up seriously, vote it out, get it to conference,
and respond to the request of our President.
We have seen threats of filibusters, suspension of committee
activities, and a failure to give the American people a fair, open, and
honest debate on this issue.
I do not think, and I refuse to accept, that meeting the energy needs
of this Nation is a partisan issue.
At the beginning of the session, I sought out my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle for their ideas and suggestions. And as
committee chairman, I delayed introducing any legislation until a
measure could be developed that reflected their interests. We worked
hard on that.
S. 389, while not perfect, met that requirement and remains the only
bipartisan comprehensive energy measure introduced in the Senate.
At a time when the country is seeking unity and bipartisanship, we
should be moving forward with a bipartisan energy bill. Just as we did
last year with respect to electricity, we should put the contentious
issues to a fair and open debate, and vote on them.
Repeatedly, the President has called on Congress to pass energy
legislation as a part of our efforts to enhance national security.
With H.R. 4, the bill now sitting on the Senate calendar, the House
of Representatives has done its job. Now it's the Senate's turn. The
best thing we can do to ensure this Nation's energy security is to act
now: take up the House bill, amend it, and go to conference.
Make no mistake about it. That is what we should do. This energy
policy proposal will create new jobs in domestic production and new
energy technologies. This will be a significant economic stimulus that
couldn't come any sooner--when the economy needs thousands of new jobs.
At stake are billions of dollars in construction spending, hundreds
of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars that won't go overseas in
future energy spending.
Our increasing dependence on foreign oil helps to support the very
terrorists we now fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. We import
nearly a million barrels per day of oil from Iraq, and some of our oil
payments to Saudi Arabia may have been used against us in the events of
September 11.
As a matter of national importance, we cannot allow our energy
security to get bogged down in partisanship and procedural maneuvers.
One of the purposes of committees is to test various proposals and to
provide the Senate with a considered recommendation. A majority of the
members of the Energy Committee have been willing to provide this
advice--and report out a bill. Yet the majority leader and the
committee chairman have seen fit to ``short-circuit'' the regular order
to avoid votes on certain issues. These votes would prevail if we could
get the matter up in the committee.
The American people deserve better than this. They deserve more than
just partisan sniping on energy issues. We certainly need to provide
for the security of our energy supply. We need to deal with our
infrastructure and our domestic capacity for development, refining and
transportation and transmission. And we should take those steps that we
can all agree on to promote the energy technologies of the next decade
and beyond.
Our Nation deserves a fair, honest, and open debate on all aspects of
the important energy issues, including ANWR. This is a debate that a
majority of members were ready to have in committee, but that
opportunity was denied us. We are ready to have that debate and let the
votes fall where they may on all the contentious issues that remain.
So let us now finally--since we are on the bill--have this debate so
we can look the American people--our constituents--in the eye when we
go home for the holidays and say that, yes, we have passed, in the
national interest, an energy bill, H.R. 4, which passed the House
overwhelmingly; and then tell them we are going to do our part to
provide safe, secure, and affordable energy supplies now and into the
future.
At this critical point in our Nation's history, we clearly need a
national energy strategy to ensure a stable, reliable, and affordable
energy supply.
While many choices have been forced upon us in the aftermath of
September 11, we now have the chance to choose our energy future. The
other alternative is simply to dodge the issue. Will we have the
courage to act? Will we have the courage to make the difficult
decisions we avoided some 10 years ago?
In 1995, ANWR was in the omnibus bill. It was an energy bill. It
passed this body. It was vetoed by the President. Had he signed that
order, we would know what was in ANWR. We could be producing from ANWR.
The question is, When are we going to start?
As the President said, there was a good bill passed out of the House
of Representatives. Now it is the job of the Senate. The Senate can and
must act.
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this amendment to
ensure the security of our energy supply, our economy, and our Nation
for years to come.
I thank the Chair for being patient. We are going to be back on this
tomorrow. I thank the majority whip for his indulgence as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Before my friend, the distinguished Senator from Alaska,
leaves the Chamber, I did want to say that I was a little disappointed,
when he went over the reserves in various States, that he said Nevada
had nothing.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the terminology is ``inexistent.''
Mr. REID. Inexistent? The reason I mention that is for 6 years Nevada
had the largest single producing oil well in the United States in a
place called Railroad Valley. The well went dry about 8 or 9 years ago.
But for 6 years it was the best in the country.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was talking about current reserves, so there very
well may have been a well in Nevada, but there isn't anymore.
____________________
RAILROAD RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR'S IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. REID. That we have found yet.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Railroad
Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act of 2001. As a Senator from
Wyoming, I represent a State that bears the undeniable mark of the
railroads. Many of the towns across the southern corridor of my State
were established on the sites of old railroad shanty towns. These
shanty towns were constructed to house the workers that built the
railroads. The railroad workers brought diversity to Wyoming. Many of
my constituents with Chinese, Irish and Italian heritages call Wyoming
home because their ancestors moved there with the railroad.
The railroad is still an integral part of Wyoming today. It
transports one of our greatest energy resources, low-sulfur coal, to
States that lack our power supply. And today's railroad workers are
still an important part of the Wyoming population. I support this bill
because I support providing the survivors of railroad employees with
the benefits they require to live out their days in my State and other
States. I support this bill for another reason; it is a viable option
to provide solvency to the railroad retirement fund and increase
[[Page 23526]]
retirement benefits and while lowering employer taxes.
These two results may sound mutually exclusive, but I assure you that
they are not. The bill authorizes the newly created Railroad Retirement
Trust Fund to invest the current Railroad Retirement Account in
securities, including stocks and bonds. Even a conservative estimate
places the rate of return on these investments as greater than the
current rate of return in government accounts. This is the mechanism
that allows retirement benefits to increase while taxes decrease.
As an accountant, I refrained from sponsoring the bill until I
reviewed the actuarial report. After examining the report, I determined
that the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund would remain well-capitalized
and able to pay benefits under this legislation far into the future.
The actuarial report indicated that this would occur even during
mediocre economic conditions.
This bill would directly benefit Wyoming railroaders and their
spouses by allowing 100 percent benefits for survivors of eligible
retirees. It would lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 years for
employees that have worked at least 30 years for the railroad. Some of
my colleagues have asked why we should lower the railroad retirement
age when the Social Security retirement age is increasing from 65 to
67. It is important to make a distinction between Tier I and Tier II
benefits in this plan. Tier I benefits are comparable to Social
Security benefits, and they do not start paying until the equivalent
Social Security benefits are payed. Currently, that is at age 65. Tier
II benefits, which are funded by taxes to the railroad employers and
employees, pay the early retirement benefits for eligible workers. This
is very similar to the ``bridge plan'' offered by private pension
plans. This is important because railroading is a physically rigorous
profession that ages a body prematurely and is still considered
hazardous.
This legislation includes an automatic tax trigger that initiates an
increase or decrease of the employer's taxes if the trust fund's amount
moves outside of preset barriers. The barriers would ensure that a
cushion of 4 to 6 years' worth of benefits payable remain in the
account. A number of my colleagues have been presenting graphs that
show benefit levels falling and employer taxes increasing 20 years
after the program is initiated. I do not dispute this. In fact, it
shows the fund's ability to manage itself and respond to decreases in
its cushion.
As a Wyoming Senator and an accountant, I support the Railroad
Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act. I support it as a
responsible way to manage the funds entrusted to us by the railroad
workers. I support it as a way to fully care for the individuals that
have contributed so much to our nation's infrastructure. I ask that my
colleagues do the same and pass this bill.
____________________
SERVICE MEMBERS OPPORTUNITY COLLEGES
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to
bring to the attention of the Senate a true national asset, the Service
Members Opportunity Colleges, (SOC). The SOC is a consortium of over
1500 Colleges and Universities across the Nation that have taken on the
privilege of educating our Nation's men and women in uniform.
Founded in 1972 the SOC was created to ``provide educational
opportunities to service members, who, because they frequently moved
from place to place, had trouble completing college degrees.''
In fulfilling this primary role the SOC and their member institutions
currently serve hundreds of thousands of service members. They work
very hard to provide opportunities for our brave young men and women to
educate themselves while serving our Nation. Consequently the SOC is
helping prepare the future leaders of our military and our country. For
this I salute them.
However, in addition to their stated mission the SOC, and their
director Dr. Steven Kime, have dedicated themselves to ensuring that
our men and women in the Guard and Reserve are taken care of when our
Nation calls upon them and they are forced to leave school. The SOC
does this by using their extensive network to ensure that students
called to service are either refunded their tuition or receive credits
for later education. Through their hard work SOC has helped create a
sense of duty among their member institutions who regularly prove their
devotion to this Nation by providing help and assistance to their
students called upon to serve.
Consequently SOC has ensured that our brave young men and women
called to active duty have one less worry on their already heavy
shoulders. In these trying times it is this type of duty and leadership
that proves our Nation and the American people are without equal.
Again, I would like to offer my thanks and admiration to the
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges and their men and women working so
hard to make life better for our men and women in uniform.
____________________
ANOTHER REASON TO CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into the Record some
important information about guns and terrorists. Currently, shoppers at
gun shows may choose to buy firearms from federally licensed firearms
dealers--or from unlicensed dealers. Since unlicensed sellers are not
required to run Brady background checks, which involves an instant
background check for among other things, criminal history, outstanding
warrants and illegal immigration status, gun shows are an important
source of guns for criminals and terrorists who would not be able to
buy weapons in a store. In fact, several cases have linked the purchase
of guns at gun shows to terrorists. For example, in Florida, a man
accused of having ties to the Irish Republican Army testified that he
purchased thousands of dollars worth of machine guns, rifles, and high-
powered ammunition at gun shows and proceeded to smuggle them to
Ireland. Now more than ever, we must close the gun show loophole. I
urge my fellow Senators to support bringing to the floor legislation
that will close the gun show loophole.
____________________
MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. WEAVER, JR.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to
recognize one of the finest officers in our Armed Forces, Major General
Paul A. Weaver, Jr., the Director of the Air National Guard. Well known
and respected by many Members in this chamber, General Weaver will soon
retire after almost 35 years of selfless service to our country. Today,
I am honored to acknowledge some of General Weaver's distinguished
accomplishments and to commend the superb service he has provided to
the Air National Guard, the Air Force, and our great Nation.
After completing his Bachelor of Science degree in Communicative Arts
at Ithaca College, New York, Paul Weaver entered the Air Force in 1967
and was commissioned through Officer Training School. After earning his
pilot wings, he had flying assignments in the F-4E and O-2A, and
completed overseas tours in Germany and Korea. In 1975, he joined the
New York Air National Guard with which he served in increasing levels
of responsibility. This culminated when he took command of the 105th
Airlift Group at Stewart Air National Guard Base, New York, in 1985.
Following his nine years as commander, General Weaver served as the Air
National Guard's Deputy Director for four years and was appointed the
Director of the Air Guard in 1998.
General Weaver is a command pilot with more than 2,800 flying hours
in five different aircraft. He is a veteran of Operations Desert
Shield, Desert Storm, and Just Cause. General Weaver's decorations
include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit,
Meritorious Service Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal, Air Force
Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Combat Readiness Medal
[[Page 23527]]
with Service Star, and Southwest Asia Service Medal with two oak leaf
clusters.
While serving as Commander of the 105th Airlift Wing, Paul Weaver was
responsible for the largest conversion in the history of the Air
National Guard. Under his command, the wing converted from the Air
Force's smallest aircraft, the O-2 Skymaster, to its largest, the C-5
Galaxy. During this conversion, he oversaw the largest military
construction program in the history of the reserve forces as he
literally rebuilt Stewart Air National Guard Base.
As the Air National Guard's Director, General Weaver's
accomplishments are also noteworthy. He had dedicated each year of his
term to a different theme--transition, the enlisted force, the family,
and employers, thereby providing focus and enhancements to these four
crucial areas. In addition, Paul Weaver's modernization, readiness,
people, and infrastructure initiatives have enabled a fuller
partnership role in the Air Force's Expeditionary Aerospace Force. The
Air Guard achieved all its domestic and global takings and requirements
with a force that is also smaller in size. Under General Weaver's
leadership, the Air National Guard is even more relevant, ready,
responsive, and accessible than it has ever been.
I would be remiss if I also did not mention that the Air National
Guard is also fortunate to have another Weaver contributing to its
success. Besides fully supporting his chosen profession, Paul's wife,
Cathylee Weaver has had a major impact on the Air Guard's Family
Enrichment programs. With dignity and grace, she dedicated time and
attention to Air National Guard families, which led to her recently
being voted as Volunteer of the Year of Family Programs. Clearly, the
Air National Guard will lose not one, but two, exceptional people.
Let me close by saying that as both its Deputy and Director, General
Weaver has made the Air National Guard a stronger and more capable
partner for the Air Force. His distinguished and faithful service has
provided significant and lasting contributions to our Nation's
security. I know the members of the Senate will join me in paying
tribute to this outstanding citizen-airmen and true patriot upon his
retirement from the Air National Guard. We thank General Weaver, and
wish him, Cathylee, and the entire Weaver family much health,
happiness, and Godspeed.
____________________
KIDS TO KIDS: WARM CLOTHING FOR AFGHAN CHILDREN
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to draw my Colleagues'
attention to an important initiative that is taking shape in Vermont.
On Monday of this week, I attended a very special ceremony at Lawrence
Barnes School in Burlington to kick off a program called Kids to Kids.
The event was organized by Vermont Boy and Girl Scouts and its goal is
simple--a drive to collect and send warm clothing to Afghan children.
My wife, Liz, and I wholeheartedly agreed to be honorary co-chairs of
this program and we are pleased to be part of a mission that involves
the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, the Islamic Society of Vermont, the
National Guard and the business community.
We in Vermont know the importance of being well-prepared for the
frigid winter months, and we are fortunate to be in a position to help.
But I am particularly pleased that the impetus for this clothing drive
has come from the children. Vermonters have always stood eager and
ready to lend a hand to those in need, and it fascinates me to see how
this tradition passes from one generation to the next. It is the Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts, and school children of Vermont who will make this
campaign a success, and the importance of their role cannot be stressed
enough.
This campaign is so much more than simply a gesture of good will. It
is a matter of saving lives. Thousands of children have fled
Afghanistan with nothing more than the clothing on their backs. The
flood of Afghan refugees started many years ago, and now there are many
thousands of displaced children living in refugee camps.
Many of these children are suffering under conditions that no child
should have to bear. They are hungry and they are cold. With winter
setting in, something like a warm winter sweater, which so many of us
take for granted, is a luxury item that is far beyond their reach.
From our small State to Afghan refugee camps, the boys and girls of
Vermont are proving that they can make a difference. I am certain their
``good turn'' will be as rewarding for them as it is for the children
of Afghanistan.
____________________
NATIVE AMERICAN BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER TREATMENT TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last evening, the Senate passed by
unanimous consent S. 1741, the Native American Breast and Cervical
Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001, which I had
introduced with Senator McCain and 23 other bipartisan cosponsors.
S. 1741 is identical to S. 535 and was introduced as a freestanding
bill to address a jurisdictional concern raised with the committee
referral of the initial bill. Due to the importance of the legislation,
I am pleased that the entire Senate saw fit to allow this bill to be
reintroduced and passed by unanimous consent yesterday.
The legislation makes a simple, yet important, technical change to
the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000 by
clarifying that American Indian and Alaska Native women should not be
excluded from receiving coverage through Medicaid for breast and
cervical cancer treatment.
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000
gives States the option to extend coverage for the treatment of breast
and cervical cancer through the Medicaid program to certain women who
have been screened through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer
Early Detection Program, or Title XV of the Public Health Service Act,
and who do not have what is called ``creditable coverage,'' as defined
by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or
HIPPA.
In referencing the HIPPA definition of ``creditable coverage,'' the
bill language inadvertently precludes coverage to Native American women
who have access to medical care under the Indian Health Service, or
IHS. HIPPA included a reference to IHS or tribal care as ``creditable
coverage'' so that members of Indian Tribes eligible for IHS would not
be treated as having a break in coverage, and thus subject to pre-
existing exclusions and waiting periods when seeking health insurance,
simply because they had received care through Indian health programs,
rather than through a conventional health insurance program. Thus, in
HIPPA, the inclusion of the IHS or tribal provision was intended to
benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives, not penalize them.
However, use of the HIPPA definition in the recent Breast and
Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act has the exact opposite
effect. In fact, the many Indian women, who rely on IHS or tribal
programs for basic health care, are specifically excluded from the
law's new eligibility under Medicaid. Clearly it was not the intent of
Congress to specifically discriminate against low-income Native
American women and to deny them much needed health treatment to combat
breast or cervical cancer.
The legislation resolves these problems by clarifying that, for
purposes of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment
Act, the term ``creditable coverage'' shall not include IHS-funded care
so that American Indian and Alaska Native women can be covered by
Medicaid for breast and cervical cancer treatment, as they are for all
other Medicaid services. Since a number of States are currently moving
forward to provide Medicaid coverage under the State option, the need
for this legislation is immediate to ensure that some American Indian
and Alaska Native women are not denied received life-saving breast and
cervical cancer
[[Page 23528]]
treatment due to a Congressional drafting error.
In addition, this bill would also reduce the administrative burdens
this language places on states. Under administrative guidance, some
Native American women can be enrolled on the program depending on a
determination of their ``access'' to IHS services, which depends on
certain documentation obtained by Native American women seeking breast
and cervical cancer treatment from IHS. In order to determine the
Medicaid eligibility of Native American women who are screened as
having breast or cervical cancer through the Title XV program each
year, states are having to put together a whole set of regulations and
rules to make these special ``access'' determinations.
During this year, almost 50,000 women are expected to die from breast
or cervical cancer in the United States despite the fact that early
detection and treatment of these diseases could substantially decrease
this mortality. While passage of last year's bill makes significant
strides to address this problem, it fails to do so for certain Native
American women and that must be changed as soon as possible.
In support of Native American women across this country that are
being diagnosed through CDC screening activities as having breast or
cervical cancer, this legislation will assure that they can also access
much needed treatment through the Medicaid program while also reducing
the unnecessary paperwork and administrative burdens on states.
I would like to thank all Senators for their support and specifically
thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Campbell of the Committee on Indian
Affairs and Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley of the Finance
Committee for agreeing to move the bill. In addition, I would like to
thank the bill's cosponsors, which include Senators McCain, Daschle,
Baucus, Clinton, Domenici, Feingold, Kennedy, Johnson, Murray,
Stabenow, Wellstone, Harkin, Miller, Snowe, Inouye, Smith of Oregon,
Cantwell, Inhofe, Landrieu, Cochran, Boxer, Murkowski, Mikulski, and
Grassley for their help in getting the bill passed.
I would also like to thank Sara Rosenbaum at George Washington
University for bringing this problem to our attention and for her vast
knowledge on this issue and Andy Schneider for his technical advice and
counsel on correcting the problem.
In addition, this bill would never have passed without the
outstanding support and efforts by Fran Visco, Jennifer Katz, Wendy
Arends, Alana Wexler, Joanne Huff, and Vicki Tosher at the National
Breast Cancer Coalition, Wendy Selig, Licy Docanto, Brian Lee, and
Janet Thomas of the American Cancer Society, Dawn McKinney and Laura
Hessburg of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
Leigh Ann McGee of the Cherokee Nation, Jacqueline Johnson of the
National Congress of American Indians, and the many Indian health
organizations that have helped with the passage of this legislation as
well.
I urge the House to immediately take up and pass this legislation and
for the President to sign it into law to ensure that Native American
women are not inappropriately denied treatment for their breast and
cervical cancer. As states proceed with the implementation of last
year's bill, any further delay and failure to act could unnecessarily
threaten the lives of Native American women across this country.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate
crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this
year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to
current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any
kind is unacceptable in our society.
I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred October 16,
1994 in Salt Lake City, UT. Two women, one lesbian and one bisexual,
allegedly were beaten by a man who yelled anti-gay slurs. The
assailant, Gilberto Arrendondo, 44, was charged with four counts of
violating the State hate crime law and four counts of assault.
I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become
substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change
hearts and minds as well.
____________________
ART THERAPY
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, since the terrible tragedies of
September 11, many Americans, both adults and children, have been
forced to deal with a level of pain and anxiety that most people have
never had to endure before. Art therapy--the process of using art
therapeutically to treat victims of trauma, illness, physical
disability or other personal challenges--has historically been under
recognized as a treatment. However, since September 11, many of us have
witnessed its enormous benefits in helping both children and adults
alike express their emotions in a very personal, touching way.
While nearly every person in our country has been irrevocably changed
by that day's events, we know that children are particularly vulnerable
to the long-term emotional consequences that often accompany exposure
to trauma. One of the ways in which children have coped with the
aftermath of September 11 is by reaching for their crayons, pencils,
and paintbrushes to express some of what they are feeling. Children all
over the country have created images of World Trade Center towers and
the Pentagon decorated with hearts, tears, rainbows, and angels. These
simple, yet heartfelt, drawings, which do such a wonderful job of
expressing the complex emotional terrain that these children are
navigating, have moved us all.
Adults, too, have used creativity to help cope with the difficult
emotions that so many are experiencing. I heard the story of a woman
who was one of the last people to be rescued from the World Trade
Center rubble after being trapped for more than a day. She drew a
picture while in intensive care of herself under the rubble with angels
and God hovering above her. Another victim of the disaster drew
pictures of flowers and spoke about how grateful she was to be alive.
Last June, I had the pleasure of viewing an art exhibit here on
Capitol Hill in which all of the art was created by patients who were
being treated by art therapists. It was a remarkable feat for people
coping with such immense personal pain to be able to produce such works
of passion and beauty. Although sometimes the healing qualities of art
may be less tangible or obvious than its aesthetic qualities, they may
be even more important.
I want to thank art therapists, in New York and every community in
America, who are assisting survivors, rescuers, and the bereaved.
Throughout the country, there are almost 5,000 trained and credentialed
art therapists working in hospitals, nursing homes, schools and
shelters. They are among the army of mental health professionals who
support those suffering from psychological trauma from the attacks, and
undoubtedly will continue to serve the needs of individuals coping with
subsequent stress disorders.
And that is why I rise today to encourage my colleagues in Congress
to support the field of art therapy and expand awareness about this
creative form of treatment. At this time of heightened awareness about
the importance of maintaining mental health, we should recognize art
therapy as a way to treat those among us who have experienced trauma.
____________________
RAILROAD RETIREMENT
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I am pleased that we are proceeding on the
Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act. This important
legislation will modernize the retirement system by giving rail
employers and employees more responsibility and accountability for a
private pension plan.
[[Page 23529]]
Moreover, the bill permits the reduction of payroll taxes and improves
benefits for widows and widowers.
The overwhelmingly success of today's vote, which transcended party
lines and ideological persuasions, shows what can be accomplished when
all parties work together. This was a victory for the workers in the
yard, all the railroads and especially for the survivors of retirees.
I am hopeful that we can build on today's momentum. This is a smart
bill with bipartisan support. The consensus is that it makes sense to
modernize the railroad retirement system in a way that increases
benefits for railroad retirees and their families.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO HAROLD R. ``TUBBY'' RAYMOND, HEAD COACH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
DELAWARE FOOTBALL TEAM
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we in Delaware, and especially those
of us associated with the University of Delaware, engaged in a very
proud celebration this fall, when on November 10, Harold ``Tubby''
Raymond won his 300th game as head coach of the University's Fightin'
Blue Hens football team.
The win put Coach Raymond into some very elite company, as he became
the ninth ranked college coach in all-time wins, fifth among active
coaches, second among division I-AA coaches, and one of only four
coaches in the 300-wins club to have won all of his games at one
school.
Coach Raymond came to the University of Delaware in 1954; to put that
in perspective, it means that he had already been coaching at Delaware,
as an assistant in football and head coach in baseball, for six years
when I arrived on campus as a college freshman. With apologies to my
New England colleagues, we stole Tubby from the University of Maine,
where he had coached with his fellow University of Michigan alumnus and
later College Football Hall of Famer, Dave Nelson. If you've ever seen
the University of Delaware football helmets, you know that Coaches
Nelson and Raymond never forgot their Michigan roots.
After serving as Dave Nelson's backfield coach for 12 years, Tubby
Raymond took over the head coaching job in 1966, leading that first
team to a 6-3 record and the first of three Middle Atlantic Conference
University Division championships. In his 36-year career as Delaware's
head coach, Tubby has gone on to win three national championships,
including back-to-back titles in 1971 and '72, and has led Delaware to
the national playoffs a total of 16 times, five in Division II and 11
in Division I-AA. His teams have earned 14 Lambert Cup eastern college
championships, and have won six Atlantic 10/Yankee Conference titles,
five Boardwalk Bowls and nine ECAC ``Team of the Year'' Awards.
Tubby Raymond's career record stands at 300-119-3, a winning
percentage of .714. He is one of only two college division coaches ever
to win consecutive American Coaches Association Coach of the Year
Awards. He was named NCAA Division II Coach of the Year by ABC Sports
and Chevrolet in 1979, following his third national championship
season. He is all told, a seven-time honoree as AFCA College Division
District II, now I-AA Region I, Coach of the Year; and he has been
twice named as the New York Writers Association ECAC I-AA Coach of the
Year. In 1998, Coach Raymond received the Vince Lombardi Foundation
Lifetime Achievement Award, and in 2000, he was recognized by Sports
Illustrated as one of Delaware's top 10 sports figures of the 20th
Century.
Most incredibly of all, all the records and championships and
statistics, as phenomenal as they are, don't tell the full story of
Tubby Raymond's stature and influence on his players, the University,
his sport or our State as a whole. Coach Raymond is a leader far beyond
the walls of Delaware Stadium; he is respected, admired and beloved by
his fellow Delawareans, even those who like to call their own plays
from the stands, and even by rival coaches and opposing players. He is
an institution, in a word, a legend; in fact, I would say that Tubby
Raymond defines the standard of ``living legend'' in my State.
To top it off, Tubby is a good golfer, though like most of us not as
good as he would like to be, and he is also an artist of considerable
renown. One of the many ways Tubby expresses his bond to his players
has been by painting a portrait of a senior member of the team each
week of the season through most of his career. Other Raymond originals
have benefited charity auctions and decorated Delaware football media
guides. In fact, Tubby's artistic talents have attracted only slightly
less national attention than his coaching skills; his paintings have
been featured on Good Morning America, NBC Nightly News, Sports
Illustrated, CNN and Fox Sports.
To save the best for last, Tubby Raymond is a family man. He lives
with his wife, Diane, and daughter, Michelle, and is also the proud
father of three grown children from his first marriage to Sue Raymond,
who died in 1990. His son, Chris, is a former coach made good as an
officer with J.P. Morgan; his daughter, Debbie, is a psychologist; and
his son, David, became well known himself to sports fans as the Phillie
Phanatic, mascot of the Philadelphia Phillies, and now owns Raymond
Entertainment.
It is my privilege to share Delaware's pride in Harold ``Tubby''
Raymond with the Senate and with the Nation today. He is a legendary
coach, an inspiring leader, a good friend and a remarkable human being,
and to put it simply, we love him.
____________________
HONORING POLICE OFFICER DANNY FAULKNER
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on Sunday, December 9, 2001, at 12
Noon, a commemorative plaque will be cemented into the sidewalk at the
southeast corner of 13th and Locust Streets in Philadelphia, PA to mark
the 20th anniversary of the murder of Police Officer Danny Faulkner at
that site.
Officer Faulkner lost his life protecting the people of Philadelphia
from the scourge of violent crime. Our society owes a great debt of
gratitude to the Thin Blue Line, the police officers of America who
fight criminal violence on the streets of our Nation 24 hours a day, 7
days a week and 52 weeks of the year.
From my experience as District Attorney of Philadelphia, I know the
extraordinary risks faced by law enforcement officers. One of the most
difficult aspects of my District Attorney's duties was the attendance
at the funerals of police officers who were killed in the line of duty.
Following the terrorist attack on September 11, America has been
focused on the courage and bravery of the police and firefighters.
There is now a better understanding of the risks and performance of
firefighters and police for their heroic efforts on September 11.
The commemoration of the 20th anniversary of Officer Faulkner's
murder should inspire us to redouble our efforts to fight all forms of
criminal violence, including terrorism, and to pay tribute to the
memory of Officer Faulkner and all the police and firefighters of
America.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LIEUTENANT SUZANNE R. DePRIZIO
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in my years in the Senate, I have
had the opportunity to meet and get to know many of our men and women
in uniform. I have always been struck by their enthusiasm,
determination, patriotism, and professionalism. Yet sometimes, even in
such impressive company, you run across an individual who stands out
above the rest. Lt. Suzy DePrizio is one of those standouts.
Lt. DePrizio serves today as the legislative affairs officer for the
United States Pacific Command, located in my home State of Hawaii. I've
gotten to know Lt. DePrizio on my many trips to visit the command. Lt.
DePrizio has constantly provided my staff and me timely, valuable and
accurate information on the critical issues of the day.
[[Page 23530]]
Her energetic determination and competence inspire all those who work
with her. I know first hand from my discussions with Admiral Blair, the
commander of the Pacific Command, what a high regard the entire staff
of PACOM has for this tremendously talented young officer. No matter
how difficult the challenge, Suzy was always up to the task. Her
behind-the-scenes efforts to prepare for congressional testimony were
recognized by those of us in this business as exemplary. The CINC was
always well prepared because of her efforts.
I also know from many of my colleagues that traveled into the Pacific
region how smoothly their travel went because of her coordination and
attention to detail. I would always tell them, ``ask for Suzy, she'll
get the job done right.'' Of course, she always did.
As Lt. DePrizio prepares to leave active duty in the Navy for a
civilian career, I salute her for a job well done. On behalf of the
entire U.S. Congress, I want to thank America for sending us proud and
patriotic professionals such as Lt. DePrizio. She is certainly among
our Nations's finest, and she gave tenfold compared to what she
received.
In Hawaii, we have many traditions and blessings, one of which is the
spirit of Aloha,--not just hello or goodbye or love, but the spirit of
giving. When you put it together with the word `aina, it becomes the
Hawaiian phrase for patriotism. And, if there ever was an officer who
had the spirit of aloha' aina for the Congress, the armed forces and
for America, it is Lt. Suzy DePrizio. In that spirit, we send her on
her way, wishing her fair winds and following seas in everything she
does.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 3:33 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 3338. An act making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes.
H.R. 2722. An act to implement effective measures to stop
trade in conflict diamonds, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 77. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of the Congress regarding the efforts of people of the United
States of Korean ancestry to reunite with their family
members in North Korea.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 3338. An act making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 77. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of the Congress regarding the efforts of people of the United
States of Korean ancestry to reunite with their family
members in North Korea; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
H.R. 2983. An act to extend indemnification authority under
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for other
purposes.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bills were read the first time:
H.R. 2722. An act to implement effective measures to stop
trade in conflict diamonds, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3189. An act to extend the Export Administration Act
until April 20, 2002.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:
EC-4597. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of
the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the
Accounting of Drug Control Funds for Fiscal Year 2000; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-4598. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, the
semiannual report of the Office of the Inspector General for
the period beginning April 1 through September 30, 2001; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-4599. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 14-167, ``Chesapeake Regional Olympic
Games Authority Act of 2001''; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4600. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, transmitting,
pursuant to law, twenty-nine quarterly exception Selected
Acquisition Reports for the period ending September 30, 2001;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-4601. A communication from the Secretary of the Navy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the LPD
17 Program Life Cycle Cost Estimate; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-4602. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic
report on the national emergency with respect to Burma that
was declared in Executive Order 13047 of May 20, 1997; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4603. A communication from the Board of the Federal
Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the
Office of Thrift Supervision, transmitting jointly, pursuant
to law, a report on Review of Regulations Affecting Online
Delivery of Financial Products and Services; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4604. A communication from the Assistant to the Federal
Reserve Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Regulations H and Y--Risk-Based Capital
Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital Treatment of
Recourse, Direct Credit Substitutes and Residual Interests in
Asset Securitizations'' (Doc. No. R-1055) received on
November 27, 2001; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-4605. A communication from the President of the United
States (received and referred on November 29, 2001),
transmitting, consistent with the War Powers Act, a report
relative to NATO-led international security force in Kosovo
(KFOR); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4606. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense articles to India;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4607. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense articles or
services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of
$50,000,000 or more to the United Kingdom; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
EC-4608. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a certification of a
proposed manufacturing license agreement with Japan; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4609. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a certification of a
proposed manufacturing license agreement with the United
Kingdom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4610. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the
[[Page 23531]]
Arms Export Control Act, a certification of a proposed
license for the export of defense articles or services sold
commercially under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or
more to Japan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4611. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense articles or
services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of
$50,000,000 or more to France; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-4612. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Methoxyfenozide: Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions'' (FRL6806-4) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-4613. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency
Exemptions'' (FRL6806-9) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4614. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Chlororthalonil; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions'' (FRL6807-1) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-4615. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``NESHAP: for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production'' (FRL7106-6) received on November 20, 2001; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4616. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``NESHAP: Pesticide Active Ingredient Production''
(FRL7106-1) received on November 20, 2001; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4617. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Azoxystrobin: Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency
Exemptions'' (FRL6809-3) received on November 20, 2001; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4618. A communication from the Acting Assistant Director
of Communications, Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Interim Final Supplementary Rules on Bureau
of Land Management Public Lands within the Imperial Sand
Dunes Recreation Area'' received on November 19, 2001; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-4619. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Civil Penalty Adjustments'' (RIN1029-AC00) received on
November 19, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-4620. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Illinois Regulatory Program'' (IL-100-FOR) received on
November 19, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-4621. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Montana Regulatory Program'' (MT-022-FOR) received on
November 19, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-4622. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Mineral Materials Disposal'' (RIN1044-AD29)
received on November 19, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-4623. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Policy, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Management of Report
Deliverables'' (FAL 2001-04) received on November 20, 2001;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-4624. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Policy, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program
for Consumer Products: Amendment to the Definition of
`Electric Refrigerator' '' (RIN1902-AB03) received on
November 20, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-4625. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Policy, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Efficiency Program for
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Extension of
Time for Electric Motor Manufacturers To Certify Compliance
With Energy Efficiency Standards'' (RIN1904-AB11) received on
November 20, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-4626. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Policy, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Security Requirements for
Protected Disclosures Under Section 3164 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000'' (RIN1992-
AA26) received on November 20, 2001; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-4627. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Policy, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``General Guidelines for the
Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories; Yucca
Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines'' (RIN1901-AA72)
received on November 20, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-4628. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of
Insurers Required to File Reports'' (RIN2127-AI07) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4629. A communication from the Senior Regulations
Analyst, Office of the Secretary of Transportation,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Procedures for Compensation
of Air Carriers'' (RIN2105-AD06) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4630. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: New Rochelle
Harbor, NY'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0118)) received on November
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4631. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Areas; New York Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone'' ((RIN2115-
AE84)(2001-0002)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4632. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Prince
Williams Sound Captain of the Port Zone, Alaska'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0142)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4633. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal, LA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0115)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4634. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Newton Creek, Dutch
Kills, English Kills and their Tributaries, NY'' ((RIN2115-
AE47)(2001-0116)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4635. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Dorchester Bay,
MA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0113)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4636. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Bayou Lafourche,
LA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0117)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4637. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Harlem River, NY''
[[Page 23532]]
((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0114)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4638. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Areas; Boston Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone'' ((RIN2115-
AE84)(2001-0004)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4639. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River,
Georgia'' ((RIN2115-AE84)(2001-0005)) received on November
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4640. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regulated Navigation Areas; New York Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone'' ((RIN2115-
AE84)(2001-0003)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4641. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Route 1
Bascule Bridge, Mystic River, Mystic, CT'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0140)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4642. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Gulf of
Alaska, Southeast of Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, AK''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0141)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4643. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Port
Valdez, Alaska'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0143)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4644. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Valdez terminal complex, Valdez, Alaska''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0144)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4645. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake
Michigan, Chicago, IL'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0138)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4646. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Los
Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, CA and Avila Beach, CA''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0139)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4647. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations: SLR; Charleston
Christmas Boat Parade and Fireworks Display, Charleston
Harbor, Charleston, SC'' ((RIN2115-AE46)(2001-0034)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4648. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations; SLR; Waverly Hotel
Fireworks Display, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL'' ((RIN2115-
AE46)(2001-0035)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4649. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Harlem River,
Newtown Creek, NY'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0112)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4650. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; SR 84 Bridge, South
Fork of the New River, mile 4.4, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward
County, Florida'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0111)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4651. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Verrazano
Narrows Bridge, New York'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0135))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4652. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA and Oakland, CA'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0136)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4653. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Sault
Locks, St. Mary's River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0137)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4654. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Certification of Navigation Lights for
Uninspected Commercial Vessels and Recreational Vessels''
(RIN2115-AF70) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4655. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; The
Icebreaker Youth Rowing Championship--Boston Harbor, Boston,
Massachusetts'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0145)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4656. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; San Diego
Bay'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0119)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4657. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Old Lyme
Fireworks Display, Old Lyme, CT'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0098))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4658. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Coast
Guard Force Protection for Station Jonesport, Jonesport,
Maine; Coast Guard Group Southwest Harbor, Maine; and Station
Rockland, Rockland Harbor, Maine'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-
0122)) received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4659. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Ouachita River,
LA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0108)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4660. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterway, Cape Mary Canal'' ((RIN2115-
AE47)(2001-0107)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4661. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Shaw Cove, CT''
((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0105)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4662. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Lake Washington,
WA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-01069)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
[[Page 23533]]
EC-4663. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Port of
Jacksonville and Port Canaveral, FL'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-
0117)) received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4664. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations: Selfridge
Army National Guard Base, MI'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0116))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4665. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Hampton River, NH''
((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0102)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4666. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Chehalis River,
WA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0103)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4667. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; DOD Barge
Flotilla, Cumberland City, TN to Alexandria, LA'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0121)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4668. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Delaware
Bay and River'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0123)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4669. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Naval
Force Protection, Bath Iron Works, Kennebec River, Bath,
Maine'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0120)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4670. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Gulf of
Alaska, Southeast of Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, Alaska''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0118)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4671. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Duwamish Waterway,
WA'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0101)) received on November 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4672. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations: San
Francisco, CA'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0133)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4673. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Newport
Naval Station, Newport, RI'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0124))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4674. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations: Port of
New York/New Jersey'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0125)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4675. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Various
Areas on the Island of Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0134)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4676. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; New York
Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0132)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4677. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Hutchinson River,
Eastchester Creek, NY'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0110)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4678. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Southern Branch of
the Elizabeth River, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Chesapeake, Virginia'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0109)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4679. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake
Erie, Monroe, Michigan'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0128)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4680. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake St.
Clair, Grosse Pointe Yacht Club, Grosse, Point Shores, MI''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0127)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4681. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake
Erie, Toledo, Ohio'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0126)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4682. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake
Michigan, Kewaunee, Wisconsin'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0131))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4683. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake
Michigan, Point Beach Nuclear Power, Plant WI'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0130)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4684. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Lake
Erie, Perry, Ohio'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0129)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4685. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 727
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0544)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4686. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon Model
Beech 400A Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0543))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4687. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney
PW4000 Series Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0542))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4688. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Fairchild
Aircraft, Inc. Models SA226 and SA227 Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0541)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
[[Page 23534]]
EC-4689. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Fokker Model F28
Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0540)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4690. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 757
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0545)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4691. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Robinson
Helicopter Company Model R44 Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0550)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4692. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica SA EMB 120 Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0549)) received on November 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4693. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas
Model DC 9 Series Airplanes and MD 88 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0548)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4694. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A319
and A320 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0546))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4695. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon Aircraft
Company Model 99, 99A, 99A (FACH), A99, A99A, B99 and C99
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0507)) received on November
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4696. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 747
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0511)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4697. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter
Textron Canada Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230, and 430
Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0510)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4698. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon Aircraft
Company Beech Models F33A, A36, B36TC, 58/58A, C90A, B200,
and 1900D Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0505)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4699. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pilatus Aircraft
LTD Models PC 12 and PC 12-45 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0506)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4700. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: BMW Rolls Royce
GmbH Models BR700, 710A1-10 and BR700 710A2-20 Turbofan
Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0512)) received on November
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4701. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Dowty Aerospace
Propellers Model R381/6-123 F/5 Propellers'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0513)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4702. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier Model
DHC 8-100, 200, and 300 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0514)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4703. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 777-
200 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0515)) received
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4704. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 747
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0508)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4705. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (55); Amdt. No. 2073'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2001-0054)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4706. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Eurocopter France
Model AS 365N3 Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0516))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4707. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Israel Aircraft
Industries, Ltd., Model 1125 Westwind Astra Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0517)) received on November
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4708. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establish Class E Airspace;
Charlottesville, VA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0156)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4709. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas
Model DC 9 81, 82, 83, and 87 Series Airplanes, and Model MD
88 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0509)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4710. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
(32); Amdt. No. 431'' ((RIN2120-AA63)(2001-0006)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4711. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (14); Amdt. No. 2071'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2001-0005)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4712. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (28); Amdt. No. 2072'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2001-0057)) received on November 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4713. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Eurocopter France
Model SA315B, SA316C, SA318B, SA318C, SA319B, SE3160, and
SA316B Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0539)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4714. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation Model S-76B and S-76C Helicopters; request for
comments'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0538)) received
[[Page 23535]]
on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4715. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E2 Airspace;
Greenwood, MS; correction'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0171))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4716. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 727
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0556)) received on
November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4717. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A300
B2 and B4 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0553))
received on November 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. JEFFORDS, from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works:
Special Report entitled ``Report to the Senate on
Activities of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
for the One Hundred Sixth Congress'' (Rept. No. 107-100).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and
an amendment to the title:
H.R. 1499: A bill to amend the District of Columbia College
Access Act of 1999 to permit individuals who graduated from a
secondary school prior to 1998 and individuals who enroll in
an institution of higher education more than 3 years after
graduating from a secondary school to participate in the
tuition assistance programs under such Act, and for other
purposes. (Rept. No. 107-101).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, without amendment:
H.R. 2061: A bill to amend the charter of Southeastern
University of the District of Columbia. (Rept. No. 107-102).
H.R. 2199: A bill to amend the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to
permit any Federal law enforcement agency to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department
of the District of Columbia to assist the Department in
carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities
in the District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by the
Chief of the Department and the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. (Rept. No.
107-103).
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without
amendment and with a preamble:
H. CON. RES. 88: A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the President should issue a
proclamation recognizing a National Lao-Hmong Recognition
Day.
S. RES. 140: A resolution designating the week beginning
September 15, 2002, as ``National Civic Participation Week''.
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 304: A bill to reduce illegal drug use and trafficking
and to help provide appropriate drug education, prevention,
and treatment programs.
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without
amendment:
S. 986: A bill to allow media coverage of court
proceedings.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
Army nominations beginning Col. Elder Granger and ending
Col. George W. Weightman, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 4, 2001.
Army nominations beginning Colonel Byron S. Bagby and
ending Colonel Howard W. Yellen, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on September 5, 2001.
Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Lester Martinez-Lopez.
Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Dennis D. Cavin.
Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Bruce A. Wright.
Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. Donald G. Cook.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Army nominations beginning ROBERT A. JOHNSON and ending
JOHN T. WASHINGTON III, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 25, 2001.
Air Force nominations beginning CESARIO F. FERRER JR. and
ending RAYMOND Y. HOWELL, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 30, 2001.
Army nominations beginning SAMUEL CALDERON and ending FRANK
E. WISMER III, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on October 30, 2001.
Navy nominations beginning BRADFORD W. BAKER and ending
DAVID J. WICKERSHAM, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October
30, 2001.
Army nomination of Carol E. Pilat.
Army nomination of Iluminada S. Calicdan.
Army nomination of *James W. Ware.
Army nomination of Mee S. Paek.
Army nominations beginning MARION S. CORNWELL and ending
GARY L. WHITE, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 15,
2001.
Army nominations beginning CHERYL A. ADAMS and ending
DEBBIE T. WINTERS, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November
15, 2001.
Army nominations beginning WILLIE J. ATKINSON and ending
WILLEM P. VANDEMERWE, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November
15, 2001.
Army nominations beginning DAVID S. ALLEMAN and ending
WILLIAM P. YEOMANS, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November
15, 2001.
Army nominations beginning LYNN F. ABRAMS and ending
BURKHARDT H. ZORN, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November
15, 2001.
Army nominations beginning CHARLES B. COLISON and ending
ARLENE SPIRER, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 15,
2001.
By Mr. HOLLINGS for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
*R. David Paulison, of Florida, to be Administrator of the
United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
*Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., of Virginia, to be Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
*William Schubert, of Texas, to be Administrator of the
Maritime Administration.
*Arden Bement, Jr., of Indiana, to be Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists
which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask
unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive
Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the
information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Coast Guard nominations beginning Anita K. Abbott and
ending Steven G. Wood, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October
30, 2001.
Coast Guard nominations beginning Albert R. Agnich and
ending Jose M. Zuniga, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October
30, 2001.
By Mr. LEAHY for the Committee on the Judiciary.
Harris L. Hartz, of New Mexico, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the Tenth Circuit.
Danny C. Reeves, of Kentucky, to be United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
John D. Bates, of Maryland, to be United States District
Judge for the District of Columbia.
Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Joe L. Heaton, of Oklahoma, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma.
William P. Johnson, of New Mexico, to be United States
District Judge for the District of New Mexico.
Thomas L. Sansonetti, of Wyoming, to be an Assistant
Attorney General.
[[Page 23536]]
James Edward Rogan, of California, to be Under Secretary of
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
Edward Hachiro Kubo, Jr., of Hawaii, to be United States
Attorney for the District of Hawaii for the term of four
years.
Sheldon J. Sperling, of Oklahoma, to be United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for the term of
four years.
Frederick J. Martone, of Arizona, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Arizona.
Julie A. Robinson, of Kansas, to be United States District
Judge for the District of Kansas.
Clay D. Land, of Georgia, to be United States District
Judge for the Middle District of Georgia.
David E. O'Meilia, of Oklahoma, to be United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma for the term
of four years.
David R. Dugas, of Louisiana, to be United States Attorney
for the Middle District of Louisiana for the term of four
years.
James A. McDevitt, of Washington, to be United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, for the term
of four years.
Johnny Keane Sutton, of Texas, to be United States Attorney
for the Western District of Texas, for the term of four
years.
Richard S. Thompson, of Georgia, to be United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, for the term
of four years.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 1742. A bill to prevent the crime of identity theft,
mitigate the harm to individuals victimized by identity
theft, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Wyden):
S. 1743. A bill to create a temporary reinsurance mechanism
to enhance the availability of terrorism insurance; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1744. A bill to ensure the continued financial capacity
of insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1745. A bill to delay until at least January 1, 2003,
any changes in medicaid regulations that modify the medicaid
upper payment limit for non-State Government-owned or
operated hospitals; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman,
and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1746. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to strengthen security
at sensitive nuclear facilities; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1747. A bill to provide funding to improve the security
of the American people by protecting against the threat of
bioterrorism; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 281
At the request of Mr. hagel, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 281, a bill
to authorize the design and construction of a temporary education
center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
S. 611
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Allen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 611, a bill to amend title
II of the Social Security Act to provide that the reduction in social
security benefits which are required in the case of spouses and
surviving spouses who are also receiving certain Government pensions
shall be equal to the amount by which two-thirds of the total amount of
the combined monthly benefit (before reduction) and monthly pension
exceeds $1,200, adjusted for inflation.
S. 683
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 683, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a refundable credit
against income tax for the purchase of private health insurance, and to
establish State health insurance safety-net programs.
S. 948
At the request of Mr. Lott, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 948, a bill to amend title
23, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Transportation to
carry out a grant program for providing financial assistance for local
rail line relocation projects, and for other purposes.
S. 1042
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1042, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits for Filipino veterans
of World War II, and for other purposes.
S. 1142
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Allen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1142, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the minimum tax
preference for exclusion for incentive stock options.
S. 1478
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1478, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to improve the
treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes.
S. 1643
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1643, a bill to provide
Federal reimbursement to State and local governments for a limited
sales, use and retailers' occupation tax holiday.
S. 1646
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Campbell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1646, a bill to identify
certain routes in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New
Mexico as part of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, a high priority
corridor on the National Highway System.
S. 1678
At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy),
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the
Senator from Maine (Ms . Collins), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Allen), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Fitzgerald), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added as cosponsors of S. 1678, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a member of the
uniformed services or the Foreign Service shall be treated as using a
principal residence while away from home on qualified official extended
duty in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of such
residence.
S. 1707
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) were added as cosponsors of S. 1707, a bill
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to specify the update
for payments under the medicare physician fee schedule for 2002 and to
direct the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to conduct a study on
replacing the use of the sustainable growth rate
[[Page 23537]]
as a factor in determining such update in subsequent years.
S. CON. RES. 66
At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 66, a
concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that the
Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor should be awarded to public safety
officers killed in the line of duty in the aftermath of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001.
AMENDMENT NO. 2157
At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy),
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the
Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Allen), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Fitzgerald), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2157
intended to be proposed to H.R. 3090, a bill to provide tax incentives
for economic recovery.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 1742. A bill to prevent the crime of identity theft, mitigate the
harm to individuals victimized by identity theft, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President I rise today to introduce legislation
that will help victims of identity theft recover from the injuries to
their good name and good credit, the Reclaim Your Identity Act of 2001.
Earlier this year, Washington State enacted a law to provide needed
help to victims of identity theft that I believe serves as a good model
for federal legislation. It gives victims of identity theft the tools
they need to restore their good credit rating, requires businesses to
make available records relevant to a victim's ability to restore his or
her credit, and enables a victim to have fraudulent charges blocked
from reporting in their consumer credit report. Currently, Federal law
addresses the crime of identity theft, providing penalties for the
perpetrator, but no specific assistance to the victim trying to recover
their identity. Today I am introducing legislation modeled on the state
of Washington law that will do just that, help the victim restore their
credit rating and their good name.
We need to do more to fight identity theft, a crime the Federal Trade
Commission has described as the Nation's fastest growing. Last year
there were over 500,000 new victims of identity theft and, according to
the Department of Treasury, reports of identity theft to perpetrate
fraud against financial institutions grew by 50 percent from 1999 to
2000. From March 2001 to June 2001, the number of ID theft victims
contacting the FTC jumped from 45,500 to 69,400--a 50 percent increase
in just three months. One in five Americans or a member of their
families has been a victim of identity theft. Those numbers underscore
why I am introducing this legislation today. The problem is
particularly apparent in my State of Washington, which ranks in the top
10 for identity theft per capita.
Identity theft is not a violent crime, but its victims suffer real
harm and need help to recover their good credit and good name. On
average, it takes 12 months for a victim to learn that he or she has
been a victim of identity theft. It takes another 175 hours and $808 of
out-of-pocket expenses to clear their names. Today, victims of identity
theft are forced to become their own sleuths to clear their names, and
all too often they do so without the help or support of the businesses
that allowed the identity theft to take place. Believe it or not, when
your identity is stolen, many businesses won't give you the records you
need to reclaim your identity. My bill puts people first by requiring
businesses to cooperate with victims.
We already require this in Washington State, thanks to the hard work
of Attorney General Chris Gregoire and others. Now we need to take this
good idea to the national level and make it work on behalf of many
others. When your TV is stolen, you know it was taken from your living
room. But when your identity is stolen, it could be stolen from
anywhere, and businesses from every State could be involved. That's why
we need a Federal solution to this problem.
The Reclaim Your Identity Act empowers consumers by establishing a
transparent process victims can use to reclaim their identity. Under
this bill, a victim of identity theft will have the right to request
records related to a fraud based on an identity theft from businesses
after proving their identity with a copy of the police report or the
Federal Trade Commission standardized Identity Theft Affidavit or any
other affidavit of fact of the business' choosing. The business must
then provide, at no charge, copies of those business records to the
victim or a law enforcement agency or officer designated by the victim
within 10 days of the victim's request. This will make sure that the
victims, or law enforcement investigating an identity theft on behalf
of a victim, will be able to obtain the credit applications and other
records a business may have that is evidence of the fraud. As a
protective measure, the bill gives businesses the option to decline to
disclose records where it believes the request is based on a
misrepresentation of facts. Further, a business is exempt from
liability for any disclosure undertaken in good faith to further a
prosecution of identity theft or assist the victim.
In addition, this bill reinstates consumers' right to sue credit-
reporting agencies that allow identity theft to harm their good name.
On November 12, the Supreme Court ruled that a California woman
couldn't sue a credit reporting agency because she filed her claim more
than two years after her identity had been stolen and that the two-year
statute of limitations ran from the time of the crime. The woman didn't
even know her identity had been stolen until two years after the crime
had been committed. In the wake of the court decision, Congress must
revise the statute of limitations so that common sense prevails and
that the clock doesn't begin ticking until victims know that they have
been harmed.
The Reclaim Your Identity Act also amends the Internet False
Identification Prevention Act to expand the jurisdiction and membership
of the coordinating committee currently studying enforcement of Federal
identity theft law to examine State and local enforcement problems and
identify ways the federal government can assist state and local law
enforcement in addressing identity theft and related crimes. In the
wake of the September 11 attacks we are painfully aware that identity
theft can threaten more than our pocket books. This legislation also
requires the Federal coordinating committee to look at how the Federal
Government can improve the sharing of information on terrorists and
terrorist activity as it relates to identity theft. Further, by giving
consumers and law enforcement additional tools to fight identity theft,
this bill will make it harder for terrorists to steal identities to
hide their true identity.
Importantly, this bill also requires credit-reporting agencies to
protect a consumers' good name from bad credit generated by fraud. The
Reclaim Your Identity Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
require consumer credit reporting agencies to block information that
appears on a victim's credit report as a result of identity theft
provided the victim did not knowingly obtain goods, services or money
as a result of the blocked transaction.
Businesses too are victims of the fraud perpetrated in conjunction
with identity theft. This legislation also
[[Page 23538]]
provides businesses with new tools to pursue identity thieves by
amending Title 18 to make identity theft under State law a predicate
for federal RICO violation. This will allow individuals and businesses
pursuing a perpetrator of identity theft to seek treble damages and
help prosecutors recover stolen assets for businesses victimized by
identity theft.
The Reclaim Your Identity Act also gives States additional legal
tools by providing that State Attorneys General may bring a suit in
Federal court on behalf of State citizens for violation of the Act.
Identity theft and the fraud that can result is on the rise. We have
the laws to discourage identity theft, but it is difficult behavior to
attack. We have to give the tools to the victims to regain control of
their financial life. The Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource
Center, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse all support this legislation.
The Reclaim Your Identity Act of 2001 will help victims of identity
theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into
law.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1743. A bill to create a temporary reinsurance mechanism to
enhance the availability of terrorism insurance; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in light of the need to provide
additional capacity and reassurance to the insurance industry for
terrorism risks without burdening the taxpayer, balanced with the need
to protect consumers from excessive increased in commercial insurance
rates, I rise today to introduce the National Terrorism Reinsurance
Fund Act.
This legislation will create a fund from assessments on the
commercial insurance industry as a whole to for the purpose of
providing a temporary backstop for terrorism losses for primary
insurance companies doing business in the U.S. The Fund and assessment
mechanisms would provide the first $50 billion of protection for the
insurance industry. In addition to this fund, the bill provides a
program to provide direct Federal aid on a temporary basis for losses
over $50 billion, in order to increase insurance market capacity and
ensure the availability of reinsurance in relation to acts of
terrorism. The overall program is to last for 3 years only and is to be
administered by the Secretary of Commerce.
All terrorism-related events causing losses beyond $50 billion will
be governed by a direct Federal grant program. Once a company has
incurred losses of more than 10 percent of its premiums from the
previous year, it can apply for assistance from the Fund and the
Federal Government. For the first year, the government will cover up to
90 percent of a company's losses. For the second and third years, the
government will cover up to 80 percent of that company's losses. This
aid will be applicable up to losses of $100 billion. For events casing
losses beyond this amount, the Secretary is required to seek guidance
from Congress. Additionally, provisions have been included to ensure
the industry shoulders the appropriate financial responsibility and to
prevent unreasonable increases in insurance rates.
Simply put the legislation accomplishes the following goals: 1. it
provides insurance companies the assistance they need to continue
writing terrorism coverage; 2. it ensures the availability of insurance
coverage for American businesses and consumers; 3. it avoids an
unnecessary and potentially massive bailout of an insurance industry by
forcing them to use their own resources to ensure the availability of
terrorism reinsurance while setting direct Federal aid at levels
sufficient to account for the industry's current positive
capitalization; and 4. it strikes the right balance regarding the
interests of industry, taxpayers and the consumers of insurance and the
marketplace in general.
I look forward to working with other Senators to obtain swift passage
of this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1743
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 ``National
Terrorism Reinsurance Fund Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
Sec. 4. National terrorism reinsurance program.
Sec. 5. Fund operations.
Sec. 6. Coverage provided.
Sec. 7. Secretary to determine if loss is attributable to terrorism.
Sec. 8. Mandatory coverage by property and casualty insurers for acts
of terrorism.
Sec. 9. Pass-throughs and other rate increases.
Sec. 10. Credit for reinsurance.
Sec. 11. Administrative provisions.
Sec. 12. Inapplicability of certain laws.
Sec. 13. Sunset provision.
Sec. 14. Definitions.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon on September 11, 2001, have inflicted possibly the
largest loss ever incurred by insurers and reinsurers.
(2) The magnitude of the loss, and its impact on the
current capacity of the reinsurance market, threaten the
ability of the property and casualty insurance market to
provide coverage to building owners, businesses, and American
citizens.
(3) It is necessary to create a temporary reinsurance
mechanism to augment the capacity of private insurers to
provide insurance for terrorism related risks.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the coverage by
property and casualty insurers of the peril for losses due to
acts of terrorism by providing additional reinsurance
capacity for loss or damage due to acts of terrorism
occurring within the United States, its territories, and
possessions.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL TERRORISM REINSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall establish
and administer a program to provide reinsurance to
participating insurers for losses due to acts of terrorism.
(b) Advisory Committee; Membership.--There is established
an advisory committee to provide advice and counsel to the
Secretary in carrying out the program of reinsurance
established by the Secretary. The advisory committee shall
consist of 10 members, as follows:
(1) 3 representatives of the property and casualty
insurance industry, appointed by the Secretary.
(2) A representative of property and casualty insurance
agents, appointed by the Secretary.
(3) A representative of consumers of property-casualty
insurance, appointed by the Secretary.
(4) A representative of a recognized national credit rating
agency, appointed by the Secretary.
(5) A representative of the banking or real estate
industry, appointed by the Secretary.
(6) 2 representatives of the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners, designated by that organization.
(7) A representative of the Department of the Treasury,
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(c) National Terrorism Reinsurance Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--To carry out the reinsurance program,
the Secretary shall establish a National Terrorism
Reinsurance Fund which shall be available, without fiscal
year limitations--
(A) to make such payments as may, from time to time, be
required under reinsurance contracts under this Act;
(B) to pay such administrative expenses as may be necessary
or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act, but
such expenses may not exceed $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002, 2003, and 2004; and
(C) to repay to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums,
including interest thereon, as may be borrowed from the
Treasury for purposes of this Act.
(2) Credits to fund.--The Fund shall be credited with--
(A) reinsurance premiums, fees, and other charges which may
be paid or collected in connection with reinsurance provided
under this Act;
(B) interest which may be earned on investments of the
Fund;
(C) receipts from any other source which may, from time to
time, be credited to the Fund; and
(D) Funds borrowed by the Secretary from the Treasury.
[[Page 23539]]
(3) Investment in obligations issued or guaranteed by
united states.--If the Secretary determines that the moneys
of the Fund are in excess of current needs, he may request
the investment of such amounts as he deems advisable by the
Secretary of the Treasury in obligations issued or guaranteed
by the United States.
(4) Loans to fund.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
grant loans to the Fund in the manner and to the extent
provided in this Act.
(d) Underwriting Standards.--In order to carry out the
responsibilities of the Secretary under this Act and protect
the Fund, the Secretary shall establish minimum underwriting
standards for participating insurers.
(e) Monitoring of Terrorism Insurance Rates.--
(1) Secretary to establish special committee on rates.--The
Secretary shall establish a special committee on rates, the
size and membership of which shall be determined by the
Secretary, except that the committee shall, at a minimum,
include--
(A) representatives of providers of insurance for losses
due to acts of terrorism;
(B) representatives of purchasers of such insurance;
(C) at least 2 representatives of NAIC; and
(D) at least 2 independent insurance actuaries.
(2) Duties.--The special committee on rates shall meet at
the call of the Secretary and shall--
(A) review reports filed with the Secretary by State
insurance regulatory authorities;
(B) collect data on rate disclosure practices of
participating insurers for insurance for covered lines and
for losses due to acts of terrorism; and
(C) provide such advice and counsel to the Secretary as the
Secretary may require.
SEC. 5. FUND OPERATIONS.
(a) Funding by Premium.--
(1) In general.--For the year beginning January 1, 2002,
and each subsequent year of operation, participating insurers
shall pay into the Fund an annual reinsurance contract
premium of not less than 3 percent of their respective gross
direct written premiums for covered lines for the calendar
year. The annual premium shall be paid in installments at the
end of each calendar quarter. The reinsurance contract
premium and any annual assessment may be recovered by a
participating insurer from its covered lines policyholders as
a direct surcharge calculated as a uniform percentage of
premium.
(2) Additional credit risk premium.--If the Secretary
determines that a participating insurer has a credit rating
that is lower than the second from highest credit rating
awarded by nationally recognized credit rating agencies, the
Secretary may charge an additional credit risk premium, of up
to 0.5 percent of gross direct written premiums for covered
lines received by that insurer, to compensate the Fund for
credit risk associated with providing reinsurance to that
insurer.
(b) Initial Capital.--
(1) Loan.--The Fund shall have an initial capital of
$2,000,000,000, which the Secretary shall borrow from the
Treasury of the United States. Upon application by the
Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer that
amount to the Fund, out of amounts in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, at standard market rates.
(2) Repayment of start-up loan.--The Secretary shall use
premiums received from assessments in calendar year 2002 to
repay the loan provided to the Fund under paragraph (1).
(c) Shortfall Loans.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the
balance in the accounts of the Fund is insufficient to cover
anticipated claims, administrative expenses, and maintain
adequate reserves for any other reason, after taking into
account premiums assessed under subsection (a) and any other
amounts receivable, the Secretary shall borrow from the
Treasury an amount sufficient to satisfy the obligations of
the Fund and to maintain a positive balance of $2,000,000,000
in the accounts of the Fund. Upon application by the
Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to
the Fund, out of amounts in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, the requested amount as an interest-bearing
loan.
(2) Interest rate.--The rate of interest on any loan made
to the Fund under paragraph (1) shall be established by the
Secretary of the Treasury and based on the weighted average
credit rating of the Fund before the loss that made the loan
necessary.
(3) $50 billion loan limit.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the total amount of loans outstanding
at any time from the Treasury to the Fund may not exceed the
amount by which $50,000,000,000 exceeds the Fund's assets.
(4) Repayment of loans by assessment.--Any loan under
paragraph (1) shall be repaid from reserves of the Fund,
assessments of participating insurers, or a combination
thereof. If an assessment is necessary, the maximum annual
assessment under this subsection shall be not more than 3
percent of the direct written premium for covered lines. The
reinsurance contract premium and any annual assessment may be
recovered by a participating insurer from its covered lines
policyholders as a direct surcharge calculated as a uniform
percentage of premium.
SEC. 6. COVERAGE PROVIDED.
(a) In General.--The Fund shall provide reinsurance for
losses resulting from acts of terrorism covered by
reinsurance contracts entered into between the Fund and
participating insurers that write covered lines of insurance
within the meaning of section 14(5)(A) or that have elected,
under section 14(5)(C), to voluntarily include another line
of insurance.
(b) Retention.--The Fund shall reimburse participating
insurers for losses resulting from acts of terrorism on
direct losses in any calendar year in excess of 10 percent of
a participating insurer's average gross direct written
premiums and policyholders' surplus for covered lines for the
most recently ended calendar year for which data are
available, based on each participating insurer's annual
statement for that calendar year as reported to NAIC.
(c) Reimbursement Amount.--If a participating insurer
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it has
paid claims for losses resulting from acts of terrorism equal
to or in excess of the amount of retention required by
subsection (b), then the Fund shall reimburse the
participating insurer for--
(1) 90 percent of its covered losses in calendar year 2002;
and
(2) a percentage of its covered losses in calendar years
beginning after calendar year 2002 equal to--
(A) 90 percent if the insurer pays an assessment equal to 4
percent of the insurer's average gross direct written
premiums and policyholders' surplus for the most recently
ended calendar year;
(B) 80 percent if the insurer pays an assessment equal to 3
percent of the insurer's average gross direct written
premiums and policyholders' surplus for the most recently
ended calendar year; and
(C) 70 percent if the insurer pays an assessment equal to 2
percent of the insurer's average gross direct written
premiums and policyholders' surplus for the most recently
ended calendar year.
(d) $50,000,000,000 Limit.--Except as provided in
subsection (e), the Fund may not reimburse participating
insurers for covered losses in excess of a total Fund
reimbursement amount for all participating insurers of
$50,000,000,000.
(e) Losses Exceeding $50,000,000,000 Limit.--If the
Secretary determines that reimbursable losses in a calendar
year from an event exceed $50,000,000,000, the Secretary--
(1) shall pay, out of amounts in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated--
(A) 90 percent of the covered losses occurring in calendar
year 2002 in excess, in the aggregate, of $50,000,000,000 but
not in excess of $100,000,000; and
(B) 80 percent of the covered losses occurring in calendar
year 2003 or 2004 in excess, in the aggregate, of
$50,000,000,000 but not in excess of $100,000,000; and
(2) shall notify the Congress of that determination and
transmit to the Congress recommendations for responding to
the insufficiency of available amounts to cover reimbursable
losses.
(f) Reports to State Regulator; Certification.--
(1) Reporting terrorism coverage.--A participating insurer
shall--
(A) report the amount of its terrorism insurance coverage
to the insurance regulatory authority for each State in which
it does business; and
(B) obtain a certification from the State that it is not
providing terrorism insurance coverage in excess of its
capacity under State solvency requirements.
(2) Reports to secretary.--The State regulator shall
furnish a copy of the certification received under paragraph
(1) to the Secretary.
SEC. 7. SECRETARY TO DETERMINE IF LOSS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
TERRORISM.
(a) Initial Determination.--If a participating insurer
files a claim for reimbursement from the Fund, the Secretary
shall make an initial determination as to whether the losses
or expected losses were caused by an act of terrorism.
(b) Notice and Hearing.--The Secretary shall give public
notice of the initial determination and afford all interested
parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether
the losses or expected losses were caused by an act of
terrorism.
(c) Final Determination.--Within 30 days after the
Secretary's initial determination, the Secretary shall make a
final determination as to whether the losses or expected
losses were caused by an act of terrorism.
(d) Standard of Review.--The Secretary's determination
shall be upheld upon judicial review if based upon
substantial evidence.
SEC. 8. MANDATORY COVERAGE BY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM.
(a) In General.--An insurer that provides lines of coverage
described in section 14(5)(A) or 14(5)(B) may not--
(1) exclude or limit coverage in those lines for losses
from acts of terrorism in the United States, its territories,
and possessions in property and casualty insurance policy
forms; or
[[Page 23540]]
(2) deny or cancel coverage solely due to the risk of
losses from acts of terrorism in the United States.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--Insurance against losses from
acts of terrorism in the United States shall be covered with
the same deductibles, limits, terms, and conditions as the
standard provisions of the policy for non-catastrophic
perils.
SEC. 9. PASS-THROUGHS AND OTHER RATE INCREASES.
(a) Limitation on Rate Increases for Covered Risks.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), a participating insurer that
provides lines of coverage described in section 14(5)(A) or
14(5)(B) may not increase annual rates on covered risks
during any period in which the insurer participates in the
Fund by a percent in excess of the sum of--
(1) the percent used to determine the insurer's assessment
under section 5(a)(1); and
(2) if there is an assessment against the insurer under
section 5(c)(4), a percent equivalent to the percent
assessment of the insurer's gross direct written premium for
covered lines.
(b) Terrorism-related increases in excess of pass-
throughs.--
(1) Reports by insurers.--Not less than 30 days before the
date on which a participating insurer increases the premium
rate for insurance on any covered line of insurance described
in section 14(5) based, in whole or in part, on risk
associated with insurance against losses due to acts of
terrorism, the insurer shall file a report with the State
insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the
premium increase is effective that--
(A) explains the need for the increased premium; and
(B) identifies the portion of the increase properly
attributable to risk associated with insurance offered by
that insurer against losses due to acts of terrorism; and
(C) demonstrates, by substantial evidence, why that portion
of the increase is warranted.
(2) Reports by state regulators.--Within 15 days after a
State insurance regulatory authority receives a report from
an insurer required by paragraph (1), the authority--
(A) shall transmit a copy of the report to the Secretary;
(B) may include a determination with respect to whether an
insurer has met the requirement of paragraph (1)C); and
(C) may include with the report any commentary or analysis
it deems appropriate.
SEC. 10. CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE.
Each State shall afford an insurer obtaining reinsurance
from the Fund credit for such reinsurance on the same basis
and to the same extent that credit for reinsurance would be
available to that insurer under applicable State law when
reinsurance is obtained from an assuming insurer licensed or
accredited in that State.
SEC. 11. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS; REPORTS AND ANALYSIS.
(a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary
may--
(1) issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
administer this Act;
(2) enter into reinsurance contracts, adjust and pay claims
as provided in this Act, and carry out the activities
necessary to implement this Act;
(3) set forth the coverage provided by the Fund to
accomplish the purposes of this Act;
(4) provide for an audit of the books and records of the
Fund by the General Accounting Office;
(5) take appropriate action to collect premiums or
assessments under this Act; and
(6) audit the reports, claims, books, and records of
participating insurers.
(b) Reports From Insurers.--Participating insurers shall
submit reports on a quarterly or other basis (as required by
the Secretary) to the Secretary, the Federal Trade
Commission, and the General Accounting Office setting forth
rates, premiums, risk analysis, coverage, reserves, claims
made for reimbursement from the Fund, and such additional
financial and actuarial information as the Secretary may
require regarding lines of coverage described in section
14(5)(A) or 14(5)(B).
(c) FTC Analysis and Enforcement.--The Federal Trade
Commission shall review the reports submitted under
subsection (b), treating the information contained in the
reports as privileged and confidential, for the purpose of
determining whether any insurer is engaged in unfair methods
of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or
affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).
(d) GAO Review.--The Comptroller General shall provide for
review and analysis of the reports submitted under subsection
(b), and, if necessary, provide of audit of reimbursement
claims filed by insurers with the Fund.
(e) Reports by Secretary.--No later than March 31st of each
calendar year, the Secretary shall transmit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology and the House
of Representatives Committee on Commerce an annual report on
insurance rate increases for the preceding calendar year in
the United States based upon the reports received by the
Secretary under this Act. The Secretary may include in the
report a recommendation for legislation to impose Federal
regulation of insurance rates on covered lines of insurance
if the Secretary determines that premium rates for insurance
on covered lines of insurance are--
(A) unreasonable; and
(B) attributable to insurance for losses from acts of
terrorism.
SEC. 12. INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAWS.
(a) In General.--State laws relating to insurance rates,
insurance policy forms, insurance rates on any covered lines
of insurance described in section 14(5)(A) or 14(5)(B),
insurer financial requirements, and insurer licensing do not
apply to contracts entered into by the Fund. The Fund is not
subject to State tax and is exempt from Federal income tax.
The reinsurance contract premium paid and assessments
collected by insurers shall not be subject to local, State,
or Federal tax. The reinsurance contract premium and
assessments recovered from policyholders shall not be subject
to local, State, or Federal tax.
(b) Exception for Unfair Trade Practice Laws.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), nothing in this Act
supersedes or preempts a State law that prohibits unfair
methods of competition in commerce, unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in commerce, or unfair insurance claims
practices.
SEC. 13. SUNSET PROVISION.
(a) Assessment and Collection of Premiums.--The Secretary
shall continue the premium assessment and collection
operations of the Fund under this Act as long as loans due
from the Fund to the United States Treasury are outstanding.
(b) Provision of Reinsurance.--The Secretary shall suspend
other operations of the Fund for new contract years on the
close of business on December 31, 2004, and may suspend the
offering of reinsurance contracts for new contract years at
any time before that date if the Secretary determines that
the reinsurance provided by the Fund is no longer needed for
covered lines due to market conditions.
(c) Review of Private Reinsurance Availability.--The
Secretary shall review the cost and availability of private
reinsurance for acts of terrorism at least annually and shall
report the findings and any recommendations to Congress by
June 1 of each year the Fund is in operation.
(d) Dissolution of Fund.--
(1) Distribution for reserves.--When the Secretary
determines that all Fund operations have been terminated, the
Secretary shall dissolve the Fund. Any unencumbered Fund
assets remaining after the satisfaction of all outstanding
claims, loans from the Treasury, and other liabilities of the
Fund shall be distributed, on a pro rata basis based on
premiums paid, to any insurer that--
(A) participated in the Fund during its operation; and
(B) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary,
that any amount received as a distribution from the Fund will
be permanently credited to a reserve account maintained by
that insurer against claims for industrywide aggregate losses
of $2,000,000,000 from--
(i) acts of terrorism in the United States; or
(ii) the effects of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
tsunamis, or hurricanes.
(2) Retention requirement for tapping reserve.--Amounts
credited to a reserve under paragraph (a) may not be used by
an insurer to pay claims until the insurer has paid claims
for losses resulting from acts or events described in
paragraph (1)(B) in excess of 10 percent of that insurer's
average gross direct written premiums and policyholders'
surplus for covered lines for the most recently ended
calendar year for which data are available.
(3) Officer and director penalties for misuse of
reserves.--Any officer or director of an insurer who
knowingly authorizes or directs the use of any amount
received from the Fund under paragraph (1) for any purpose
other than an appropriate use of amounts in the reserve to
which the amount is credited shall be guilty of a Class E
felony and sentenced in accordance with the provisions of
section 3551 of title 18, United States Code.
(4) Residual distribution to treasury.--Any unencumbered
Fund assets remaining after the distribution under paragraph
(1) shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States
as miscellaneous receipts.
SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--Except where otherwise specifically
provided, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Commerce.
(2) NAIC.--The term ``NAIC'' means the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the National Terrorism
Reinsurance Fund established under section 4.
(4) Participating insurer.--The term ``participating
insurer'' means every property and casualty insurer writing
on a direct basis a covered line or lines of insurance in any
jurisdiction of the United States, its territories, or
possessions, including residual market insurers.
(5) Covered line.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered line'' means any one or
a combination of the following, written on a direct basis, as
reported by property and casualty insurers in required
financial reports on Statutory Page 14 of the NAIC Annual
Statement Blank:
[[Page 23541]]
(i) Fire.
(ii) Allied lines.
(iii) Commercial multiple peril.
(iv) Ocean marine.
(v) Inland marine.
(vi) Workers compensation.
(vii) Products liability.
(viii) Commercial auto no-fault (personal injury
protection), other commercial auto liability, or commercial
auto physical damage.
(ix) Aircraft (all peril).
(x) Fidelity and surety.
(xi) Burglary and theft.
(xii) Boiler and machinery.
(xiii) Any other line of insurance that is reported by
property and casualty insurers in required financial reports
on Statutory Page 14 of the NAIC Annual Statement Blank which
is voluntarily elected by an participating insurer to be
included in its reinsurance contract with the Fund.
(B) Other lines.--For purposes of clause (xiii), the lines
of business that may be voluntarily selected are the
following:
(i) Farmowners multiple peril.
(ii) Homeowners multiple peril.
(iii) Mortgage guaranty.
(iv) Financial guaranty.
(v) Private passenger automobile insurance.
(C) Election.--The election to voluntarily include another
line of insurance, if made, must apply to all affiliated
insurers that are members of an insurer group. Any voluntary
election is on a one-time basis and is irrevocable.
(6) Losses.--The term ``losses'' means direct incurred
losses from an act of terrorism for covered lines, plus
defense and cost containment expenses. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, a loss shall not be recognized as a loss
for the purpose of determining the amount of an insurer's
retention or reimbursement under this Act unless the claim
for the loss has been paid within 12 months after the
terrorism event occurs and other loss adjustments.
(7) Covered losses.--The term ``covered losses'' means
direct losses in excess of the participating insurer's
retention.
(8) Terrorism; act of terrorism.--
(A) In general.--The terms ``terrorism'' and ``act of
terrorism'' mean any act, certified by the Secretary in
concurrence with the Secretary of State and the Attorney
General, as a violent act or act dangerous to human life,
property or infrastructure, within the United States, its
territories and possessions, that is committed by an
individual or individuals acting on behalf of foreign agents
or foreign interests (other than a foreign government) as
part of an effort to coerce or intimidate the civilian
population of the United States or to influence the policy or
affect the conduct of the United States government.
(B) Acts of war.--No act shall be certified as an act of
terrorism if the act is committed in the course of a war
declared by the Congress of the United States or by a foreign
government.
(C) Finality of certification.--Any certification, or
determination not to certify, by the Secretary under
subparagraph (A) is final and not subject to judicial review.
(9) Insurer.--
(A) In general.--The term ``insurer'' means an entity
writing covered lines on a direct basis and licensed as a
property and casualty insurer, risk retention group, or other
entity authorized by law as a residual market mechanism
providing property or casualty coverage in at least one
jurisdiction of the United States, its territories, or
possessions.
(B) Voluntary participation.--A State workers'
compensation, auto, or property insurance Fund may
voluntarily participate as an insurer.
(10) Contract year.--The term ``contract year'' means the
period of time that obligations exist between a participating
insurer and the Fund for a given annual reinsurance contract.
(11) Retention.--The term ``retention'' means the level of
direct losses retained by a participating insurer for which
the insurer is not entitled to reimbursement by the Fund.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1744. A bill to ensure the continued financial capacity of
insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while there are few people in the Senate
more skeptical than I of providing Federal assistance to corporations
or involving the Federal Government in private industry, the proposed
wholesale cancellation of terrorism insurance coverage following the
devastating events of September 11, dictates that Congress act before
the end of this session to ensure that this coverage continues to be
available and affordable. Since 1945 when Congress delegated the
responsibility of regulating insurance to the States, the Federal
Government has honored this delegation and, with the encouragement of
state regulators, kept out of the business of insurance.
In a recent letter to Treasury Secretary O'Neill, however, the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC, implored the
Federal Government for help. ``What has not been widely reported is
that insurers are now issuing notices of non-renewal and filing across-
the-board property and casualty exclusions for terrorist risk with
state insurance regulators,'' the NAIC wrote. ``[W]e need the Federal
Government to act soon to give certainty to this situation * * *
further delay inadvertently could cause greater market disruption, thus
making the need for quick action imperative.'' I agree.
The bill I am introducing today draws from the many good ideas
proposed by members of Congress and by the Administration to deal with
the imminent cancellation of terrorism insurance coverage, and attempts
also to address concerns raised with each of these proposals. It is by
no means a perfect bill and I look forward to working with the
Administration, my colleagues, state insurance commissioners, and other
interested parties to improve it. While rough, the bill does reflect,
however, what I believe to be the core principles that should be
included in any legislation designed to keep terrorism insurance
affordable and available. These principles include making Federal
intervention short-term; deferring to states on questions of rate
regulation; requiring insurance companies and the insurance industry to
bear enough risk to promote responsible claims handling and to ensure
that incentives to protect against acts of terrorism are in place;
fairly allocating the costs of a terrorist event among insurance
companies, and between policy holders and taxpayers; and generally
prohibiting the award of punitive damages in claims arising from acts
of terrorism.
There has been much debate about whether the taxpayers should bear
the cost in the short-term of another terrorist event, or whether this
cost should be borne by policy holders. The answer, perhaps, is that
the cost should be shared. I propose in this bill that federal
assistance up to $50 billion be paid back by commercial property and
casualty policy holders through a capped surcharge on their premiums.
For Federal assistance between $50 billion and $100 billion, which
would be required only in the case of a truly catastrophic, perhaps
cataclysmic event, however, the bill does not require repayment.
The following is a summary of the major provision of this bill. I
look forward to working to improve it and to passage of needed
legislation on terrorism insurance before the end of this session.
The bill provides a Federal backstop for certain insured losses due
to acts of terrorism up to $100 billion per year in 2002 and 2003. The
Federal Government would get involved, however, only if there is an act
of terrorism during these years that exceeded individual company
retentions. If a commercial insurer reaches these retention levels, the
federal government would provide assistance for 80 percent of the
companies' losses above the retention.
To provide uniformity, the bill preempts state definitions of
``terrorism'' and delegates to the Secretary of Commerce the
responsibility of determining whether or not an act of terrorism has
occurred.
Federal assistance is available only to companies whose annual
terrorism-related losses in certain lines of commercial property and
casualty insurance exceed the greater of $10 million or 5 percent of
gross direct written premium in the previous year.
Only companies that meet the company retention trigger can obtain
assistance from the Federal Government. Outlays for losses up to $50
billion are repaid by insurance policy holders through a surcharge
imposed by the Secretary of Commerce on covered lines and collected by
commercial insurers. These surcharges cannot exceed 6 percent of annual
premiums, and the Secretary has the discretion to adjust the surcharge
to reflect different risks in urban and rural areas.
Federal outlays up to $50 billion are paid back over time by
commercial
[[Page 23542]]
property and casualty policy holders. Federal outlays for losses over
$50 billion are not recoverable.
Rate regulation is left to the states.
Except with respect to claims against terrorists and their
conspirators, punitive damages cannot be recovered in claims arising
out of acts of terrorism.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 1746. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 to strengthen security at sensitive nuclear
facilities; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to discuss an issue of great
importance to our Nation, the safety of our Nation's nuclear power
plants.
The tragedy of September 11 taught us many things: It taught us the
importance of our first responders. It taught us the vulnerability of
our Nation's buildings and the strength of our Nation's resolve.
Finally, it taught us that we must be prepared for today's threats
because they could become tomorrow's attacks.
We must not fail to take what we have learned and apply it to the
vulnerabilities of our Nation's energy and transportation
infrastructure.
Less than 1 week ago, the President signed a new law to increase the
safety at our Nation's airports.
That act turned the first page in a long struggle to secure our
Nation's infrastructure.
Today, I am introducing legislation with Senator Clinton, Senator
Lieberman, and Senator Jeffords to write the next chapter, which covers
commercial nuclear facilities.
I am pleased that Congressman Markey and Congresswoman Lowey will
introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives.
Nuclear facilities provide us with needed electricity, but, in light
of the events of September 11, they also present a security risk that
we simply must address.
When plants are failing nearly half their security evaluations, we
need to do more than update the curriculum. We need a whole new system.
There are some plants that do a good job, but it is not enough to
have peaks of success, we need a new high plateau that secures all
plants. We can accomplish that by establishing a new nuclear security
force.
Our bill also requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a
new look at the threats posed by terrorists.
This is the foundation that will support the efforts of the nuclear
security force and overall plant security.
Our bill also establishes a rigorous training and evaluation program
for the nuclear security force.
A new office will be established within the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission with a dedicated team of mock terrorists whose only jobs is
to perfect their skills in challenging the security guards.
When professional sports teams practice, the don't do it against
amateur athletes playing in the park. They train against other
professionals. Nuclear Security personnel should also.
Our bill will honor the sacrifice of our Nation's emergency
responders by ensuring that emergency response plans are in place and
work as we expect them to.
Finally, we will require stockpiles of medicine to help out in the
event of a release of radioactive material from a nuclear facility.
These potassium iodide tablets block the absorption of harmful iodine
in the thyroid gland.
The American people told us how they wanted their airlines and
airports protected. The Congress and the President listened and acted.
We will work to make sure their questions about the safety of all our
Nation's nuclear power plants are also answered.
This bill starts that process.
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. 1746
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 ``Nuclear Security Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection jj. as subsection ii.; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``jj. Design Basis Threat.--The term `design basis threat'
means the design basis threat established by the Commission
under section 73.1 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulation developed under section 170C).
``kk. Sensitive Nuclear Facility.--The term `sensitive
nuclear facility' means--
``(1) a commercial nuclear power plant and associated spent
fuel storage facility;
``(2) a decommissioned nuclear power plant and associated
spent fuel storage facility;
``(3) a category I fuel cycle facility;
``(4) a gaseous diffusion plant; and
``(5) any other facility licensed by the Commission, or
used in the conduct of an activity licensed by the
Commission, that the Commission determines should be treated
as a sensitive nuclear facility under section 170C.''.
SEC. 3. NUCLEAR SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 170C. PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE NUCLEAR FACILITIES
AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Nuclear security force.--The term `nuclear security
force' means the nuclear security force established under
subsection (b)(1).
``(2) Fund.--The term `Fund' means the Nuclear Security
Fund established under subsection (f).
``(3) Qualification standard.--The term `qualification
standard' means a qualification standard established under
subsection (e)(2)(A).
``(4) Security plan.--The term `security plan' means a
security plan developed under subsection (b)(2).
``(b) Nuclear Security.--The Commission shall--
``(1) establish a nuclear security force, the members of
which shall be employees of the Commission, to provide for
the security of all sensitive nuclear facilities against the
design basis threat; and
``(2) develop and implement a security plan for each
sensitive nuclear facility to ensure the security of all
sensitive nuclear facilities against the design basis threat.
``(c) Design Basis Threat.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this section, and at least once every 3 years
thereafter, the Commission, in consultation with the
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, the
Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and other
Federal, State, and local agencies, as appropriate, shall
revise the design basis threat to include--
``(A) threats equivalent to--
``(i) the events of September 11, 2001;
``(ii) a physical, cyber, biochemical, or other terrorist
threat;
``(iii) an attack on a facility by multiple coordinated
teams of a large number of individuals;
``(iv) assistance in an attack from several persons
employed at the facility;
``(v) a suicide attack;
``(vi) a water-based or air-based threat;
``(vii) the use of explosive devices of considerable size
and other modern weaponry;
``(viii) an attack by persons with a sophisticated
knowledge of the operations of a sensitive nuclear facility;
and
``(ix) fire, especially a fire of long duration; and
``(B) any other threat that the Commission determines
should be included as an element of the design basis threat.
``(2) Reports.--The Commission shall submit to Congress a
report on each revision made under paragraph (1).
``(d) Security Plans.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Commission shall develop a
security plan for each sensitive nuclear facility to ensure
the protection of each sensitive nuclear facility against the
design basis threat.
``(2) Elements of the plan.--A security plan shall
prescribe--
``(A) the deployment of the nuclear security force,
including--
``(i) numbers of the members of the nuclear security force
at each sensitive nuclear facility;
``(ii) tactics of the members of the nuclear security force
at each sensitive nuclear facility; and
``(iii) capabilities of the members of the nuclear security
force at each sensitive nuclear facility;
``(B) other protective measures, including--
``(i) designs of critical control systems at each sensitive
nuclear facility;
``(ii) restricted personnel access to each sensitive
nuclear facility;
``(iii) perimeter site security, internal site security,
and fire protection barriers;
[[Page 23543]]
``(iv) increases in protection for spent fuel storage
areas;
``(v) placement of spent fuel in dry cask storage; and
``(vi) background security checks for employees and
prospective employees; and
``(C) a schedule for completing the requirements of the
security plan not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section.
``(3) Additional requirements.--A holder of a license for a
sensitive nuclear facility under section 103 or 104 or the
State or local government in which a sensitive nuclear
facility is located may petition the Commission for
additional requirements in the security plan for the
sensitive nuclear facility.
``(4) Implementation of security plan.--Not later than 270
days after the date of enactment of this section, the
Commission, in consultation with a holder of a license for a
sensitive nuclear facility under section 103 or 104, shall,
by direct action of the Commission or by order requiring
action by the licensee, implement the security plan for the
sensitive nuclear facility in accordance with the schedule
under paragraph (2)(C).
``(5) Sufficiency of security plan.--If at any time the
Commission determines that the implementation of the
requirements of the security plan for a sensitive nuclear
facility is insufficient to ensure the security of the
sensitive nuclear facility against the design basis threat,
the Commission shall immediately submit to Congress and the
President a classified report that--
``(A) identifies the vulnerability of the sensitive nuclear
facility; and
``(B) recommends actions by Federal, State, or local
agencies to eliminate the vulnerability.
``(e) Nuclear Security Force.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Commission, in consultation
with other Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall establish
a program for the hiring and training of the nuclear security
force.
``(2) Hiring.--
``(A) Qualification standards.--Not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission
shall establish qualification standards that individuals
shall be required to meet to be hired by the Commission as
members of the nuclear security force.
``(B) Examination.--The Commission shall develop and
administer a nuclear security force personnel examination for
use in determining the qualification of individuals seeking
employment as members of the nuclear security force.
``(C) Criminal and security background checks.--The
Commission shall require that an individual to be hired as a
member of the nuclear security force undergo a criminal and
security background check.
``(D) Disqualification of individuals who present national
security risks.--The Commission, in consultation with the
heads of other Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall
establish procedures, in addition to any background check
conducted under subparagraph (B), to ensure that no
individual who presents a threat to national security is
employed as a member of the nuclear security force.
``(3) Annual proficiency review.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall provide that an
annual evaluation of each member of the nuclear security
force is conducted and documented.
``(B) Requirements for continuation.--An individual
employed as a member of the nuclear security force may not
continue to be employed in that capacity unless the
evaluation under subparagraph (A) demonstrates that the
individual--
``(i) continues to meet all qualification standards;
``(ii) has a satisfactory record of performance and
attention to duty; and
``(iii) has the knowledge and skills necessary to
vigilantly and effectively provide for the security of a
sensitive nuclear facility against the design basis threat.
``(4) Training.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall provide for the
training of each member of the nuclear security force to
ensure each member has the knowledge and skills necessary to
provide for the security of a sensitive nuclear facility
against the design basis threat.
``(B) Training plan.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Commission shall develop a
plan for the training of members of the nuclear security
force.
``(C) Use of other agencies.--The Commission may enter into
a memorandum of understanding or other arrangement with any
other Federal agency with appropriate law enforcement
responsibilities, to provide personnel, resources, or other
forms of assistance in the training of members of the nuclear
security force.
``(f) Nuclear Security Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States a fund to be known as the `Nuclear
Security Fund', which shall be used by the Commission to
administer programs under this section to provide for the
security of sensitive nuclear facilities.
``(2) Deposits in the fund.--The Commission shall deposit
in the Fund--
``(A) the amount of fees collected under paragraph (5); and
``(B) amounts appropriated under subsection (g).
``(3) Investment of amounts.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States.
``(B) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be
acquired--
``(i) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
``(C) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
``(D) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
``(4) Use of amounts in the fund.--The Commission shall use
amounts in the Fund to pay the costs of--
``(A) salaries, training, and other expenses of the nuclear
security force; and
``(B) developing and implementing security plans.
``(5) Fee.--To ensure that adequate amounts are available
to provide assistance under paragraph (4), the Commission
shall assess licensees a fee in an amount determined by the
Commission, not to exceed 1 mill per kilowatt-hour of
electricity generated by a sensitive nuclear facility.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
(b) Implementation.--The Commission shall complete the full
implementation of the amendment made by subsection (a) as
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act,
but in no event later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents for chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. prec. 2011) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 170B. Uranium supply.
``Sec. 170C. Protection of sensitive nuclear facilities against the
design basis threat.''.
SEC. 4. OPERATION SAFEGUARDS AND RESPONSE UNIT.
Section 204 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5844) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Operation Safeguards and Response Unit.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Assistant director.--The term `Assistant Director'
means the Assistant Director for Operation Safeguards and
Response.
``(B) Design basis threat.--The term `design basis threat'
has the meaning given the term in section 11 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014).
``(C) Sensitive nuclear facility.--The term `sensitive
nuclear facility' has the meaning given the term in section
11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014).
``(D) Unit.--The term `Unit' means the Operation Safeguards
and Response Unit established under paragraph (2)(A).
``(2) Establishment of unit.--
``(A) In general.--There is established within the Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards the Operation
Safeguards and Response Unit.
``(B) Head of unit.--The Unit shall be headed by the
Assistant Director for Operation Safeguards and Response.
``(C) Duties.--The Assistant Director shall--
``(i) establish a program for the conduct of operation
safeguards and response evaluations under paragraph (3); and
``(ii) establish a program for the conduct of emergency
response exercises under paragraph (4).
``(D) Mock terrorist team.--The personnel of the Unit shall
include a Mock Terrorist Team comprised of--
``(i) not fewer than 20 individuals with advanced knowledge
of special weapons and tactics comparable to special
operations forces of the Armed Forces;
``(ii) at least 1 nuclear engineer;
``(iii) for each evaluation at a sensitive nuclear facility
under paragraph (3), at least 1 individual with knowledge of
the operations of the sensitive nuclear facility who is
capable of actively disrupting the normal operations of the
sensitive nuclear facility; and
``(iv) any other individual that the Assistant Director
determines should be a member of the Mock Terrorist Team.
``(3) Operation safeguards and response evaluations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Assistant Director shall
establish an operation safeguards and response evaluation
program to assess the ability of each sensitive nuclear
facility to defend against the design basis threat.
``(B) Frequency of evaluations.--Not less often than once
every 2 years, the Assistant
[[Page 23544]]
Director shall conduct and document operation safeguards and
response evaluations at each sensitive nuclear facility to
assess the ability of the members of the nuclear security
force at the sensitive nuclear facility to defend against the
design basis threat.
``(C) Activities.--The evaluation shall include 2 or more
force-on-force exercises by the Mock Terrorist Team against
the sensitive nuclear facility that simulate air, water, and
land assaults (as appropriate).
``(D) Criteria.--The Assistant Director shall establish
criteria for judging the success of the evaluations.
``(E) Corrective action.--If a sensitive nuclear facility
fails to complete successfully an operation safeguards and
response evaluation, the Commission shall require additional
operation safeguards and response evaluations not less often
than once every 6 months until the sensitive nuclear facility
successfully completes an operation safeguards and response
evaluation.
``(F) Reports.--Not less often than once every year, the
Commission shall submit to Congress and the President a
report that describes the results of each operation
safeguards and response evaluation under this paragraph for
the previous year.
``(4) Emergency response exercises.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Assistant Director, in
consultation with the Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Attorney General, and other Federal, State, and
local agencies, as appropriate, shall establish an emergency
response program to evaluate the ability of Federal, State,
and local emergency response personnel within a 50-mile
radius of a sensitive nuclear facility to respond to a
radiological emergency at the sensitive nuclear facility.
``(B) Frequency.--Not less often than once every 3 years,
the Assistant Director shall conduct emergency response
exercises to evaluate the ability of Federal, State, and
local emergency response personnel within a 50-mile radius of
a sensitive nuclear facility to respond to a radiological
emergency at the sensitive nuclear facility.
``(C) Activities.--The response exercises shall evaluate--
``(i) the response capabilities, response times, and
coordination and communication capabilities of the response
personnel;
``(ii) the effectiveness and adequacy of emergency response
plans, including evacuation plans; and
``(iii) the ability of response personnel to distribute
potassium iodide or other prophylactic medicines in an
expeditious manner.
``(D) Revision of emergency response plans.--The Commission
shall revise the emergency response plan for a sensitive
nuclear facility to correct for any deficiencies identified
by an evaluation under this paragraph.
``(E) Reports.--Not less often than once every year, the
Commission shall submit to Congress and the President a
report that describes--
``(i) the results of each emergency response exercise under
this paragraph conducted in the previous year; and
``(ii) each revision of an emergency response plan made
under subparagraph (D) for the previous year.''.
SEC. 5. POTASSIUM IODIDE STOCKPILES.
Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``u. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this subsection, the Commission, in consultation with the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other Federal,
State, and local agencies, as appropriate, shall--
``(1) ensure that sufficient stockpiles of potassium iodide
tablets have been established at public facilities (such as
schools and hospitals) within at least a 50-mile radius of
all sensitive nuclear facilities;
``(2) develop plans for the prompt distribution of the
stockpiles described in paragraph (1) to all individuals
located within at least a 50-mile radius of a sensitive
nuclear facility in the event of a release of radionuclides;
and
``(3) submit to Congress a report--
``(A) certifying that stockpiles have been established as
described in paragraph (1); and
``(B) including the plans described in paragraph (2).''.
SEC. 6. DEFENSE OF FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--In a case in which a state of war or
national emergency exists, the Commission shall--
(1) request the Governor of each State in which a sensitive
nuclear facility is located to deploy the National Guard to
each sensitive nuclear facility in that State; and
(2) request the President to--
(A) deploy the Coast Guard to sensitive nuclear facilities
on the coastline of the United States; and
(B) restrict air space in the vicinity of sensitive nuclear
facilities in the United States.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 2170. Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mr.
Baucus)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 10, to
provide for pension reform, and for other purposes.
SA 2171. Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr.
Brownback) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2170
submitted by Mr. Daschle and intended to be proposed to the
bill (H.R. 10) supra.
SA 2172. Mr. HOLLINGS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1743, to create a temporary
reinsurance mechanism to enhance the availability of
terrorism insurance; which was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
SA 2173. Mr. BURNS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 10, to provide for pension
reform, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 2174. Mr. BURNS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 10, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 2170. Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mr. Baucus))
proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 10, to provide for pension
reform, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Railroad
Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1974
Sec. 101. Expansion of widow's and widower's benefits.
Sec. 102. Retirement age restoration.
Sec. 103. Vesting requirement.
Sec. 104. Repeal of railroad retirement maximum.
Sec. 105. Investment of railroad retirement assets.
Sec. 106. Elimination of supplemental annuity account.
Sec. 107. Transfer authority revisions.
Sec. 108. Annual ratio projections and certifications by the Railroad
Retirement Board.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Sec. 201. Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Sec. 202. Exemption from tax for National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust.
Sec. 203. Repeal of supplemental annuity tax.
Sec. 204. Employer, employee representative, and employee tier 2 tax
rate adjustments.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1974
SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF WIDOW'S AND WIDOWER'S BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Section 4(g) of the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231c(g)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subdivision:
``(10)(i) If for any month the unreduced annuity provided
under this section for a widow or widower is less than the
widow's or widower's initial minimum amount computed pursuant
to paragraph (ii) of this subdivision, the unreduced annuity
shall be increased to that initial minimum amount. For the
purposes of this subdivision, the unreduced annuity is the
annuity without regard to any deduction on account of work,
without regard to any reduction for entitlement to an annuity
under section 2(a)(1) of this Act, without regard to any
reduction for entitlement to a benefit under title II of the
Social Security Act, and without regard to any reduction for
entitlement to a public service pension pursuant to section
202(e)(7), 202(f)(2), or 202(g)(4) of the Social Security
Act.
``(ii) For the purposes of this subdivision, the widow or
widower's initial minimum amount is the amount of the
unreduced annuity computed at the time an annuity is awarded
to that widow or widower, except that--
``(A) in subsection (g)(1)(i) `100 per centum' shall be
substituted for `50 per centum'; and
``(B) in subsection (g)(2)(ii) `130 per centum' shall be
substituted for `80 per centum' both places it appears.
``(iii) If a widow or widower who was previously entitled
to a widow's or widower's annuity under section 2(d)(1)(ii)
of this Act becomes entitled to a widow's or widower's
annuity under section 2(d)(1)(i) of this Act, a new initial
minimum amount shall be computed at the time of award of the
widow's or widower's annuity under section 2(d)(1)(i) of this
Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall
take effect on the first day of the first month that begins
more than 30 days after enactment, and shall apply to annuity
amounts accruing for months after the
[[Page 23545]]
effective date in the case of annuities awarded--
(A) on or after that date; and
(B) before that date, but only if the annuity amount under
section 4(g) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45
U.S.C. 231c(g)) was computed under such section, as amended
by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35; 95 Stat. 357).
(2) Special rule for annuities awarded before the effective
date.--In applying the amendment made by this section to
annuities awarded before the effective date, the calculation
of the initial minimum amount under new section 4(g)(10)(ii)
of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C.
231c(g)(10)(ii)), as added by subsection (a), shall be made
as of the date of the award of the widow's or widower's
annuity.
SEC. 102. RETIREMENT AGE RESTORATION.
(a) Employee Annuities.--Section 3(a)(2) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231b(a)(2)) is amended by
inserting after ``(2)'' the following new sentence: ``For
purposes of this subsection, individuals entitled to an
annuity under section 2(a)(1)(ii) of this Act shall, except
for the purposes of recomputations in accordance with section
215(f) of the Social Security Act, be deemed to have attained
retirement age (as defined by section 216(l) of the Social
Security Act).''.
(b) Spouse and Survivor Annuities.--Section 4(a)(2) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231c(a)(2)) is
amended by striking ``if an'' and all that follows through
``section 2(c)(1) of this Act'' and inserting ``a spouse
entitled to an annuity under section 2(c)(1)(ii)(B) of this
Act''.
(c) Conforming Repeals.--Sections 3(a)(3), 4(a)(3), and
4(a)(4) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C.
231b(a)(3), 231c(a)(3), and 231c(a)(4)) are repealed.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Generally.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to annuities that
begin to accrue on or after January 1, 2002.
(2) Exception.--The amount of the annuity provided for a
spouse under section 4(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of
1974 (45 U.S.C. 231c(a)) shall be computed under section
4(a)(3) of such Act, as in effect on December 31, 2001, if
the annuity amount provided under section 3(a) of such Act
(45 U.S.C. 231b(a)) for the individual on whose employment
record the spouse annuity is based was computed under section
3(a)(3) of such Act, as in effect on December 31, 2001.
SEC. 103. VESTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Certain Annuities for Individuals.--Section 2(a) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231a(a)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting in subdivision (1) ``(or, for purposes of
paragraphs (i), (iii), and (v), five years of service, all of
which accrues after December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten years of
service''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subdivision:
``(4) An individual who is entitled to an annuity under
paragraph (v) of subdivision (1), but who does not have at
least ten years of service, shall, prior to the month in
which the individual attains age 62, be entitled only to an
annuity amount computed under section 3(a) of this Act
(without regard to section 3(a)(2) of this Act) or section
3(f)(3) of this Act. Upon attainment of age 62, such an
individual may also be entitled to an annuity amount computed
under section 3(b), but such annuity amount shall be reduced
for early retirement in the same manner as if the individual
were entitled to an annuity under section 2(a)(1)(iii).''.
(b) Computation Rule for Individuals' Annuities.--Section
3(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C.
231b(a)), as amended by section 102 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subdivision:
``(3) If an individual entitled to an annuity under section
2(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this Act on the basis of less than ten
years of service is entitled to a benefit under section
202(a), section 202(b), or section 202(c) of the Social
Security Act which began to accrue before the annuity under
section 2(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this Act, the annuity amount
provided such individual under this subsection, shall be
computed as though the annuity under this Act began to accrue
on the later of (A) the date on which the benefit under
section 202(a), section 202(b), or section 202(c) of the
Social Security Act began, or (B) the date on which the
individual first met the conditions for entitlement to an age
reduced annuity under this Act other than the conditions set
forth in sections 2(e)(1) and 2(e)(2) of this Act and the
requirement that an application be filed.''.
(c) Survivors' Annuities.--Section 2(d)(1) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231a(d)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``(or five years of service, all of which accrues
after December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten years of service''.
(d) Limitation on Annuity Amounts.--Section 2 of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231a) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) An individual entitled to an annuity under this
section who has completed five years of service, all of which
accrues after 1995, but who has not completed ten years of
service, and the spouse, divorced spouse, and survivors of
such individual, shall not be entitled to an annuity amount
provided under section 3(a), section 4(a), or section 4(f) of
this Act unless the individual, or the individual's spouse,
divorced spouse, or survivors, would be entitled to a benefit
under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the
individual's employment record under both this Act and title
II of the Social Security Act.''.
(e) Computation Rule for Spouses' Annuities.--Section 4(a)
of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231c(a)),
as amended by section 102 of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subdivision:
``(3) If a spouse entitled to an annuity under section
2(c)(1)(ii)(A), section 2(c)(1)(ii)(C), or section 2(c)(2) of
this Act or a divorced spouse entitled to an annuity under
section 2(c)(4) of this Act on the basis of the employment
record of an employee who will have completed less than 10
years of service is entitled to a benefit under section
202(a), section 202(b), or section 202(c) of the Social
Security Act which began to accrue before the annuity under
section 2(c)(1)(ii)(A), section 2(c)(1)(ii)(C), section
2(c)(2), or section 2(c)(4) of this Act, the annuity amount
provided under this subsection shall be computed as though
the annuity under this Act began to accrue on the later of
(A) the date on which the benefit under section 202(a),
section 202(b), or section 202(c) of the Social Security Act
began or (B) the first date on which the annuitant met the
conditions for entitlement to an age reduced annuity under
this Act other than the conditions set forth in sections
2(e)(1) and 2(e)(2) of this Act and the requirement that an
application be filed.''.
(f) Application Deeming Provision.--Section 5(b) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231d(b)) is
amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following new sentence: ``An application filed with the Board
for an employee annuity, spouse annuity, or divorced spouse
annuity on the basis of the employment record of an employee
who will have completed less than ten years of service shall
be deemed to be an application for any benefit to which such
applicant may be entitled under this Act or section 202(a),
section 202(b), or section 202(c) of the Social Security Act.
An application filed with the Board for an annuity on the
basis of the employment record of an employee who will have
completed ten years of service shall, unless the applicant
specified otherwise, be deemed to be an application for any
benefit to which such applicant may be entitled under this
Act or title II of the Social Security Act.''.
(g) Crediting Service Under the Social Security Act.--
Section 18(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45
U.S.C. 231q(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(or less than five years of service, all
of which accrues after December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten years
of service'' every place it appears; and
(2) by inserting ``(or five or more years of service, all
of which accrues after December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten or
more years of service''.
(h) Automatic Benefit Eligibility Adjustments.--Section 19
of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231r) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(or five or more years of service, all
of which accrues after December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten years
of service'' in subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting ``(or five or more years of service, all
of which accrues after December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten years
of service'' in subsection (d)(2).
(i) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6(e)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974
(45 U.S.C. 231e(1)) is amended by inserting ``(or five or
more years of service, all of which accrues after December
31, 1995)'' after ``ten years of service''.
(2) Section 7(b)(2)(A) of the Railroad Retirement Act of
1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ``(or
five or more years of service, all of which accrues after
December 31, 1995)'' after ``ten years of service''.
(3) Section 205(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(i)) is amended by inserting ``(or five or more years of
service, all of which accrues after December 31, 1995)''
after ``ten years of service''.
(4) Section 6(b)(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974
(45 U.S.C. 231e(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``(or five or
more years of service, all of which accrues after December
31, 1995)'' after ``ten years of service'' the second place
it appears.
(j) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2002.
SEC. 104. REPEAL OF RAILROAD RETIREMENT MAXIMUM.
(a) Employee Annuities.--
(1) In general.--Section 3(f) of the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231b(f)) is amended--
(A) by striking subdivision (1); and
(B) by redesignating subdivisions (2) and (3) as
subdivisions (1) and (2), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The first sentence of section 3(f)(1) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45
[[Page 23546]]
U.S.C. 231b(f)(1)), as redesignated by paragraph (1)(B), is
amended by striking ``, without regard to the provisions of
subdivision (1) of this subsection,''.
(B) Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of section 7(d)(2) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(d)(2)) are
each amended by striking ``section 3(f)(3)'' and inserting
``section 3(f)(2)''.
(b) Spouse and Survivor Annuities.--Section 4 of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231c) is amended
by striking subsection (c).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2002, and shall apply to
annuity amounts accruing for months after December 2001.
SEC. 105. INVESTMENT OF RAILROAD RETIREMENT ASSETS.
(a) Establishment of National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust.--Section 15 of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n) is amended by inserting after
subsection (i) the following new subsection:
``(j) National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust.--
``(1) Establishment.--The National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust (hereinafter in this subsection referred to
as the `Trust') is hereby established as a trust domiciled in
the District of Columbia and shall, to the extent not
inconsistent with this Act, be subject to the laws of the
District of Columbia applicable to such trusts. The Trust
shall manage and invest its assets in the manner set forth in
this subsection.
``(2) Not a federal agency or instrumentality.--The Trust
is not a department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Government of the United States and shall not be subject to
title 31, United States Code.
``(3) Board of trustees.--
``(A) Generally.--
``(i) Membership.--The Trust shall have a Board of
Trustees, consisting of 7 members. Three shall represent the
interests of labor, 3 shall represent the interests of
management, and 1 shall be an independent Trustee. The
members of the Board of Trustees shall not be considered
officers or employees of the Government of the United States.
``(ii) Selection.--
``(I) The 3 members representing the interests of labor
shall be selected by the joint recommendation of labor
organizations, national in scope, organized in accordance
with section 2 of the Railway Labor Act, and representing at
least \2/3\ of all active employees, represented by such
national labor organizations, covered under this Act.
``(II) The 3 members representing the interests of
management shall be selected by the joint recommendation of
carriers as defined in section 1 of the Railway Labor Act
employing at least \2/3\ of all active employees covered
under this Act.
``(III) The independent member shall be selected by a
majority of the other 6 members of the Board of Trustees.
A member of the Board of Trustees may be removed in the same
manner and by the same constituency that selected that
member.
``(iii) Dispute resolution.--In the event that the parties
specified in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of the previous
clause cannot agree on the selection of Trustees within 60
days of the date of enactment or 60 days from any subsequent
date that a position of the Board of Trustees becomes vacant,
an impartial umpire to decide such dispute shall, on the
petition of a party to the dispute, be appointed by the
District Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia.
``(B) Qualifications.--Members of the Board of Trustees
shall be appointed only from among persons who have
experience and expertise in the management of financial
investments and pension plans. No member of the Railroad
Retirement Board shall be eligible to be a member of the
Board of Trustees.
``(C) Terms.--Except as provided in this subparagraph, each
member shall be appointed for a 3-year term. The initial
members appointed under this paragraph shall be divided into
equal groups so nearly as may be, of which one group will be
appointed for a 1-year term, one for a 2-year term, and one
for a 3-year term. The Trustee initially selected pursuant to
clause (ii)(III) shall be appointed to a 3-year term. A
vacancy in the Board of Trustees shall not affect the powers
of the Board of Trustees and shall be filled in the same
manner as the selection of the member whose departure caused
the vacancy. Upon the expiration of a term of a member of the
Board of Trustees, that member shall continue to serve until
a successor is appointed.
``(4) Powers of the board of trustees.--The Board of
Trustees shall--
``(A) retain independent advisers to assist it in the
formulation and adoption of its investment guidelines;
``(B) retain independent investment managers to invest the
assets of the Trust in a manner consistent with such
investment guidelines;
``(C) invest assets in the Trust, pursuant to the policies
adopted in subparagraph (A);
``(D) pay administrative expenses of the Trust from the
assets in the Trust; and
``(E) transfer money to the disbursing agent or as
otherwise provided in section 7(b)(4), to pay benefits
payable under this Act from the assets of the Trust.
``(5) Reporting requirements and fiduciary standards.--The
following reporting requirements and fiduciary standards
shall apply with respect to the Trust:
``(A) Duties of the board of trustees.--The Trust and each
member of the Board of Trustees shall discharge their duties
(including the voting of proxies) with respect to the assets
of the Trust solely in the interest of the Railroad
Retirement Board and through it, the participants and
beneficiaries of the programs funded under this Act--
``(i) for the exclusive purpose of--
``(I) providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries; and
``(II) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the
functions of the Trust;
``(ii) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under
the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person
acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters
would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character
and with like aims;
``(iii) by diversifying investments so as to minimize the
risk of large losses and to avoid disproportionate influence
over a particular industry or firm, unless under the
circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so; and
``(iv) in accordance with Trust governing documents and
instruments insofar as such documents and instruments are
consistent with this Act.
``(B) Prohibitions with respect to members of the board of
trustees.--No member of the Board of Trustees shall--
``(i) deal with the assets of the Trust in the trustee's
own interest or for the trustee's own account;
``(ii) in an individual or in any other capacity act in any
transaction involving the assets of the Trust on behalf of a
party (or represent a party) whose interests are adverse to
the interests of the Trust, the Railroad Retirement Board, or
the interests of participants or beneficiaries; or
``(iii) receive any consideration for the trustee's own
personal account from any party dealing with the assets of
the Trust.
``(C) Exculpatory provisions and insurance.--Any provision
in an agreement or instrument that purports to relieve a
trustee from responsibility or liability for any
responsibility, obligation, or duty under this Act shall be
void: Provided, however, That nothing shall preclude--
``(i) the Trust from purchasing insurance for its trustees
or for itself to cover liability or losses occurring by
reason of the act or omission of a trustee, if such insurance
permits recourse by the insurer against the trustee in the
case of a breach of a fiduciary obligation by such trustee;
``(ii) a trustee from purchasing insurance to cover
liability under this section from and for his own account; or
``(iii) an employer or an employee organization from
purchasing insurance to cover potential liability of one or
more trustees with respect to their fiduciary
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under this section.
``(D) Bonding.--Every trustee and every person who handles
funds or other property of the Trust (hereafter in this
subsection referred to as `Trust official') shall be bonded.
Such bond shall provide protection to the Trust against loss
by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on the part of any
Trust official, directly or through the connivance of others,
and shall be in accordance with the following:
``(i) The amount of such bond shall be fixed at the
beginning of each fiscal year of the Trust by the Railroad
Retirement Board. Such amount shall not be less than 10
percent of the amount of the funds handled. In no case shall
such bond be less than $1,000 nor more than $500,000, except
that the Railroad Retirement Board, after consideration of
the record, may prescribe an amount in excess of $500,000,
subject to the 10 per centum limitation of the preceding
sentence.
``(ii) It shall be unlawful for any Trust official to
receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or
control of any of the funds or other property of the Trust
without being bonded as required by this subsection and it
shall be unlawful for any Trust official, or any other person
having authority to direct the performance of such functions,
to permit such functions, or any of them, to be performed by
any Trust official, with respect to whom the requirements of
this subsection have not been met.
``(iii) It shall be unlawful for any person to procure any
bond required by this subsection from any surety or other
company or through any agent or broker in whose business
operations such person has any control or significant
financial interest, direct or indirect.
``(E) Audit and report.--
``(i) The Trust shall annually engage an independent
qualified public accountant to audit the financial statements
of the Trust.
``(ii) The Trust shall submit an annual management report
to the Congress not later than 180 days after the end of the
Trust's fiscal year. A management report under this
subsection shall include--
``(I) a statement of financial position;
``(II) a statement of operations;
[[Page 23547]]
``(III) a statement of cash flows;
``(IV) a statement on internal accounting and
administrative control systems;
``(V) the report resulting from an audit of the financial
statements of the Trust conducted under clause (i); and
``(VI) any other comments and information necessary to
inform the Congress about the operations and financial
condition of the Trust.
``(iii) The Trust shall provide the President, the Railroad
Retirement Board, and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget a copy of the management report when it
is submitted to Congress.
``(F) Enforcement.--The Railroad Retirement Board may bring
a civil action--
``(i) to enjoin any act or practice by the Trust, its Board
of Trustees, or its employees or agents that violates any
provision of this Act; or
``(ii) to obtain other appropriate relief to redress such
violations, or to enforce any provisions of this Act.
``(6) Rules and administrative powers.--The Board of
Trustees shall have the authority to make rules to govern its
operations, employ professional staff, and contract with
outside advisers, including the Railroad Retirement Board, to
provide legal, accounting, investment advisory, or other
services necessary for the proper administration of this
subsection. In the case of contracts with investment advisory
services, compensation for such services may be on a fixed
contract fee basis or on such other terms and conditions as
are customary for such services.
``(7) Quorum.--Five members of the Board of Trustees
constitute a quorum to do business. Investment guidelines
must be adopted by a unanimous vote of the entire Board of
Trustees. All other decisions of the Board of Trustees shall
be decided by a majority vote of the quorum present. All
decisions of the Board of Trustees shall be entered upon the
records of the Board of Trustees.
``(8) Funding.--The expenses of the Trust and the Board of
Trustees incurred under this subsection shall be paid from
the Trust.''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments Governing
Investments.--Section 15(e) of the Railroad Retirement Act of
1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n(e)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``, the Dual
Benefits Payments Account'' and all that follows through
``may be made only'' in the second sentence and inserting
``and the Dual Benefits Payments Account as are not
transferred to the National Railroad Retirement Investment
Trust as the Board may determine'';
(2) by striking ``the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended''
and inserting ``chapter 31 of title 31''; and
(3) by striking ``the foregoing requirements'' and
inserting ``the requirements of this subsection''.
(c) Means of Financing.--For all purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and chapter 11 of
title 31, United States Code, and notwithstanding section 20
of the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, the
purchase or sale of non-Federal assets (other than gains or
losses from such transactions) by the National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust shall be treated as a means of
financing.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the month that begins
more than 30 days after enactment.
SEC. 106. ELIMINATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY ACCOUNT.
(a) Source of Payments.--Section 7(c)(1) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``payments of supplemental annuities under section
2(b) of this Act shall be made from the Railroad Retirement
Supplemental Account, and''.
(b) Elimination of Account.--Section 15(c) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n(c)) is repealed.
(c) Amendment to Railroad Retirement Account.--Section
15(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C.
231n(a)) is amended by striking ``, except those portions of
the amounts covered into the Treasury under sections
3211(b),'' and all that follows through the end of the
subsection and inserting a period.
(d) Transfer.--
(1) Determination.--As soon as possible after December 31,
2001, the Railroad Retirement Board shall--
(A) determine the amount of funds in the Railroad
Retirement Supplemental Account under section 15(c) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n(c)) as of the
date of such determination; and
(B) direct the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer such
funds to the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust
under section 15(j) of such Act (as added by section 105).
(2) Transfer by the secretary of the treasury.--The
Secretary of the Treasury shall make the transfer described
in paragraph (1).
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall take effect
January 1, 2002.
(2) Account in existence until transfer made.--The Railroad
Retirement Supplemental Account under section 15(c) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n(c)) shall
continue to exist until the date that the Secretary of the
Treasury makes the transfer described in subsection (d)(2).
SEC. 107. TRANSFER AUTHORITY REVISIONS.
(a) Railroad Retirement Account.--Section 15 of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n) is amended
by adding after subsection (j) the following new subsection:
``(k) Transfers to the Trust.--The Board shall, upon
establishment of the National Railroad Retirement Investment
Trust and from time to time thereafter, direct the Secretary
of the Treasury to transfer, in such manner as will maximize
the investment returns to the Railroad Retirement system,
that portion of the Railroad Retirement Account that is not
needed to pay current administrative expenses of the Board to
the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust. The
Secretary shall make that transfer.''.
(b) Transfers From the National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust.--Section 15 of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n), as amended by subsection (a), is
further amended by adding after subsection (k) the following
new subsection:
``(l) National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust.--The
National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust shall from time
to time transfer to the disbursing agent described in section
7(b)(4) or as otherwise directed by the Railroad Retirement
Board pursuant to section 7(b)(4), such amounts as may be
necessary to pay benefits under this Act (other than benefits
paid from the Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account or
the Dual Benefit Payments Account).''.
(c) Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account.--
(1) Transfers to trust.--Section 15A(d)(2) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n-1(d)(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Upon establishment of the National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust and from time to time thereafter,
the Board shall direct the Secretary of the Treasury to
transfer, in such manner as will maximize the investment
returns to the Railroad Retirement system, the balance of the
Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account not needed to pay
current benefits and administrative expenses required to be
paid from that Account to the National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust, and the Secretary shall make that transfer.
Any balance transferred under this paragraph shall be used by
the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust only to pay
benefits under this Act or to purchase obligations of the
United States that are backed by the full faith and credit of
the United States pursuant to chapter 31 of title 31, United
States Code. The proceeds of sales of, and the interest
income from, such obligations shall be used by the Trust only
to pay benefits under this Act.''.
(2) Transfers to disbursing agent.--Section 15A(c)(1) of
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n-1(c)(1))
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``The Secretary shall from time to time transfer to the
disbursing agent under section 7(b)(4) amounts necessary to
pay those benefits.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 15A(d)(1) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n-1(d)(1)) is
amended by striking the second and third sentences.
(d) Dual Benefits Payments Account.--Section 15(d)(1) of
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231n(d)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``The Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time
transfer from the Dual Benefits Payments Account to the
disbursing agent under section 7(b)(4) amounts necessary to
pay benefits payable from that Account.''.
(e) Certification by the Board and Payment.--Paragraph (4)
of section 7(b) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45
U.S.C. 231f(b)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) The Railroad Retirement Board, after consultation
with the Board of Trustees of the National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust and the Secretary of the
Treasury, shall enter into an arrangement with a
nongovernmental financial institution to serve as disbursing
agent for benefits payable under this Act who shall disburse
consolidated benefits under this Act to each recipient.
Pending the taking effect of that arrangement, benefits shall
be paid as under the law in effect prior to the enactment of
the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of
2001.
``(B) The Board shall from time to time certify--
``(i) to the Secretary of the Treasury the amounts required
to be transferred from the Social Security Equivalent Benefit
Account and the Dual Benefits Payments Account to the
disbursing agent to make payments of benefits and the
Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer those amounts;
``(ii) to the Board of Trustees of the National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust the amounts required to be
transferred from the National Railroad Retirement Investment
Trust to the disbursing agent to
[[Page 23548]]
make payments of benefits and the Board of Trustees shall
transfer those amounts; and
``(iii) to the disbursing agent the name and address of
each individual entitled to receive a payment, the amount of
such payment, and the time at which the payment should be
made.''.
(f) Benefit Payments.--Section 7(c)(1) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``from the Railroad Retirement Account''
and inserting ``by the disbursing agent under subsection
(b)(4) from money transferred to it from the National
Railroad Retirement Investment Trust or the Social Security
Equivalent Benefit Account, as the case may be''; and
(2) by inserting ``by the disbursing agent under subsection
(b)(4) from money transferred to it'' after ``Public Law 93-
445 shall be made''.
(g) Transitional Rule for Existing Obligation.--In making
transfers under sections 15(k) and 15A(d)(2) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974, as amended by subsections (a) and
(c), respectively, the Railroad Retirement Board shall
consult with the Secretary of the Treasury to design an
appropriate method to transfer obligations held as of the
date of enactment of this Act or to convert such obligations
to cash at the discretion of the Railroad Retirement Board
prior to transfer. The National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust may hold to maturity any obligations so
received or may redeem them prior to maturity, as the Trust
deems appropriate.
SEC. 108. ANNUAL RATIO PROJECTIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS BY THE
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD.
(a) Projections.--Section 22(a)(1) of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231u(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentence: ``On or before May 1 of each year beginning in
2003, the Railroad Retirement Board shall compute its
projection of the account benefits ratio and the average
account benefits ratio (as defined by section 3241(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for each of the next
succeeding five fiscal years.''; and
(2) by striking ``the projection prepared pursuant to the
preceding sentence'' and inserting ``the projections prepared
pursuant to the preceding two sentences''.
(b) Certifications.--The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974
(45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``computation and certification of account benefit ratios
``Sec. 23. (a) Initial Computation and Certification.--On
or before November 1, 2003, the Railroad Retirement Board
shall--
``(1) compute the account benefits ratios for each of the
most recent 10 preceding fiscal years, and
``(2) certify the account benefits ratios for each such
fiscal year to the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(b) Computations and Certifications After 2003.--On or
before November 1 of each year after 2003, the Railroad
Retirement Board shall--
``(1) compute the account benefits ratio for the fiscal
year ending in such year, and
``(2) certify the account benefits ratio for such fiscal
year to the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`account benefits ratio' has the meaning given that term in
section 3241(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.
Except as otherwise provided, whenever in this title an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 202. EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR NATIONAL RAILROAD RETIREMENT
INVESTMENT TRUST.
Subsection (c) of section 501 is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(28) The National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust
established under section 15(j) of the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974.''.
SEC. 203. REPEAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY TAX.
(a) Repeal of Tax on Employee Representatives.--Section
3211 is amended by striking subsection (b).
(b) Repeal of Tax on Employers.--Section 3221 is amended by
striking subsections (c) and (d) and by redesignating
subsection (e) as subsection (c).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 204. EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE, AND EMPLOYEE
TIER 2 TAX RATE ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Rate of Tax on Employers.--Subsection (b) of section
3221 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Tier 2 Tax.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect
to having individuals in his employ, equal to the applicable
percentage of the compensation paid during any calendar year
by such employer for services rendered to such employer.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `applicable percentage' means--
``(A) 15.6 percent in the case of compensation paid during
2002,
``(B) 14.2 percent in the case of compensation paid during
2003, and
``(C) in the case of compensation paid during any calendar
year after 2003, the percentage determined under section 3241
for such calendar year.''.
(b) Rate of Tax on Employee Representatives.--Section 3211,
as amended by section 203, is amended by striking subsection
(a) and inserting the following new subsections:
``(a) Tier 1 Tax.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on the income of each employee representative
a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the compensation
received during any calendar year by such employee
representative for services rendered by such employee
representative. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
term `applicable percentage' means the percentage equal to
the sum of the rates of tax in effect under subsections (a)
and (b) of section 3101 and subsections (a) and (b) of
section 3111 for the calendar year.
``(b) Tier 2 Tax.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on the income of each employee representative
a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the compensation
received during any calendar year by such employee
representatives for services rendered by such employee
representative.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `applicable percentage' means--
``(A) 14.75 percent in the case of compensation received
during 2002,
``(B) 14.20 percent in the case of compensation received
during 2003, and
``(C) in the case of compensation received during any
calendar year after 2003, the percentage determined under
section 3241 for such calendar year.
``(c) Cross Reference.--
``For application of different contribution bases with respect to the
taxes imposed by subsections (a) and (b), see section 3231(e)(2).''.
(c) Rate of Tax on Employees.--Subsection (b) of section
3201 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Tier 2 Tax.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on the income of each employee a tax equal to
the applicable percentage of the compensation received during
any calendar year by such employee for services rendered by
such employee.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `applicable percentage' means--
``(A) 4.90 percent in the case of compensation received
during 2002 or 2003, and
``(B) in the case of compensation received during any
calendar year after 2003, the percentage determined under
section 3241 for such calendar year.''.
(d) Determination of Rate.--Chapter 22 is amended by adding
at the end the following new subchapter:
``Subchapter E--Tier 2 Tax Rate Determination
``Sec. 3241. Determination of tier 2 tax rate based on average account
benefits ratio.
``SEC. 3241. DETERMINATION OF TIER 2 TAX RATE BASED ON
AVERAGE ACCOUNT BENEFITS RATIO.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of sections 3201(b),
3211(b), and 3221(b), the applicable percentage for any
calendar year is the percentage determined in accordance with
the table in subsection (b).
``(b) Tax Rate Schedule.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Average account benefits ratio Applicable
----------------------------------- percentage for Applicable
sections 3211(b) percentage for
At least But less than and 3221(b) section 3201(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 22.1 4.9
2.5 3.0 18.1 4.9
3.0 3.5 15.1 4.9
3.5 4.0 14.1 4.9
4.0 6.1 13.1 4.9
6.1 6.5 12.6 4.4
6.5 7.0 12.1 3.9
7.0 7.5 11.6 3.4
7.5 8.0 11.1 2.9
8.0 8.5 10.1 1.9
8.5 9.0 9.1 0.9
9.0 8.2 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(c) Definitions Related to Determination of Rates of
Tax.--
``(1) Average account benefits ratio.--For purposes of this
section, the term `average account benefits ratio' means,
with respect to any calendar year, the average determined by
the Secretary of the account benefits ratios for the 10 most
recent fiscal years ending before such calendar year. If the
amount determined under the preceding sentence is not a
multiple of 0.1, such amount shall be increased to the next
highest multiple of 0.1.
[[Page 23549]]
``(2) Account benefits ratio.--For purposes of this
section, the term `account benefits ratio' means, with
respect to any fiscal year, the amount determined by the
Railroad Retirement Board by dividing the fair market value
of the assets in the Railroad Retirement Account and of the
National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (and for years
before 2002, the Social Security Equivalent Benefits Account)
as of the close of such fiscal year by the total benefits and
administrative expenses paid from the Railroad Retirement
Account and the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust
during such fiscal year.
``(d) Notice.--No later than December 1 of each calendar
year, the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal
Register of the rates of tax determined under this section
which are applicable for the following calendar year.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 24(d)(3)(A)(iii) is amended by striking
``section 3211(a)(1)'' and inserting ``section 3211(a)''.
(2) Section 72(r)(2)(B)(i) is amended by striking
``3211(a)(2)'' and inserting ``3211(b)''.
(3) Paragraphs (2)(A)(iii)(II) and (4)(A) of section
3231(e) are amended by striking ``3211(a)(1)'' and inserting
``3211(a)''.
(4) Section 3231(e)(2)(B)(ii)(I) is amended by striking
``3211(a)(2)'' and inserting ``3211(b)''.
(5) The table of subchapters for chapter 22 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
``Subchapter E. Tier 2 tax rate determination.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31,
2001.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to modernize the
financing of the railroad retirement system and to provide
enhanced benefits to employees and beneficiaries.''.
____
SA 2171. Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Brownback)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2170 submitted by Mr. Daschle and
intended to be proposed to the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for pension
reform, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following and
redesignate accordingly:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Securing
America's Future Energy Act of 2001'' or the ``SAFE Act of
2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Energy policy.
DIVISION A
Sec. 100. Short title.
TITLE I--ENERGY CONSERVATION
Subtitle A--Reauthorization of Federal Energy Conservation Programs
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Federal Leadership in Energy Conservation
Sec. 121. Federal facilities and national energy security.
Sec. 122. Enhancement and extension of authority relating to Federal
energy savings performance contracts.
Sec. 123. Clarification and enhancement of authority to enter utility
incentive programs for energy savings.
Sec. 124. Federal central air conditioner and heat pump efficiency.
Sec. 125. Advanced building efficiency testbed.
Sec. 126. Use of interval data in Federal buildings.
Sec. 127. Review of Energy Savings Performance Contract program.
Sec. 128. Capitol complex.
Subtitle C--State Programs
Sec. 131. Amendments to State energy programs.
Sec. 132. Reauthorization of energy conservation program for schools
and hospitals.
Sec. 133. Amendments to Weatherization Assistance Program.
Sec. 134. LIHEAP.
Sec. 135. High performance public buildings.
Subtitle D--Energy Efficiency for Consumer Products
Sec. 141. Energy Star program.
Sec. 141A. Energy sun renewable and alternative energy program.
Sec. 142. Labeling of energy efficient appliances.
Sec. 143. Appliance standards.
Subtitle E--Energy Efficient Vehicles
Sec. 151. High occupancy vehicle exception.
Sec. 152. Railroad efficiency.
Sec. 153. Biodiesel fuel use credits.
Sec. 154. Mobile to stationary source trading.
Subtitle F--Other Provisions
Sec. 161. Review of regulations to eliminate barriers to emerging
energy technology.
Sec. 162. Advanced idle elimination systems.
Sec. 163. Study of benefits and feasibility of oil bypass filtration
technology.
Sec. 164. Gas flare study.
Sec. 165. Telecommuting study.
TITLE II--AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY
Sec. 201. Average fuel economy standards for nonpassenger automobiles.
Sec. 202. Consideration of prescribing different average fuel economy
standards for nonpassenger automobiles.
Sec. 203. Dual fueled automobiles.
Sec. 204. Fuel economy of the Federal fleet of automobiles.
Sec. 205. Hybrid vehicles and alternative vehicles.
Sec. 206. Federal fleet petroleum-based nonalternative fuels.
Sec. 207. Study of feasibility and effects of reducing use of fuel for
automobiles.
TITLE III--NUCLEAR ENERGY
Sec. 301. License period.
Sec. 302. Cost recovery from Government agencies.
Sec. 303. Depleted uranium hexafluoride.
Sec. 304. Nuclear Regulatory Commission meetings.
Sec. 305. Cooperative research and development and special
demonstration projects for the uranium mining industry.
Sec. 306. Maintenance of a viable domestic uranium conversion industry.
Sec. 307. Paducah decontamination and decommissioning plan.
Sec. 308. Study to determine feasibility of developing commercial
nuclear energy production facilities at existing
department of energy sites.
Sec. 309. Prohibition of commercial sales of uranium by the United
States until 2009.
TITLE IV--HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
Sec. 401. Alternative conditions and fishways.
Sec. 402. FERC data on hydroelectric licensing.
TITLE V--FUELS
Sec. 501. Tank draining during transition to summertime RFG.
Sec. 502. Gasoline blendstock requirements.
Sec. 503. Boutique fuels.
Sec. 504. Funding for MTBE contamination.
TITLE VI--RENEWABLE ENERGY
Sec. 601. Assessment of renewable energy resources.
Sec. 602. Renewable energy production incentive.
Sec. 603. Study of ethanol from solid waste loan guarantee program.
Sec. 604. Study of renewable fuel content.
TITLE VII--PIPELINES
Sec. 701. Prohibition on certain pipeline route.
Sec. 702. Historic pipelines.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Waste reduction and use of alternatives.
Sec. 802. Annual report on United States energy independence.
Sec. 803. Study of aircraft emissions.
DIVISION B
Sec. 2001. Short title.
Sec. 2002. Findings.
Sec. 2003. Purposes.
Sec. 2004. Goals.
Sec. 2005. Definitions.
Sec. 2006. Authorizations.
Sec. 2007. Balance of funding priorities.
TITLE I--ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Subtitle A--Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Sec. 2101. Short title.
Sec. 2102. Definitions.
Sec. 2103. Pilot program.
Sec. 2104. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 2105. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Systems
Sec. 2121. Findings.
Sec. 2122. Definitions.
Sec. 2123. Strategy.
Sec. 2124. High power density industry program.
Sec. 2125. Micro-cogeneration energy technology.
Sec. 2126. Program plan.
Sec. 2127. Report.
Sec. 2128. Voluntary consensus standards.
Subtitle C--Secondary Electric Vehicle Battery Use
Sec. 2131. Definitions.
Sec. 2132. Establishment of secondary electric vehicle battery use
program.
Sec. 2133. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle D--Green School Buses
Sec. 2141. Short title.
Sec. 2142. Establishment of pilot program.
Sec. 2143. Fuel cell bus development and demonstration program.
Sec. 2144. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle E--Next Generation Lighting Initiative
Sec. 2151. Short title.
Sec. 2152. Definition.
Sec. 2153. Next Generation Lighting Initiative.
Sec. 2154. Study.
Sec. 2155. Grant program.
[[Page 23550]]
Subtitle F--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 2161. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle G--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation
Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 2171. Short title.
Sec. 2172. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 2173. Limits on use of funds.
Sec. 2174. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2175. Limitation on demonstration and commercial applications of
energy technology.
Sec. 2176. Reprogramming.
Sec. 2177. Budget request format.
Sec. 2178. Other provisions.
Subtitle H--National Building Performance Initiative
Sec. 2181. National Building Performance Initiative.
TITLE II--RENEWABLE ENERGY
Subtitle A--Hydrogen
Sec. 2201. Short title.
Sec. 2202. Purposes.
Sec. 2203. Definitions.
Sec. 2204. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 2205. Hydrogen research and development.
Sec. 2206. Demonstrations.
Sec. 2207. Technology transfer.
Sec. 2208. Coordination and consultation.
Sec. 2209. Advisory Committee.
Sec. 2210. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 2211. Repeal.
Subtitle B--Bioenergy
Sec. 2221. Short title.
Sec. 2222. Findings.
Sec. 2223. Definitions.
Sec. 2224. Authorization.
Sec. 2225. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Transmission Infrastructure Systems
Sec. 2241. Transmission infrastructure systems research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application.
Sec. 2242. Program plan.
Sec. 2243. Report.
Subtitle D--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 2261. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--NUCLEAR ENERGY
Subtitle A--University Nuclear Science and Engineering
Sec. 2301. Short title.
Sec. 2302. Findings.
Sec. 2303. Department of Energy program.
Sec. 2304. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Advanced Fuel Recycling Technology Research and Development
Program
Sec. 2321. Program.
Subtitle C--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 2341. Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.
Sec. 2342. Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program.
Sec. 2343. Nuclear energy technologies.
Sec. 2344. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IV--FOSSIL ENERGY
Subtitle A--Coal
Sec. 2401. Coal and related technologies programs.
Subtitle B--Oil and Gas
Sec. 2421. Petroleum-oil technology.
Sec. 2422. Gas.
Sec. 2423. Natural gas and oil deposits report.
Sec. 2424. Oil shale research.
Subtitle C--Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Drilling
Sec. 2441. Short title.
Sec. 2442. Definitions.
Sec. 2443. Ultra-deepwater program.
Sec. 2444. National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Sec. 2445. Advisory Committee.
Sec. 2446. Research Organization.
Sec. 2447. Grants.
Sec. 2448. Plan and funding.
Sec. 2449. Audit.
Sec. 2450. Fund.
Sec. 2451. Sunset.
Subtitle D--Fuel Cells
Sec. 2461. Fuel cells.
Subtitle E--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 2481. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE V--SCIENCE
Subtitle A--Fusion Energy Sciences
Sec. 2501. Short title.
Sec. 2502. Findings.
Sec. 2503. Plan for fusion experiment.
Sec. 2504. Plan for fusion energy sciences program.
Sec. 2505. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Spallation Neutron Source
Sec. 2521. Definition.
Sec. 2522. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 2523. Report.
Sec. 2524. Limitations.
Subtitle C--Facilities, Infrastructure, and User Facilities
Sec. 2541. Definition.
Sec. 2542. Facility and infrastructure support for nonmilitary energy
laboratories.
Sec. 2543. User facilities.
Subtitle D--Advisory Panel on Office of Science
Sec. 2561. Establishment.
Sec. 2562. Report.
Subtitle E--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 2581. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
Subtitle A--General Provisions for the Department of Energy
Sec. 2601. Research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application of energy technology programs, projects, and
activities.
Sec. 2602. Limits on use of funds.
Sec. 2603. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2604. Limitation on demonstration and commercial application of
energy technology.
Sec. 2605. Reprogramming.
Subtitle B--Other Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 2611. Notice of reorganization.
Sec. 2612. Limits on general plant projects.
Sec. 2613. Limits on construction projects.
Sec. 2614. Authority for conceptual and construction design.
Sec. 2615. National Energy Policy Development Group mandated reports.
Sec. 2616. Periodic reviews and assessments.
DIVISION D
Sec. 4101. Capacity building for energy-efficient, affordable housing.
Sec. 4102. Increase of CDBG public services cap for energy conservation
and efficiency activities.
Sec. 4103. FHA mortgage insurance incentives for energy efficient
housing.
Sec. 4104. Public housing capital fund.
Sec. 4105. Grants for energy-conserving improvements for assisted
housing.
Sec. 4106. North American Development Bank.
DIVISION E
Sec. 5000. Short title.
Sec. 5001. Findings.
Sec. 5002. Definitions.
Sec. 5003. Clean coal power initiative.
Sec. 5004. Cost and performance goals.
Sec. 5005. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 5006. Project criteria.
Sec. 5007. Study.
Sec. 5008. Clean coal centers of excellence.
DIVISION F
Sec. 6000. Short title.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROTECTIONS FOR ENERGY SUPPLY AND SECURITY
Sec. 6101. Study of existing rights-of-way on Federal lands to
determine capability to support new pipelines or other
transmission facilities.
Sec. 6102. Inventory of energy production potential of all Federal
public lands.
Sec. 6103. Review of regulations to eliminate barriers to emerging
energy technology.
Sec. 6104. Interagency agreement on environmental review of interstate
natural gas pipeline projects.
Sec. 6105. Enhancing energy efficiency in management of Federal lands.
Sec. 6106. Efficient infrastructure development.
TITLE II--OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
Subtitle A--Offshore Oil and Gas
Sec. 6201. Short title.
Sec. 6202. Lease sales in Western and Central Planning Area of the Gulf
of Mexico.
Sec. 6203. Savings clause.
Sec. 6204. Analysis of Gulf of Mexico field size distribution,
international competitiveness, and incentives for
development.
Subtitle B--Improvements to Federal Oil and Gas Management
Sec. 6221. Short title.
Sec. 6222. Study of impediments to efficient lease operations.
Sec. 6223. Elimination of unwarranted denials and stays.
Sec. 6224. Limitations on cost recovery for applications.
Sec. 6225. Consultation with Secretary of Agriculture.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
Sec. 6231. Offshore subsalt development.
Sec. 6232. Program on oil and gas royalties in kind.
Sec. 6233. Marginal well production incentives.
Sec. 6234. Reimbursement for costs of NEPA analyses, documentation, and
studies.
Sec. 6235. Encouragement of State and provincial prohibitions on off-
shore drilling in the Great Lakes.
TITLE III--GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 6301. Royalty reduction and relief.
Sec. 6302. Exemption from royalties for direct use of low temperature
geothermal energy resources.
Sec. 6303. Amendments relating to leasing on Forest Service lands.
Sec. 6304. Deadline for determination on pending noncompetitive lease
applications.
[[Page 23551]]
Sec. 6305. Opening of public lands under military jurisdiction.
Sec. 6306. Application of amendments.
Sec. 6307. Review and report to Congress.
Sec. 6308. Reimbursement for costs of NEPA analyses, documentation, and
studies.
TITLE IV--HYDROPOWER
Sec. 6401. Study and report on increasing electric power production
capability of existing facilities.
Sec. 6402. Installation of powerformer at Folsom power plant,
California.
Sec. 6403. Study and implementation of increased operational
efficiencies in hydroelectric power projects.
Sec. 6404. Shift of project loads to off-peak periods.
TITLE V--ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN DOMESTIC ENERGY
Sec. 6501. Short title.
Sec. 6502. Definitions.
Sec. 6503. Leasing program for lands within the Coastal Plain.
Sec. 6504. Lease sales.
Sec. 6505. Grant of leases by the Secretary.
Sec. 6506. Lease terms and conditions.
Sec. 6507. Coastal Plain environmental protection.
Sec. 6508. Expedited judicial review.
Sec. 6509. Rights-of-way across the Coastal Plain.
Sec. 6510. Conveyance.
Sec. 6511. Local government impact aid and community service
assistance.
Sec. 6512. Revenue allocation.
TITLE VI--CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 6601. Energy conservation by the Department of the Interior.
Sec. 6602. Amendment to Buy Indian Act.
TITLE VII--COAL
Sec. 6701. Limitation on fees with respect to coal lease applications
and documents.
Sec. 6702. Mining plans.
Sec. 6703. Payment of advance royalties under coal leases.
Sec. 6704. Elimination of deadline for submission of coal lease
operation and reclamation plan.
TITLE VIII--INSULAR AREAS ENERGY SECURITY
Sec. 6801. Insular areas energy security.
DIVISION G
Sec. 7101. Buy American.
SEC. 2. ENERGY POLICY.
It shall be the sense of the Congress that the United
States should take all actions necessary in the areas of
conservation, efficiency, alternative source, technology
development, and domestic production to reduce the United
States dependence on foreign energy sources from 56 percent
to 45 percent by January 1, 2012, and to reduce United States
dependence on Iraqi energy sources from 700,000 barrels per
day to 250,000 barrels per day by January 1, 2012.
DIVISION A
SEC. 100. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Energy Advancement and
Conservation Act of 2001''.
TITLE I--ENERGY CONSERVATION
Subtitle A--Reauthorization of Federal Energy Conservation Programs
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 660 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(42 U.S.C. 7270) is amended as follows:
(1) By inserting ``(a)'' before ``Appropriations''.
(2) By inserting at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002, $950,000,000; for
fiscal year 2003, $1,000,000,000; for fiscal year 2004,
$1,050,000,000; for fiscal year 2005, $1,100,000,000; and for
fiscal year 2006, $1,150,000,000, to carry out energy
efficiency activities under the following laws, such sums to
remain available until expended:
``(1) Energy Policy and Conservation Act, including section
256(d)(42 U.S.C. 6276(d)) (promote export of energy efficient
products), sections 321 through 346 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317)
(appliances program).
``(2) Energy Conservation and Production Act, including
sections 301 through 308 (42 U.S.C. 6831-6837) (energy
conservation standards for new buildings).
``(3) National Energy Conservation Policy Act, including
sections 541-551 (42 U.S.C. 8251-8259) (Federal Energy
Management Program).
``(4) Energy Policy Act of 1992, including sections 103 (42
U.S.C. 13458) (energy efficient lighting and building
centers), 121 (42 U.S.C. 6292 note) (energy efficiency
labeling for windows and window systems), 125 (42 U.S.C. 6292
note) (energy efficiency information for commercial office
equipment), 126 (42 U.S.C. 6292 note) (energy efficiency
information for luminaires), 131 (42 U.S.C. 6348) (energy
efficiency in industrial facilities), and 132 (42 U.S.C.
6349) (process-oriented industrial energy efficiency).''.
Subtitle B--Federal Leadership in Energy Conservation
SEC. 121. FEDERAL FACILITIES AND NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY.
(a) Purpose.--Section 542 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8252) is amended by
inserting ``, and generally to promote the production,
supply, and marketing of energy efficiency products and
services and the production, supply, and marketing of
unconventional and renewable energy resources'' after ``by
the Federal Government''.
(b) Energy Management Requirements.--Section 543 of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)(1), by striking ``during the fiscal
year 1995'' and all that follows through the end and
inserting ``during--
``(1) fiscal year 1995 is at least 10 percent;
``(2) fiscal year 2000 is at least 20 percent;
``(3) fiscal year 2005 is at least 30 percent;
``(4) fiscal year 2010 is at least 35 percent;
``(5) fiscal year 2015 is at least 40 percent; and
``(6) fiscal year 2020 is at least 45 percent,
less than the energy consumption per gross square foot of its
Federal buildings in use during fiscal year 1985. To achieve
the reductions required by this paragraph, an agency shall
make maximum practicable use of energy efficiency products
and services and unconventional and renewable energy
resources, using guidelines issued by the Secretary under
subsection (d) of this section.''.
(2) In subsection (d), by inserting ``Such guidelines shall
include appropriate model technical standards for energy
efficiency and unconventional and renewable energy resources
products and services. Such standards shall reflect, to the
extent practicable, evaluation of both currently marketed and
potentially marketable products and services that could be
used by agencies to improve energy efficiency and increase
unconventional and renewable energy resources.'' after
``implementation of this part.''.
(3) By adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Studies.--To assist in developing the guidelines
issued by the Secretary under subsection (d) and in
furtherance of the purposes of this section, the Secretary
shall conduct studies to identify and encourage the
production and marketing of energy efficiency products and
services and unconventional and renewable energy resources.
To conduct such studies, and to provide grants to accelerate
the use of unconventional and renewable energy, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $20,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2010.''.
(c) Definition.--Section 551 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8259) is amended as
follows:
(1) By striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8).
(2) By striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting ``; and''.
(3) By adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) the term `unconventional and renewable energy
resources' includes renewable energy sources, hydrogen, fuel
cells, cogeneration, combined heat and power, heat recovery
(including by use of a Stirling heat engine), and distributed
generation.''.
(d) Exclusions From Requirement.--The National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 7201 and following) is
amended as follows:
(1) In section 543(a)--
(A) by striking ``(1) Subject to paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``Subject to subsection (c)''; and
(B) by striking ``(2) An agency'' and all that follows
through ``such exclusion.''.
(2) By amending subsection (c) of such section 543 to read
as follows:
``(c) Exclusions.--(1) A Federal building may be excluded
from the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) only if--
``(A) the President declares the building to require
exclusion for national security reasons; and
``(B) the agency responsible for the building has--
``(i) completed and submitted all federally required energy
management reports; and
``(ii) achieved compliance with the energy efficiency
requirements of this Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Executive Orders, and other Federal law;
``(iii) implemented all practical, life cycle cost-
effective projects in the excluded building.
``(2) The President shall only declare buildings described
in paragraph (1)(A) to be excluded, not ancillary or nearby
facilities that are not in themselves national security
facilities.''.
(3) In section 548(b)(1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``copy of the''; and
(B) by striking ``sections 543(a)(2) and 543(c)(3)'' and
inserting ``section 543(c)''.
(e) Acquisition Requirement.--Section 543(b) of such Act is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Not'' and inserting
``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (5), not''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5)(A)(i) Agencies shall select only Energy Star products
when available when acquiring energy-using products. For
product groups where Energy Star labels are not yet
available, agencies shall select products that are in the
upper 25 percent of energy efficiency as designated by FEMP.
In the case of electric motors of 1 to 500 horsepower,
agencies shall select only premium efficiency motors
[[Page 23552]]
that meet a standard designated by the Secretary, and shall
replace (not rewind) failed motors with motors meeting such
standard. The Secretary shall designate such standard within
90 days of the enactment of paragraph, after considering
recommendations by the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association. The Secretary of Energy shall develop guidelines
within 180 days after the enactment of this paragraph for
exemptions to this section when equivalent products do not
exist, are impractical, or do not meet the agency mission
requirements.
``(ii) The Administrator of the General Services
Administration and the Secretary of Defense (acting through
the Defense Logistics Agency), with assistance from the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Secretary of Energy, shall create clear catalogue listings
that designate Energy Star products in both print and
electronic formats. After any existing federal inventories
are exhausted, Administrator of the General Services
Administration and the Secretary of Defense (acting through
the Defense Logistics Agency) shall only replace inventories
with energy-using products that are Energy Star, products
that are rated in the top 25 percent of energy efficiency, or
products that are exempted as designated by FEMP and defined
in clause (i).
``(iii) Agencies shall incorporate energy-efficient
criteria consistent with Energy Star and other FEMP
designated energy efficiency levels into all guide
specifications and project specifications developed for new
construction and renovation, as well as into product
specification language developed for Basic Ordering
Agreements, Blanket Purchasing Agreements, Government Wide
Acquisition Contracts, and all other purchasing procedures.
``(iv) The legislative branch shall be subject to this
subparagraph to the same extent and in the same manner as are
the Federal agencies referred to in section 521(1).
``(B) Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Energy shall
establish guidelines defining the circumstances under which
an agency shall not be required to comply with subparagraph
(A). Such circumstances may include the absence of Energy
Star products, systems, or designs that serve the purpose of
the agency, issues relating to the compatibility of a
product, system, or design with existing buildings or
equipment, and excessive cost compared to other available and
appropriate products, systems, or designs.
``(C) Subparagraph (A) shall apply to agency acquisitions
occurring on or after October 1, 2002.''.
(f) Metering.--Section 543 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 8254) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Metering.--(1) By October 1, 2004, all Federal
buildings including buildings owned by the legislative branch
and the Federal court system and other energy-using
structures shall be metered or submetered in accordance with
guidelines established by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
``(2) Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation
with the General Services Administration and representatives
from the metering industry, energy services industry,
national laboratories, colleges of higher education, and
federal facilities energy managers, shall establish
guidelines for agencies to carry out paragraph (1). Such
guidelines shall take into consideration each of the
following:
``(A) Cost.
``(B) Resources, including personnel, required to maintain,
interpret, and report on data so that the meters are
continually reviewed.
``(C) Energy management potential.
``(D) Energy savings.
``(E) Utility contract aggregation.
``(F) Savings from operations and maintenance.
``(3) A building shall be exempt from the requirement of
this section to the extent that compliance is deemed
impractical by the Secretary. A finding of impracticability
shall be based on the same factors as identified in
subsection (c) of this section.''.
(g) Retention of Energy Savings.--Section 546 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 8256) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Retention of Energy Savings.--An agency may retain
any funds appropriated to that agency for energy
expenditures, at buildings subject to the requirements of
section 543(a) and (b), that are not made because of energy
savings. Except as otherwise provided by law, such funds may
be used only for energy efficiency or unconventional and
renewable energy resources projects.''.
(h) Reports.--Section 548 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 8258) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``in accordance with guidelines
established by and'' after ``to the Secretary,'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) an energy emergency response plan developed by the
agency.''.
(2) In subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) all information transmitted to the Secretary under
subsection (a).''.
(3) By amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Agency Reports to Congress.--Each agency shall
annually report to the Congress, as part of the agency's
annual budget request, on all of the agency's activities
implementing any Federal energy management requirement.''.
(i) Inspector General Energy Audits.--Section 160(c) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 8262f(c)) is amended by
striking ``is encouraged to conduct periodic'' and inserting
``shall conduct periodic''.
(j) Federal Energy Management Reviews.--Section 543 of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Priority Response Reviews.--Each agency shall--
``(1) not later than 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, undertake a comprehensive
review of all practicable measures for--
``(A) increasing energy and water conservation, and
``(B) using renewable energy sources; and
``(2) not later than 180 days after completing the review,
develop plans to achieve not less than 50 percent of the
potential efficiency and renewable savings identified in the
review.
The agency shall implement such measures as soon thereafter
as is practicable, consistent with compliance with the
requirements of this section.''.
SEC. 122. ENHANCEMENT AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO
FEDERAL ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.
(a) Expansion of Definition of Energy Savings to Include
Water and Replacement Facilities.--
(1) Energy savings.--Section 804(2) of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) The term `energy savings' means a reduction in the
cost of energy or water, from a base cost established through
a methodology set forth in the contract, used in an existing
federally owned building or buildings or other federally
owned facilities as a result of--
``(i) the lease or purchase of operating equipment,
improvements, altered operation and maintenance, or technical
services;
``(ii) the increased efficient use of existing energy
sources by solar and ground source geothermal resources,
cogeneration or heat recovery (including by the use of a
Stirling heat engine), excluding any cogeneration process for
other than a federally owned building or buildings or other
federally owned facilities; or
``(iii) the increased efficient use of existing water
sources.
(2) Energy savings contract.--Section 804(3) of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(3))
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) The terms `energy savings contract' and `energy
savings performance contract' mean a contract which provides
for the performance of services for the design, acquisition,
installation, testing, operation, and, where appropriate,
maintenance and repair, of an identified energy or water
conservation measure or series of measures at one or more
locations.''.
(3) Energy or water conservation measure.--Section 804(4)
of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
8287c(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) The term `energy or water conservation measure'
means--
``(A) an energy conservation measure, as defined in section
551(4) (42 U.S.C. 8259(4)); or
``(B) a water conservation measure that improves water
efficiency, is life cycle cost effective, and involves water
conservation, water recycling or reuse, improvements in
operation or maintenance efficiencies, retrofit activities,
or other related activities, not at a Federal hydroelectric
facility.''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--Section 801(a)(2)(C) of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
8287(a)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting ``or water'' after
``financing energy''.
(b) Extension of Authority.--Section 801(c) of the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(c)) is
repealed.
(c) Contracting and Auditing.--Section 801(a)(2) of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
8287(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) A Federal agency shall engage in contracting and
auditing to implement energy savings performance contracts as
necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this Act, particularly the energy efficiency
requirements of section 543.''.
[[Page 23553]]
SEC. 123. CLARIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER
UTILITY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR ENERGY SAVINGS.
Section 546(c) of the National Energy Conservation Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 8256(c)) is amended as follows:
(1) In paragraph (3) by adding at the end the following:
``Such a utility incentive program may include a contract or
contract term designed to provide for cost-effective
electricity demand management, energy efficiency, or water
conservation.''.
(2) By adding at the end of the following new paragraphs:
``(6) Federal agencies are encouraged to participate in
State or regional demand side reduction programs, including
those operated by wholesale market institutions such as
independent system operators, regional transmission
organizations and other entities. The availability of such
programs, and the savings resulting from such participation,
should be included in the evaluation of energy options for
Federal facilities.''.
SEC. 124. FEDERAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER AND HEAT PUMP
EFFICIENCY.
(a) Requirement.--Federal agencies shall be required to
acquire central air conditioners and heat pumps that meet or
exceed the standards established under subsection (b) or (c)
in the case of all central air conditioners and heat pumps
acquired after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Standards.--The standards referred to in subsection (a)
are the following:
(1) For air-cooled air conditioners with cooling capacities
of less than 65,000 Btu/hour, a Seasonal Energy Efficiency
Ratio of 12.0.
(2) For air-source heat pumps with cooling capacities less
than 65,000 Btu/hour, a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio of
12 SEER, and a Heating Seasonal Performance Factor of 7.4.
(c) Modified Standards.--The Secretary of Energy may
establish, after appropriate notice and comment, revised
standards providing for reduced energy consumption or
increased energy efficiency of central air conditioners and
heat pumps acquired by the Federal Government, but may not
establish standards less rigorous than those established by
subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``Energy Efficiency Ratio'', ``Seasonal Energy Efficiency
Ratio'', ``Heating Seasonal Performance Factor'', and
``Coefficient of Performance'' have the meanings used for
those terms in Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430 of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on May
24, 2001.
(e) Exemptions.--An agency shall be exempt from the
requirements of this section with respect to air conditioner
or heat pump purchases for particular uses where the agency
head determines that purchase of a air conditioner or heat
pump for such use would be impractical. A finding of
impracticability shall be based on whether--
(1) the energy savings pay-back period for such purchase
would be less than 10 years;
(2) space constraints or other technical factors would make
compliance with this section cost-prohibitive; or
(3) in the case of the Departments of Defense and Energy,
compliance with this section would be inconsistent with the
proper discharge of national security functions.
SEC. 125. ADVANCED BUILDING EFFICIENCY TESTBED.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish
an Advanced Building Efficiency Testbed program for the
development, testing, and demonstration of advanced
engineering systems, components, and materials to enable
innovations in building technologies. The program shall
evaluate government and industry building efficiency
concepts, and demonstrate the ability of next generation
buildings to support individual and organizational
productivity and health as well as flexibility and
technological change to improve environmental sustainability.
(b) Participants.--The program established under subsection
(a) shall be led by a university having demonstrated
experience with the application of intelligent workplaces and
advanced building systems in improving the quality of built
environments. Such university shall also have the ability to
combine the expertise from more than 12 academic fields,
including electrical and computer engineering, computer
science, architecture, urban design, and environmental and
mechanical engineering. Such university shall partner with
other universities and entities who have established programs
and the capability of advancing innovative building
efficiency technologies.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out
this section $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to remain
available until expended, of which $6,000,000 shall be
provided to the lead university described in subsection (b),
and the remainder shall be provided equally to each of the
other participants referred to in subsection (b).
SEC. 126. USE OF INTERVAL DATA IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS.
Section 543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 8253) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Use of Interval Data in Federal Buildings.--Not later
than January 1, 2003, each agency shall utilize, to the
maximum extent practicable, for the purposes of efficient use
of energy and reduction in the cost of electricity consumed
in its Federal buildings, interval consumption data that
measure on a real time or daily basis consumption of
electricity in its Federal buildings. To meet the
requirements of this subsection each agency shall prepare and
submit at the earliest opportunity pursuant to section 548(a)
to the Secretary, a plan describing how the agency intends to
meet such requirements, including how it will designate
personnel primarily responsible for achieving such
requirements, and otherwise implement this subsection.''.
SEC. 127. REVIEW OF ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT
PROGRAM.
Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy shall complete a review of the
Energy Savings Performance Contract program to identify
statutory, regulatory, and administrative obstacles that
prevent Federal agencies from fully utilizing the program. In
addition, this review shall identify all areas for increasing
program flexibility and effectiveness, including audit and
measurement verification requirements, accounting for energy
use in determining savings, contracting requirements, and
energy efficiency services covered. The Secretary shall
report these findings to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate, and shall implement
identified administrative and regulatory changes to increase
program flexibility and effectiveness to the extent that such
changes are consistent with statutory authority.
SEC. 128. CAPITOL COMPLEX.
(a) Energy Infrastructure.--The Architect of the Capitol,
building on the Master Plan Study completed in July 2000,
shall commission a study to evaluate the energy
infrastructure of the Capital Complex to determine how the
infrastructure could be augmented to become more energy
efficient, using unconventional and renewable energy
resources, in a way that would enable the Complex to have
reliable utility service in the event of power fluctuations,
shortages, or outages.
(b) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Architect of the Capitol to carry out this section,
not more than $2,000,000 for fiscal years after the enactment
of this Act.
Subtitle C--State Programs
SEC. 131. AMENDMENTS TO STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS.
(a) State Energy Conservation Plans.--Section 362 of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6322) is
amended by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) The Secretary shall, at least once every 3 years,
invite the Governor of each State to review and, if
necessary, revise the energy conservation plan of such State
submitted under subsection (b) or (e). Such reviews should
consider the energy conservation plans of other States within
the region, and identify opportunities and actions carried
out in pursuit of common energy conservation goals.''.
(b) State Energy Efficiency Goals.--Section 364 of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6324) is
amended by inserting ``Each State energy conservation plan
with respect to which assistance is made available under this
part on or after the date of the enactment of Energy
Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001, shall contain a
goal, consisting of an improvement of 25 percent or more in
the efficiency of use of energy in the State concerned in the
calendar year 2010 as compared to the calendar year 1990, and
may contain interim goals.'' after ``contain interim
goals.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 365(f) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6325(f)) is
amended by striking ``for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 such
sums as may be necessary'' and inserting ``$75,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, $100,000,000 for fiscal years 2003 and
2004, $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2005''.
SEC. 132. REAUTHORIZATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR
SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS.
Section 397 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6371f) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2010''.
SEC. 133. AMENDMENTS TO WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act
(42 U.S.C. 6872) is amended by striking ``for fiscal years
1999 through 2003 such sums as may be necessary'' and
inserting ``$273,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $325,000,000
for fiscal year 2003, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and
$500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005''.
SEC. 134. LIHEAP.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2602(b) of
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8621(b)) is amended by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the provisions of this title (other
than section
[[Page 23554]]
2607A), $3,400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
(b) GAO Study.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to determine--
(1) the extent to which Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
(LIHEAP) and other government energy subsidies paid to
consumers discourage or encourage energy conservation and
energy efficiency investments when compared to structures of
the same physical description and occupancy in compatible
geographic locations;
(2) the extent to which education could increase the
conservation of low-income households who opt to receive
supplemental income instead of Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance funds;
(3) the benefit in energy efficiency and energy savings
that can be achieved through the annual maintenance of
heating and cooling appliances in the homes of those
receiving Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funds; and
(4) the loss of energy conservation that results from
structural inadequacies in a structure that is unhealthy, not
energy efficient, and environmentally unsound and that
receives Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funds for
weatherization.
SEC. 135. HIGH PERFORMANCE PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
(a) Program Establishment and Administration.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of Energy the High Performance Public Buildings Program (in
this section referred to as the ``Program'').
(2) In general.--The Secretary of Energy may, through the
Program, make grants--
(A) to assist units of local government in the production,
through construction or renovation of buildings and
facilities they own and operate, of high performance public
buildings and facilities that are healthful, productive,
energy efficient, and environmentally sound;
(B) to State energy offices to administer the program of
assistance to units of local government pursuant to this
section; and
(C) to State energy offices to promote participation by
units of local government in the Program.
(3) Grants to assist units of local government.--Grants
under paragraph (2)(A) for new public buildings shall be used
to achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces energy
use at least 30 percent below that of a public building
constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in
Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code,
or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially
equivalent results. Grants under paragraph (2)(A) for
existing public buildings shall be used to achieve energy
efficiency performance that reduces energy use below the
public building baseline consumption, assuming a 3-year,
weather-normalized average for calculating such baseline.
Grants under paragraph (2)(A) shall be made to units of local
government that have--
(A) demonstrated a need for such grants in order to respond
appropriately to increasing population or to make major
investments in renovation of public buildings; and
(B) made a commitment to use the grant funds to develop
high performance public buildings in accordance with a plan
developed and approved pursuant to paragraph (5)(A).
(4) Other grants.--
(A) Grants for administration.--Grants under paragraph
(2)(B) shall be used to evaluate compliance by units of local
government with the requirements of this section, and in
addition may be used for--
(i) distributing information and materials to clearly
define and promote the development of high performance public
buildings for both new and existing facilities;
(ii) organizing and conducting programs for local
government personnel, architects, engineers, and others to
advance the concepts of high performance public buildings;
(iii) obtaining technical services and assistance in
planning and designing high performance public buildings; and
(iv) collecting and monitoring data and information
pertaining to the high performance public building projects.
(B) Grants to promote participation.--Grants under
paragraph (2)(C) may be used for promotional and marketing
activities, including facilitating private and public
financing, promoting the use of energy service companies,
working with public building users, and communities, and
coordinating public benefit programs.
(5) Implementation.--
(A) Plans.--A grant under paragraph (2)(A) shall be
provided only to a unit of local government that, in
consultation with its State office of energy, has developed a
plan that the State energy office determines to be feasible
and appropriate in order to achieve the purposes for which
such grants are made.
(B) Supplementing grant funds.--State energy offices shall
encourage qualifying units of local government to supplement
their grant funds with funds from other sources in the
implementation of their plans.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), funds
appropriated to carry out this section shall be provided to
State energy offices.
(2) Purposes.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), funds
appropriated to carry out this section shall be allocated as
follows:
(A) Seventy percent shall be used to make grants under
subsection (a)(2)(A).
(B) Fifteen percent shall be used to make grants under
subsection (a)(2)(B).
(C) Fifteen percent shall be used to make grants under
subsection (a)(2)(C).
(3) Other funds.--The Secretary of Energy may retain not to
exceed $300,000 per year from amounts appropriated under
subsection (c) to assist State energy offices in coordinating
and implementing the Program. Such funds may be used to
develop reference materials to further define the principles
and criteria to achieve high performance public buildings.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out
this section such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2002 through 2010.
(d) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy shall
conduct a biennial review of State actions implementing this
section, and the Secretary shall report to Congress on the
results of such reviews. In conducting such reviews, the
Secretary shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation
procedures used by the States in establishing eligibility of
units of local government for funding under this section, and
may assess other aspects of the State program to determine
whether they have been effectively implemented.
(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) High performance public building.--The term ``high
performance public building'' means a public building which,
in its design, construction, operation, and maintenance,
maximizes use of unconventional and renewable energy
resources and energy efficiency practices, is cost-effective
on a life cycle basis, uses affordable, environmentally
preferable, durable materials, enhances indoor environmental
quality, protects and conserves water, and optimizes site
potential.
(2) Renewable energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means
energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or
biomass power.
(3) Unconventional and renewable energy resources.--The
term ``unconventional and renewable energy resources'' means
renewable energy, hydrogen, fuel cells, cogeneration,
combined heat and power, heat recovery (including by use of a
Stirling heat engine), and distributed generation.
Subtitle D--Energy Efficiency for Consumer Products
SEC. 141. ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.
(a) Amendment.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6201 and following) is amended by inserting the
following after section 324:
``SEC. 324A. ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--There is established at the Department
of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency a program
to identify and promote energy-efficient products and
buildings in order to reduce energy consumption, improve
energy security, and reduce pollution through labeling of
products and buildings that meet the highest energy
efficiency standards. Responsibilities under the program
shall be divided between the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency consistent with the terms of
agreements between the two agencies. The Administrator and
the Secretary shall--
``(1) promote Energy Star compliant technologies as the
preferred technologies in the marketplace for achieving
energy efficiency and to reduce pollution;
``(2) work to enhance public awareness of the Energy Star
label; and
``(3) preserve the integrity of the Energy Star label.
For the purposes of carrying out this section, there is
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2002 through
2006 such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until
expended.
``(b) Study of Certain Products and Buildings.--Within 180
days after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Secretary and the Administrator, consistent with the terms of
agreements between the two agencies (including existing
agreements with respect to which agency shall handle a
particular product or building), shall determine whether the
Energy Star label should be extended to additional products
and buildings, including the following:
``(1) Air cleaners.
``(2) Ceiling fans.
``(3) Light commercial heating and cooling products.
``(4) Reach-in refrigerators and freezers.
``(5) Telephony.
``(6) Vending machines.
``(7) Residential water heaters.
``(8) Refrigerated beverage merchandisers.
``(9) Commercial ice makers.
``(10) School buildings.
``(11) Retail buildings.
``(12) Health care facilities.
``(13) Homes.
``(14) Hotels and other commercial lodging facilities.
[[Page 23555]]
``(15) Restaurants and other food service facilities.
``(16) Solar water heaters.
``(17) Building-integrated photovoltaic systems.
``(18) Reflective pigment coatings.
``(19) Windows.
``(20) Boilers.
``(21) Devices to extend the life of motor vehicle oil.
``(c) Cool Roofing.--In determining whether the Energy Star
label should be extended to roofing products, the Secretary
and the Administrator shall work with the roofing products
industry to determine the appropriate solar reflective index
of roofing products.''.
(b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 324 the
following new item:
``Sec. 324A. Energy Star program.''.
SEC. 141A. ENERGY SUN RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
PROGRAM.
(a) Amendment.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6201 and following) is amended by inserting the
following after section 324A:
``SEC. 324B. ENERGY SUN RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
PROGRAM.
``(a) Program.--There is established at the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Energy a government-
industry partnership program to identify and promote the
purchase of renewable and alternative energy products, to
recognize companies that purchase renewable and alternative
energy products for the environmental and energy security
benefits of such purchases, and to educate consumers about
the environmental and energy security benefits of renewable
and alternative energy. Responsibilities under the program
shall be divided between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of Energy consistent with the terms of
agreements between the two agencies. The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy--
``(1) establish an Energy Sun label for renewable and
alternative energy products and technologies that the
Administrator or the Secretary (consistent with the terms of
agreements between the two agencies regarding responsibility
for specific product categories) determine to have
substantial environmental and energy security benefits and
commercial marketability.
``(2) establish an Energy Sun Company program to recognize
private companies that draw a substantial portion of their
energy from renewable and alternative sources that provide
substantial environmental and energy security benefits, as
determined by the Administrator or the Secretary.
``(3) promote Energy Sun compliant products and
technologies as the preferred products and technologies in
the marketplace for reducing pollution and achieving energy
security; and
``(4) work to enhance public awareness and preserve the
integrity of the Energy Sun label.
For the purposes of carrying out this section, there is
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.
``(b) Study of Certain Products, Technologies, and
Buildings.--Within 18 months after the enactment of this
section, the Administrator and the Secretary, consistent with
the terms of agreements between the two agencies, shall
conduct a study to determine whether the Energy Sun label
should be authorized for products, technologies, and
buildings in the following categories:
``(1) Passive solar, solar thermal, concentrating solar
energy, solar water heating, and related solar products and
building technologies.
``(2) Solar photovoltaics and other solar electric power
generation technologies.
``(3) Wind.
``(4) Geothermal.
``(5) Biomass.
``(6) Distributed energy (including, but not limited to,
microturbines, combined heat and power, fuel cells, and
stirling heat engines).
``(7) Green power or other renewables and alternative based
electric power products (including green tag credit programs)
sold to retail consumers of electricity.
``(8) Homes.
``(9) School buildings.
``(10) Retail buildings.
``(11) Health care facilities.
``(12) Hotels and other commercial lodging facilities.
``(13) Restaurants and other food service facilities.
``(14) Rest area facilities along interstate highways.
``(15) Sports stadia, arenas, and concert facilities.
``(16) Any other product, technology or building category,
the accelerated recognition of which the Administrator or the
Secretary determines to be necessary or appropriate for the
achievement of the purposes of this section.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the
discretion of the Administrator or the Secretary under
subsection (a)(1) to include in the Energy Sun program
additional products, technologies, and buildings not listed
in this subsection. Participation by private-sector entities
in programs or studies authorized by this section shall be
(A) voluntary, and (B) by permission of the Administrator or
Secretary, on terms and conditions the Administrator or the
Secretary (consistent with agreements between the agencies)
deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and
requirements of this section.
``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `renewable and alternative energy' shall have the same
meaning as the term `unconventional and renewable energy
resources' in Section 551 of the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8259).''.
(b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 324A the
following new item:
``Sec. 324B. Energy Sun renewable and alternative energy program.''.
SEC. 142. LABELING OF ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.
(a) Study.--Section 324(e) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(e)) is amended as follows:
(1) By inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary, in
consultation''.
(2) By redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
(3) By adding the following new paragraph at the end:
``(2) The Secretary shall make recommendations to the
Commission within 180 days of the date of the enactment of
this paragraph regarding labeling of consumer products that
are not covered products in accordance with this section,
where such labeling is likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions and is technologically and economically
feasible.''.
(b) Noncovered Products.--Section 324(a)(2) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)) is amended
by adding the following at the end:
``(F) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this subparagraph, the Commission shall initiate a
rulemaking to prescribe labeling rules under this section
applicable to consumer products that are not covered products
if it determines that labeling of such products is likely to
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and is
technologically and economically feasible.
``(G) Not later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this subparagraph, the Commission shall initiate
a rulemaking to consider the effectiveness of the current
consumer products labeling program in assisting consumers in
making purchasing decisions and improving energy efficiency
and to consider changes to the label that would improve the
effectiveness of the label. Such rulemaking shall be
completed within 15 months of the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 143. APPLIANCE STANDARDS.
(a) Standards for Household Appliances in Standby Mode.--
(1) Section 325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6295) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(u) Standby Mode Electric Energy Consumption by Household
Appliances.--(1) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `household appliance' means any device that
uses household electric current, operates in a standby mode,
and is identified by the Secretary as a major consumer of
electricity in standby mode, except digital televisions,
digital set top boxes, digital video recorders, any product
recognized under the Energy Star program, any product that
was on the date of the enactment of this Act subject to an
energy conservation standard under this section, and any
product regarding which the Secretary finds that the expected
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing such product as
a result of complying with a standard established under this
section is not economically justified within the meaning of
subsection (o).
``(B) The term `standby mode' means a mode in which a
household appliance consumes the least amount of electric
energy that the household appliance is capable of consuming
without being completely switched off (provided that, the
amount of electric energy consumed in such mode is
substantially less than the amount the household appliance
would consume in its normal operational mode).
``(C) The term `major consumer of electricity in standby
mode' means a product for which a standard prescribed under
this section would result in substantial energy savings as
compared to energy savings achieved or expected to be
achieved by standards established by the Secretary under
subsections (o) and (p) of this section for products that
were, at the time of the enactment of this subsection,
covered products under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
household appliance that is manufactured in, or imported for
sale in, the United States on or after the date that is 2
years after the date of the enactment of this subsection
shall not consume in standby mode more than 1 watt.
``(B) In the case of analog televisions, the Secretary
shall prescribe, on or after the
[[Page 23556]]
date that is 2 years after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, in accordance with subsections (o) and (p) of
section 325, an energy conservation standard that is
technologically feasible and economically justified under
section 325(o)(2)(A) (in lieu of the 1 watt standard under
subparagraph (A)).
``(3)(A) A manufacturer or importer of a household
appliance may submit to the Secretary an application for an
exemption of the household appliance from the standard under
paragraph (2).
``(B) The Secretary shall grant an exemption for a
household appliance for which an application is made under
subparagraph (A) if the applicant provides evidence showing
that, and the Secretary determines that--
``(i) it is not technically feasible to modify the
household appliance to enable the household appliance to meet
the standard;
``(ii) the standard is incompatible with an energy
efficiency standard applicable to the household appliance
under another subsection; or
``(iii) the cost of electricity that a typical consumer
would save in operating the household appliance meeting the
standard would not equal the increase in the price of the
household appliance that would be attributable to the
modifications that would be necessary to enable the household
appliance to meet the standard by the earlier of--
``(I) the date that is 7 years after the date of purchase
of the household appliance; or
``(II) the end of the useful life of the household
appliance.
``(C) If the Secretary determines that it is not
technically feasible to modify a household appliance to meet
the standard under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
establish a different standard for the household appliance in
accordance with the criteria under subsection (l).
``(4)(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish a
test procedure for determining the amount of consumption of
power by a household appliance operating in standby mode.
``(B) In establishing the test procedure, the Secretary
shall consider--
``(i) international test procedures under development;
``(ii) test procedures used in connection with the Energy
Star program; and
``(iii) test procedures used for measuring power
consumption in standby mode in other countries.
``(5) Further reduction of standby power consumption.--The
Secretary shall provide technical assistance to manufacturers
in achieving further reductions in standby mode electric
energy consumption by household appliances.
``(v) Standby Mode Electric Energy Consumption by Digital
Televisions, Digital Set Top Boxes, and Digital Video
Recorders.--The Secretary shall initiate on January 1, 2007 a
rulemaking to prescribe, in accordance with subsections (o)
and (p), an energy conservation standard of standby mode
electric energy consumption by digital television sets,
digital set top boxes, and digital video recorders. The
Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing such standards
not later than 18 months thereafter. In determining whether a
standard under this section is technologically feasible and
economically justified under section 325(o)(2)(A), the
Secretary shall consider the potential effects on market
penetration by digital products covered under this section,
and shall consider any recommendations by the FCC regarding
such effects.''.
(2) Section 325(o)(3) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(1)) is amended by inserting at the end
of the paragraph the following: ``Notwithstanding any
provision of this part, the Secretary shall not amend a
standard established under subsection (u) or (v) of this
section.''.
(b) Standards for Noncovered Products.--Section 325(m) of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) is
amended as follows:
(1) Inserting ``(1)'' before ``After''.
(2) Inserting the following at the end:
``(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001, the
Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking to determine whether
consumer products not classified as a covered product under
section 322(a)(1) through (18) meet the criteria of section
322(b)(1) and is a major consumer of electricity. If the
Secretary finds that a consumer product not classified as a
covered product meets the criteria of section 322(b)(1), he
shall prescribe, in accordance with subsections (o) and (p),
an energy conservation standard for such consumer product, if
such standard is reasonably probable to be technologically
feasible and economically justified within the meaning of
subsection (o)(2)(A). As used in this paragraph, the term
`major consumer of electricity' means a product for which a
standard prescribed under this section would result in
substantial aggregate energy savings as compared to energy
savings achieved or expected to be achieved by standards
established by the Secretary under paragraphs (o) and (p) of
this section for products that were, at the time of the
enactment of this paragraph, covered products under this
section.''.
(c) Consumer Education on Energy Efficiency Benefits of Air
Conditioning, Heating and Ventilation Maintenance.--Section
337 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6307) is amended by adding the following new subsection after
subsection (b):
``(c) HVAC Maintenance.--For the purpose of ensuring that
installed air conditioning and heating systems operate at
their maximum rated efficiency levels, the Secretary shall,
within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this
subsection, develop and implement a public education campaign
to educate homeowners and small business owners concerning
the energy savings resulting from regularly scheduled
maintenance of air conditioning, heating, and ventilating
systems. In developing and implementing this campaign, the
Secretary shall consider support by the Department of public
education programs sponsored by trade and professional and
energy efficiency organizations. The public service
information shall provide sufficient information to allow
consumers to make informed choices from among professional,
licensed (where State or local licensing is required)
contractors. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this subsection $5,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003
in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in this
part.''.
(d) Efficiency Standards for Furnace Fans, Ceiling Fans,
and Cold Drink Vending Machines.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 321 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291) is amended by adding the
following at the end thereof:
``(32) The term `residential furnace fan' means an electric
fan installed as part of a furnace for purposes of
circulating air through the system air filters, the heat
exchangers or heating elements of the furnace, and the duct
work.
``(33) The terms `residential central air conditioner fan'
and `heat pump circulation fan' mean an electric fan
installed as part of a central air conditioner or heat pump
for purposes of circulating air through the system air
filters, the heat exchangers of the air conditioner or heat
pump, and the duct work.
``(34) The term `suspended ceiling fan' means a fan
intended to be mounted to a ceiling outlet box, ceiling
building structure, or to a vertical rod suspended from the
ceiling, and which as blades which rotate below the ceiling
and consists of an electric motor, fan blades (which rotate
in a direction parallel to the floor), an optional lighting
kit, and one or more electrical controls (integral or remote)
governing fan speed and lighting operation.
``(35) The term `refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machine' means a machine that cools bottled or canned
beverages and dispenses them upon payment.''.
(2) Testing Requirements.--Section 323 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6293) is amended by adding
the following at the end thereof:
``(f) Additional Consumer Products.--The Secretary shall
within 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection prescribe testing requirements for residential
furnace fans, residential central air conditioner fans, heat
pump circulation fans, suspended ceiling fans, and
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
Such testing requirements shall be based on existing test
procedures used in industry to the extent practical and
reasonable. In the case of residential furnace fans,
residential central air conditioner fans, heat pump
circulation fans, and suspended ceiling fans, such test
procedures shall include efficiency at both maximum output
and at an output no more than 50 percent of the maximum
output.''.
(3) Standards for Additional Consumer Products.--Section
325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6295) is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(w) Residential Furnace Fans, Central Air and Heat Pump
Circulation Fans, Suspended Ceiling Fans, and Vending
Machines.--(1) The Secretary shall, within 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this subsection, assess the
current and projected future market for residential furnace
fans, residential central air conditioner and heat pump
circulation fans, suspended ceiling fans, and refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines. This assessment
shall include an examination of the types of products sold,
the number of products in use, annual sales of these
products, energy used by these products sold, the number of
products in use, annual sales of these products, energy used
by these products, estimates of the potential energy savings
from specific technical improvements to these products, and
an examination of the cost-effectiveness of these
improvements. Prior to the end of this time period, the
Secretary shall hold an initial scoping workshop to discuss
and receive input to plans for developing minimum efficiency
standards for these products.
``(2) The Secretary shall within 24 months after the date
on which testing requirements are prescribed by the Secretary
pursuant to section 323(f), prescribe, by rule, energy
conservation standards for residential furnace fans,
residential central air conditioner and heat pump circulation
fans, suspended ceiling fans, and refrigerated bottled or
canned
[[Page 23557]]
beverage vending machines. In establishing these standards,
the Secretary shall use the criteria and procedures contained
in subsections (l) and (m). Any standard prescribed under
this section shall apply to products manufactured 36 months
after the date such rule is published.''.
(4) Labeling.--Section 324(a) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)) is amended by adding the
following at the end thereof:
``(5) The Secretary shall within 6 months after the date on
which energy conservation standards are prescribed by the
Secretary for covered products referred to in section 325(w),
prescribe, by rule, labeling requirements for such products.
These requirements shall take effect on the same date as the
standards prescribed pursuant to section 325(w).''.
(5) Covered Products.--Section 322(a) of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) is amended by
redesignating paragraph (19) as paragraph (20) and by
inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
``(19) Beginning on the effective date for standards
established pursuant to subsection (v) of section 325, each
product referred to in such subsection (v).''.
Subtitle E--Energy Efficient Vehicles
SEC. 151. HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE EXCEPTION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 102(a)(1) of title
23, United States Code, a State may, for the purpose of
promoting energy conservation, permit a vehicle with fewer
than 2 occupants to operate in high occupancy vehicle lanes
if such vehicle is a hybrid vehicle or is fueled by an
alternative fuel.
(b) Hybrid Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the term
``hybrid vehicle'' means a motor vehicle--
(1) which draws propulsion energy from onboard sources of
stored energy which are both--
(A) an internal combustion or heat engine using combustible
fuel; and
(B) a rechargeable energy storage system;
(2) which, in the case of a passenger automobile or light
truck--
(A) for 2002 and later model vehicles, has received a
certificate of conformity under section 206 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7525) and meets or exceeds the equivalent
qualifying California low emission vehicle standard under
section 243(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7583(e)(2))
for that make and model year; and
(B) for 2004 and later model vehicles, has received a
certificate that such vehicle meets the Tier II emission
level established in regulations prescribed by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under
section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(i)) for
that make and model year vehicle; and
(3) which is made by a manufacturer.
(c) Alternative Fuel Defined.--In this section, the term
``alternative fuel'' has the meaning such term has under
section 301(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13211(2)).
SEC. 152. RAILROAD EFFICIENCY.
(a) Locomotive Technology Demonstration.--The Secretary of
Energy shall establish a public-private research partnership
with railroad carriers, locomotive manufacturers, and a
world-class research and test center dedicated to the
advancement of railroad technology, efficiency, and safety
that is owned by the Federal Railroad Administration and
operated in the private sector, for the development and
demonstration of locomotive technologies that increase fuel
economy and reduce emissions.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 for carrying out this
section.
SEC. 153. BIODIESEL FUEL USE CREDITS.
Section 312(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13220(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not'' in the subsection heading; and
(2) by striking ``not''.
SEC. 154. MOBILE TO STATIONARY SOURCE TRADING.
Within 90 days after the enactment of this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is
directed to commence a review of the Agency's policies
regarding the use of mobile to stationary source trading of
emission credits under the Clean Air Act to determine whether
such trading can provide both nonattainment and attainment
areas with additional flexibility in achieving and
maintaining healthy air quality and increasing use of
alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, thereby
reducing United States dependence on foreign oil.
Subtitle F--Other Provisions
SEC. 161. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS TO ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO
EMERGING ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.--Each Federal agency shall carry out a
review of its regulations and standards to determine those
that act as a barrier to market entry for emerging energy-
efficient technologies, including, but not limited to, fuel
cells, combined heat and power, and distributed generation
(including small-scale renewable energy).
(b) Report to Congress.--No later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this section, each agency shall
provide a report to Congress and the President detailing all
regulatory barriers to emerging energy-efficient
technologies, along with actions the agency intends to take,
or has taken, to remove such barriers.
(c) Periodic Review.--Each agency shall subsequently review
its regulations and standards in the manner specified in this
section no less frequently than every 5 years, and report
their findings to Congress and the President. Such reviews
shall include a detailed analysis of all agency actions taken
to remove existing barriers to emerging energy technologies.
SEC. 162. ADVANCED IDLE ELIMINATION SYSTEMS.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Advanced idle elimination system.--The term ``advanced
idle elimination system'' means a device or system of devices
that is installed at a truck stop or other location (for
example, a loading, unloading, or transfer facility) where
vehicles (such as trucks, trains, buses, boats, automobiles,
and recreational vehicles) are parked and that is designed to
provide to the vehicle the services (such as heat, air
conditioning, and electricity) that would otherwise require
the operation of the auxiliary or drive train engine or both
while the vehicle is stationary and parked.
(2) Extended idling.--The term ``extended idling'' means
the idling of a motor vehicle for a period greater than 60
minutes.
(b) Recognition of Benefits of Advanced Idle Elimination
Systems.--Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency is directed to commence a review of the
Agency's mobile source air emissions models used under the
Clean Air Act to determine whether such models accurately
reflect the emissions resulting from extended idling of
heavy-duty trucks and other vehicles and engines, and shall
update those models as the Administrator deems appropriate.
Additionally, within 90-days after the date of the enactment
of this subsection, the Administrator shall commence a review
as to the appropriate emissions reductions credit that should
be allotted under the Clean Air Act for the use of advanced
idle elimination systems, and whether such credits should be
subject to an emissions trading system, and shall revise
Agency regulations and guidance as the Administrator deems
appropriate.
SEC. 163. STUDY OF BENEFITS AND FEASIBILITY OF OIL BYPASS
FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Energy and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall jointly conduct
a study of oil bypass filtration technology in motor vehicle
engines. The study shall analyze and quantify the potential
benefits of such technology in terms of reduced demand for
oil and the potential environmental benefits of the
technology in terms of reduced waste and air pollution. The
Secretary and the Administrator shall also examine the
feasibility of using such technology in the Federal motor
vehicle fleet.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall jointly submit a
report containing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
United States House of Representatives and to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate.
SEC. 164. GAS FLARE STUDY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study
of the economic feasibility of installing small cogeneration
facilities utilizing excess gas flares at petrochemical
facilities to provide reduced electricity costs to customers
living within 3 miles of the petrochemical facilities. The
Secretary shall solicit public comment to assist in preparing
the report required under subsection (b).
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit
a report to the Congress on the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 165. TELECOMMUTING STUDY.
(a) Study Required.--The Secretary, in consultation with
Commission, and the NTIA, shall conduct a study of the energy
conservation implications of the widespread adoption of
telecommuting in the United States.
(b) Required Subjects of Study.--The study required by
subsection (a) shall analyze the following subjects in
relation to the energy saving potential of telecommuting:
(1) Reductions of energy use and energy costs in commuting
and regular office heating, cooling, and other operations.
(2) Other energy reductions accomplished by telecommuting.
(3) Existing regulatory barriers that hamper telecommuting,
including barriers to broadband telecommunications services
deployment.
(4) Collateral benefits to the environment, family life,
and other values.
(c) Report Required.--The Secretary shall submit to the
President and the Congress a report on the study required by
this section
[[Page 23558]]
not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act. Such report shall include a description of the
results of the analysis of each of the subject described in
subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(3) NTIA.--The term ``NTIA'' means the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the
Department of Commerce.
(4) Telecommuting.--The term ``telecommuting'' means the
performance of work functions using communications
technologies, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing
the need to commute to and from traditional worksites.
TITLE II--AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY
SEC. 201. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR NONPASSENGER
AUTOMOBILES.
Section 32902(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Nonpassenger
Automobiles.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary shall prescribe under paragraph (1)
average fuel economy standards for automobiles (except
passenger automobiles) manufactured in model years 2004
through 2010 that are calculated to ensure that the aggregate
amount of gasoline projected to be used in those model years
by automobiles to which the standards apply is at least 5
billion gallons less than the aggregate amount of gasoline
that would be used in those model years by such automobiles
if they achieved only the fuel economy required under the
average fuel economy standard that applies under this
subsection to automobiles (except passenger automobiles)
manufactured in model year 2002.''.
SEC. 202. CONSIDERATION OF PRESCRIBING DIFFERENT AVERAGE FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR NONPASSENGER AUTOMOBILES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall, in
prescribing average fuel economy standards under section
32902(a) of title 49, United States Code, for automobiles
(except passenger automobiles) manufactured in model year
2004, consider the potential benefits of--
(1) establishing a weight-based system for automobiles,
that is based on the inertia weight, curb weight, gross
vehicle weight rating, or another appropriate measure of such
automobiles; and
(2) prescribing different fuel economy standards for
automobiles that are subject to the weight-based system.
(b) Specific Considerations.--In implementing this section
the Secretary--
(1) shall consider any recommendations made in the National
Academy of Sciences study completed pursuant to the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-346; 114 Stat. 2763
et seq.); and
(2) shall evaluate the merits of any weight-based system in
terms of motor vehicle safety, energy conservation, and
competitiveness of and employment in the United States
automotive sector, and if a weight-based system is
established by the Secretary a manufacturer may trade credits
between or among the automobiles (except passenger
automobiles) manufactured by the manufacturer.
SEC. 203. DUAL FUELED AUTOMOBILES.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to extend the manufacturing incentives for dual fueled
automobiles, as set forth in subsections (b) and (d) of
section 32905 of title 49, United States Code, through the
2008 model year; and
(2) to similarly extend the limitation on the maximum
average fuel economy increase for such automobiles, as set
forth in subsection (a)(1) of section 32906 of title 49,
United States Code.
(b) Amendments.--
(1) Manufacturing incentives.--Section 32905 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(A) Subsections (b) and (d) are each amended by striking
``model years 1993-2004'' and inserting ``model years 1993-
2008''.
(B) Subsection (f) is amended by striking ``Not later than
December 31, 2001, the Secretary'' and inserting ``Not later
than December 31, 2005, the Secretary''.
(C) Subsection (f)(1) is amended by striking ``model year
2004'' and inserting ``model year 2008''.
(D) Subsection (g) is amended by striking ``Not later than
September 30, 2000'' and inserting ``Not later than September
30, 2004''.
(2) Maximum fuel economy increase.--Subsection (a)(1) of
section 32906 of title 49, United States Code, is amended as
follows:
(A) Subparagraph (A) is amended by striking ``the model
years 1993-2004'' and inserting ``model years 1993-2008''.
(B) Subparagraph (B) is amended by striking ``the model
years 2005-2008'' and inserting ``model years 2009-2012''.
SEC. 204. FUEL ECONOMY OF THE FEDERAL FLEET OF AUTOMOBILES.
Section 32917 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``Sec. 32917. Standards for executive agency automobiles
``(a) Baseline Average Fuel Economy.--The head of each
executive agency shall determine, for all automobiles in the
agency's fleet of automobiles that were leased or bought as a
new vehicle in fiscal year 1999, the average fuel economy for
such automobiles. For the purposes of this section, the
average fuel economy so determined shall be the baseline
average fuel economy for the agency's fleet of automobiles.
``(b) Increase of Average Fuel Economy.--The head of an
executive agency shall manage the procurement of automobiles
for that agency in such a manner that--
``(1) not later than September 30, 2003, the average fuel
economy of the new automobiles in the agency's fleet of
automobiles is not less than 1 mile per gallon higher than
the baseline average fuel economy determined under subsection
(a) for that fleet; and
``(2) not later than September 30, 2005, the average fuel
economy of the new automobiles in the agency's fleet of
automobiles is not less than 3 miles per gallon higher than
the baseline average fuel economy determined under subsection
(a) for that fleet.
``(c) Calculation of Average Fuel Economy.--Average fuel
economy shall be calculated for the purposes of this section
in accordance with guidance which the Secretary of
Transportation shall prescribe for the implementation of this
section.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `automobile' does not include any vehicle
designed for combat-related missions, law enforcement work,
or emergency rescue work.
``(2) The term `executive agency' has the meaning given
that term in section 105 of title 5.
``(3) The term `new automobile', with respect to the fleet
of automobiles of an executive agency, means an automobile
that is leased for at least 60 consecutive days or bought, by
or for the agency, after September 30, 1999.''.
SEC. 205. HYBRID VEHICLES AND ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES.
(a) In General.--Section 303(b)(1) of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 is amended by adding the following at the end: ``Of
the total number of vehicles acquired by a Federal fleet in
fiscal years 2004 and 2005, at least 5 percent of the
vehicles in addition to those covered by the preceding
sentence shall be alternative fueled vehicles or hybrid
vehicles and in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter at least 10
percent of the vehicles in addition to those covered by the
preceding sentence shall be alternative fueled vehicles or
hybrid vehicles.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 301 of such Act is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (13), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (14) and inserting ``;
and'' and by adding at the end the following:
``(15) The term `hybrid vehicle' means a motor vehicle
which draws propulsion energy from onboard sources of stored
energy which are both--
``(A) an internal combustion or heat engine using
combustible fuel; and
``(B) a rechargeable energy storage system.''.
SEC. 206. FEDERAL FLEET PETROLEUM-BASED NONALTERNATIVE FUELS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(42 U.S.C. 13212 et seq.) is amended as follows:
(1) By adding at the end thereof the following:
``SEC. 313. CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM-BASED FUELS BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR LIGHT-DUTY MOTOR
VEHICLES.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to
complement and supplement the requirements of section 303 of
this Act that Federal fleets, as that term is defined in
section 303(b)(3), acquire in the aggregate a minimum
percentage of alternative fuel vehicles, to encourage the
manufacture and sale or lease of such vehicles nationwide,
and to achieve, in the aggregate, a reduction in the amount
of the petroleum-based fuels (other than the alternative
fuels defined in this title) used by new light-duty motor
vehicles acquired by the Federal Government in model years
2004 through 2010 and thereafter.
``(b) Implementation.--In furtherance of such purposes,
such Federal fleets in the aggregate shall reduce the
purchase of petroleum-based nonalternative fuels for such
fleets beginning October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2009,
from the amount purchased for such fleets over a comparable
period since enactment of this Act, as determined by the
Secretary, through the annual purchase, in accordance with
section 304, and the use of alternative fuels for the light-
duty motor vehicles of such Federal fleets, so as to achieve
levels which reflect total reliance by such fleets on the
consumptive use of alternative fuels consistent with the
provisions of section 303(b) of this Act. The Secretary
shall, within 120 days after the enactment of this section,
promulgate, in consultation with the Administrator of the
General Services Administration and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and such other heads of
entities referenced in section 303 within the executive
branch as such Director may designate, standards for the full
and prompt implementation of this section by such entities.
The Secretary shall monitor compliance with this section and
[[Page 23559]]
such standards by all such fleets and shall report annually
to the Congress, based on reports by the heads of such
fleets, on the extent to which the requirements of this
section and such standards are being achieved. The report
shall include information on annual reductions achieved of
petroleum-based fuels and the problems, if any, encountered
in acquiring alternative fuels and in requiring their use.''.
(2) By amending section 304(b) of such Act to read as
follows:
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary or, as
appropriate, the head of each Federal fleet subject to the
provisions of this section and section 313 of this Act, such
sums as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of section
313(a) and the provisions of this section. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title III the following:
``Sec. 313. Conservation of petroleum-based fuels by the Federal
Government for light-duty motor vehicles.''.
SEC. 207. STUDY OF FEASIBILITY AND EFFECTS OF REDUCING USE OF
FUEL FOR AUTOMOBILES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation
shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of
Sciences under which the Academy shall study the feasibility
and effects of reducing by model year 2010, by a significant
percentage, the use of fuel for automobiles.
(b) Subjects of Study.--The study under this section shall
include--
(1) examination of, and recommendation of alternatives to,
the policy under current Federal law of establishing average
fuel economy standards for automobiles and requiring each
automobile manufacturer to comply with average fuel economy
standards that apply to the automobiles it manufactures;
(2) examination of how automobile manufacturers could
contribute toward achieving the reduction referred to in
subsection (a);
(3) examination of the potential of fuel cell technology in
motor vehicles in order to determine the extent to which such
technology may contribute to achieving the reduction referred
to in subsection (a); and
(4) examination of the effects of the reduction referred to
in subsection (a) on--
(A) gasoline supplies;
(B) the automobile industry, including sales of automobiles
manufactured in the United States;
(C) motor vehicle safety; and
(D) air quality.
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall require the National
Academy of Sciences to submit to the Secretary and the
Congress a report on the findings, conclusion, and
recommendations of the study under this section by not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--NUCLEAR ENERGY
SEC. 301. LICENSE PERIOD.
Section 103 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2133(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``c. Each such'' and inserting the
following:
``c. License Period.--
``(1) In general.--Each such''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Combined licenses.--In the case of a combined
construction and operating license issued under section 185
b., the initial duration of the license may not exceed 40
years from the date on which the Commission finds, before
operation of the facility, that the acceptance criteria
required by section 185 b. are met.''.
SEC. 302. COST RECOVERY FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
Section 161 w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2201(w)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``for or is issued'' and all that follows
through ``1702'' and inserting ``to the Commission for, or is
issued by the Commission, a license or certificate'';
(2) by striking ``483a'' and inserting ``9701''; and
(3) by striking ``, of applicants for, or holders of, such
licenses or certificates''.
SEC. 303. DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE.
Section 1(b) of Public Law 105-204 is amended by striking
``fiscal year 2002'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2005''.
SEC. 304. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MEETINGS.
If a quorum of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gathers to
discuss official Commission business the discussions shall be
recorded, and the Commission shall notify the public of such
discussions within 15 days after they occur. The Commission
shall promptly make a transcript of the recording available
to the public on request, except to the extent that public
disclosure is exempted or prohibited by law. This section
shall not apply to a meeting, within the meaning of that term
under section 552b(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 305. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR THE URANIUM MINING
INDUSTRY.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 for--
(1) cooperative, cost-shared, agreements between the
Department of Energy and domestic uranium producers to
identify, test, and develop improved in situ leaching mining
technologies, including low-cost environmental restoration
technologies that may be applied to sites after completion of
in situ leaching operations; and
(2) funding for competitively selected demonstration
projects with domestic uranium producers relating to--
(A) enhanced production with minimal environmental impacts;
(B) restoration of well fields; and
(C) decommissioning and decontamination activities.
(b) Domestic Uranium Producer.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``domestic uranium producer'' has the
meaning given that term in section 1018(4) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 2296b-7(4)), except that the
term shall not include any producer that has not produced
uranium from domestic reserves on or after July 30, 1998.
SEC. 306. MAINTENANCE OF A VIABLE DOMESTIC URANIUM CONVERSION
INDUSTRY.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$800,000 for contracting with the Nation's sole remaining
uranium converter for the purpose of performing research and
development to improve the environmental and economic
performance of United States uranium conversion operations.
SEC. 307. PADUCAH DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
The Secretary of Energy shall prepare and submit a plan to
Congress within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act that establishes scope, cost, schedule, sequence of
activities, and contracting strategy for--
(1) the decontamination and decommissioning of the
Department of Energy's surplus buildings and facilities at
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant that have no future
anticipated reuse; and
(2) the remediation of Department of Energy Material
Storage Areas at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
Such plan shall inventory all surplus facilities and
buildings, and identify and rank health and safety risks
associated with such facilities and buildings. Such plan
shall inventory all Department of Energy Material Storage
Areas, and identify and rank health and safety risks
associated with such Department of Energy Material Storage
Areas. The Department of Energy shall incorporate these risk
factors in designing the sequence and schedule for the plan.
Such plan shall identify funding requirements that are in
addition to the expected outlays included in the Department
of Energy's Environmental Management Plan for the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plan.
SEC. 308. STUDY TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING
COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES
AT EXISTING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of developing commercial
nuclear energy production facilities at Department of Energy
sites in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act,
including--
(1) options for how and where nuclear power plants can be
developed on existing Department of Energy sites;
(2) estimates on cost savings to the Federal Government
that may be realized by locating new nuclear power plants on
Federal sites;
(3) the feasibility of incorporating new technology into
nuclear power plants located on Federal sites;
(4) potential improvements in the licensing and safety
oversight procedures of nuclear power plants located on
Federal sites;
(5) an assessment of the effects of nuclear waste
management policies and projects as a result of locating
nuclear power plants located on Federal sites; and
(6) any other factors that the Secretary believes would be
relevant in making the determination.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under subsection
(a).
SEC. 309. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL SALES OF URANIUM BY THE
UNITED STATES UNTIL 2009.
Section 3112 of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C.
2297h-10) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(g) Prohibition on Sales.--With the exception of sales
pursuant to subsection (b)(2) (42 U.S.C.2297h-10(b)(2)),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States
Government shall not sell or transfer any uranium (including
natural uranium concentrates, natural uranium hexafluoride,
enriched uranium, depleted uranium, or uranium in any other
form) through March 23, 2009 (except sales or transfers for
use by the Tennessee Valley Authority in relation to the
Department of Energy's HEU or Tritium programs, or the
Department or Energy research reactor sales program, or any
depleted uranium hexaflouride to be transferred to a
designated Department of Energy contractor in conjunction
with the planned
[[Page 23560]]
construction of the Depleted Uranium Hexaflouride conversion
plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, to any
natural uranium transferred to the U.S. Enrichment
Corporation from the Department of Energy to replace
contaminated uranium received from the Department of Energy
when the U.S. Enrichment Corporation was privatized in July,
1998, or for emergency purposes in the event of a disruption
in supply to end users in the United States). The aggregate
of sales or transfers of uranium by the United States
Government after March 23, 2009, shall not exceed 3,000,000
pounds U3O8 per calendar year.''.
TITLE IV--HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
SEC. 401. ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS AND FISHWAYS.
(a) Alternative Mandatory Conditions.--Section 4 of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h)(1) Whenever any person applies for a license for any
project works within any reservation of the United States,
and the Secretary of the department under whose supervision
such reservation falls deems a condition to such license to
be necessary under the first proviso of subsection (e), the
license applicant or any other party to the licensing
proceeding may propose an alternative condition.
``(2) Notwithstanding the first proviso of subsection (e),
the Secretary of the department under whose supervision the
reservation falls shall accept the proposed alternative
condition referred to in paragraph (1), and the Commission
shall include in the license such alternative condition, if
the Secretary of the appropriate department determines, based
on substantial evidence provided by the party proposing such
alternative condition, that the alternative condition--
``(A) provides no less protection for the reservation than
provided by the condition deemed necessary by the Secretary;
and
``(B) will either--
``(i) cost less to implement, or
``(ii) result in improved operation of the project works
for electricity production,
as compared to the condition deemed necessary by the
Secretary.
``(3) Within 1 year after the enactment of this subsection,
each Secretary concerned shall, by rule, establish a process
to expeditiously resolve conflicts arising under this
subsection.''.
(b) Alternative Fishways.--Section 18 of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 811) is amended by--
(1) inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) Whenever the Commission shall require a licensee
to construct, maintain, or operate a fishway prescribed by
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce
under this section, the licensee or any other party to the
proceeding may propose an alternative to such prescription to
construct, maintain, or operate a fishway.
``(2) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, shall
accept and prescribe, and the Commission shall require, the
proposed alternative referred to in paragraph (1), if the
Secretary of the appropriate department determines, based on
substantial evidence provided by the party proposing such
alternative, that the alternative--
``(A) will be no less effective than the fishway initially
prescribed by the Secretary, and
``(B) will either--
``(i) cost less to implement, or
``(ii) result in improved operation of the project works
for electricity production,
as compared to the fishway initially prescribed by the
Secretary.
``(3) Within 1 year after the enactment of this subsection,
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce
shall each, by rule, establish a process to expeditiously
resolve conflicts arising under this subsection.''.
SEC. 402. FERC DATA ON HYDROELECTRIC LICENSING.
(a) Data Collection Procedures.--The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission shall revise its procedures regarding
the collection of data in connection with the Commission's
consideration of hydroelectric licenses under the Federal
Power Act. Such revised data collection procedures shall be
designed to provide the Commission with complete and accurate
information concerning the time and costs to parties involved
in the licensing process. Such data shall be available for
each significant stage in the licensing process and shall be
designed to identify projects with similar characteristics so
that analyses can be made of the time and costs involved in
licensing proceedings based upon the different
characteristics of those proceedings.
(b) Reports.--Within 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall notify the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate of the progress made by
the Commission under subsection (a), and within 1 year after
such date of the enactment, the Commission shall submit a
report to such Committees specifying the measures taken by
the Commission pursuant to subsection (a).
TITLE V--FUELS
SEC. 501. TANK DRAINING DURING TRANSITION TO SUMMERTIME RFG.
Not later than 60 days after the enactment of the Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
commence a rulemaking to determine whether modifications to
the regulations set forth in 40 CFR Section 80.78 and any
associated regulations regarding the transition to high ozone
season reformulated gasoline are necessary to ensure that the
transition to high ozone season reformulated gasoline is
conducted in a manner that minimizes disruptions to the
general availability and affordability of gasoline, and
maximizes flexibility with regard to the draining and
inventory management of gasoline storage tanks located at
refineries, terminals, wholesale and retail outlets,
consistent with the goals of the Clean Air Act. The
Administrator shall propose and take final action in such
rulemaking to ensure that any modifications are effective and
implemented at least 60 days prior to the beginning of the
high ozone season for the year 2002.
SEC. 502. GASOLINE BLENDSTOCK REQUIREMENTS.
Not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
commence a rulemaking to determine whether modifications to
product transfer documentation, accounting, compliance
calculation, and other requirements contained in the
regulations of the Administrator set forth in section 80.102
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations relating to
gasoline blendstocks are necessary to facilitate the movement
of gasoline and gasoline feedstocks among different regions
throughout the country and to improve the ability of
petroleum refiners and importers to respond to regional
gasoline shortages and prevent unreasonable short-term price
increases. The Administrator shall take into consideration
the extent to which such requirements have been, or will be,
rendered unnecessary or inefficient by reason of subsequent
environmental safeguards that were not in effect at the time
the regulations in section 80.102 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations were promulgated. The Administrator shall
propose and take final action in such rulemaking to ensure
that any modifications are effective and implemented at least
60 days prior to the beginning of the high ozone season for
the year 2002.
SEC. 503. BOUTIQUE FUELS.
(a) Joint Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy shall jointly
conduct a study of all Federal, State, and local requirements
regarding motor vehicle fuels, including requirements
relating to reformulated gasoline, volatility (Reid Vapor
Pressure), oxygenated fuel, diesel fuel and other
requirements that vary from State to State, region to region,
or locality to locality. The study shall analyze--
(1) the effect of the variety of such requirements on the
price of motor vehicle fuels to the consumer;
(2) the availability and affordability of motor vehicle
fuels in different States and localities;
(3) the effect of Federal, State, and local regulations,
including multiple fuel requirements, on domestic refineries
and the fuel distribution system;
(4) the effect of such requirements on local, regional, and
national air quality requirements and goals;
(5) the effect of such requirements on vehicle emissions;
(6) the feasibility of developing national or regional fuel
specifications for the contiguous United States that would--
(A) enhance flexibility in the fuel distribution
infrastructure and improve fuel fungibility;
(B) reduce price volatility and costs to consumers and
producers;
(C) meet local, regional, and national air quality
requirements and goals; and
(D) provide increased gasoline market liquidity;
(7) the extent to which the Environmental Protection
Agency's Tier II requirements for conventional gasoline may
achieve in future years the same or similar air quality
results as State reformulated gasoline programs and State
programs regarding gasoline volatility (RVP); and
(8) the feasibility of providing incentives to promote
cleaner burning fuel.
(b) Report.--By December 31, 2001, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy
shall submit a report to the Congress containing the results
of the study conducted under subsection (a). Such report
shall contain recommendations for legislative and
administrative actions that may be taken to simplify the
national distribution system for motor vehicle fuel, make
such system more cost-effective, and reduce the costs and
increase the availability of motor vehicle fuel to the end
user while meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Such recommendations shall take into account the need to
provide lead time for refinery and
[[Page 23561]]
fuel distribution system modifications necessary to assure
adequate fuel supply for all States.
SEC. 504. FUNDING FOR MTBE CONTAMINATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground
Storage Trust Fund not more than $200,000,000 to be used for
taking such action, limited to assessment, corrective action,
inspection of underground storage tank systems, and
groundwater monitoring in connection with MTBE contamination,
as the Administrator deems necessary to protect human health
and the environment from releases of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) from underground storage tanks.
TITLE VI--RENEWABLE ENERGY
SEC. 601. ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.
(a) Resource Assessment.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter,
the Secretary of Energy shall publish an assessment by the
National Laboratories of all renewable energy resources
available within the United States.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report published under
subsection (a) shall contain each of the following:
(1) A detailed inventory describing the available amount
and characteristics of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal,
hydroelectric and other renewable energy sources.
(2) Such other information as the Secretary of Energy
believes would be useful in developing such renewable energy
resources, including descriptions of surrounding terrain,
population and load centers, nearby energy infrastructure,
location of energy and water resources, and available
estimates of the costs needed to develop each resource.
SEC. 602. RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE.
Section 1212 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13317) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a) by striking ``and which satisfies''
and all that follows through ``Secretary shall establish.''
and inserting ``. The Secretary shall establish other
procedures necessary for efficient administration of the
program. The Secretary shall not establish any criteria or
procedures that have the effect of assigning to proposals a
higher or lower priority for eligibility or allocation of
appropriated funds on the basis of the energy source
proposed.''.
(2) In subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``a State or any political'' and all that
follows through ``nonprofit electrical cooperative'' and
inserting ``an electricity-generating cooperative exempt from
taxation under section 501(c)(12) or section 1381(a)(2)(C) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a public utility described
in section 115 of such Code, a State, Commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States or the District
of Columbia, or a political subdivision thereof, or an Indian
tribal government or subdivision thereof,''; and
(B) By inserting ``landfill gas,'' after ``wind,
biomass,''.
(3) In subsection (c) by striking ``during the 10-fiscal
year period beginning with the first full fiscal year
occurring after the enactment of this section'' and inserting
``before October 1, 2013''.
(4) In subsection (d) by inserting ``or in which the
Secretary finds that all necessary Federal and State
authorizations have been obtained to begin construction of
the facility'' after ``eligible for such payments''.
(5) In subsection (e)(1) by inserting ``landfill gas,''
after ``wind, biomass,''.
(6) In subsection (f) by striking ``the expiration of'' and
all that follows through ``of this section'' and inserting
``September 30, 2023''.
(7) In subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``1993, 1994, and 1995'' and inserting
``2003 through 2023''; and
(B) by inserting ``Funds may be appropriated pursuant to
this subsection to remain available until expended.'' after
``purposes of this section.''.
SEC. 603. STUDY OF ETHANOL FROM SOLID WASTE LOAN GUARANTEE
PROGRAM.
The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study of the
feasibility of providing guarantees for loans by private
banking and investment institutions for facilities for the
processing and conversion of municipal solid waste and sewage
sludge into fuel ethanol and other commercial byproducts, and
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act shall transmit to the Congress a report on the
results of the study.
SEC. 604. STUDY OF RENEWABLE FUEL CONTENT.
(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy shall jointly
conduct a study of the feasibility of developing a
requirement that motor vehicle fuel sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States in calendar year 2002 or any
calendar year thereafter by a refiner, blender, or importer
shall, on a 6-month average basis, be comprised of a quantity
of renewable fuel, measured in gasoline-equivalent gallons.
As part of this study, the Administrator and Secretary shall
evaluate the use of a banking and trading credit system and
the feasibility and desirability of requiring an increasing
percentage of renewable fuel to be phased in over a 15-year
period.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the
Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted under this section.
TITLE VII--PIPELINES
SEC. 701. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PIPELINE ROUTE.
No license, permit, lease, right-of-way, authorization or
other approval required under Federal law for the
construction of any pipeline to transport natural gas from
lands within the Prudhoe Bay oil and gas lease area may be
granted for any pipeline that follows a route that
traverses--
(1) the submerged lands (as defined by the Submerged Lands
Act) beneath, or the adjacent shoreline of, the Beaufort Sea;
and
(2) enters Canada at any point north of 68 degrees North
latitude.
SEC. 702. HISTORIC PIPELINES.
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717(f)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Notwithstanding the National Historic Preservation
Act, a transportation facility shall not be eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
unless--
``(1) the Commission has permitted the abandonment of the
transportation facility pursuant to subsection (b) of this
section, or
``(2) the owner of the facility has given written consent
to such eligibility.
Any transportation facility deemed eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places prior to the date of
the enactment of this subsection shall no longer be eligible
unless the owner of the facility gives written consent to
such eligibility.''.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. WASTE REDUCTION AND USE OF ALTERNATIVES.
(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary of Energy is authorized
to make a single grant to a qualified institution to examine
and develop the feasibility of burning post-consumer carpet
in cement kilns as an alternative energy source. The purposes
of the grant shall include determining--
(1) how post-consumer carpet can be burned without
disrupting kiln operations;
(2) the extent to which overall kiln emissions may be
reduced; and
(3) how this process provides benefits to both cement kiln
operations and carpet suppliers.
(b) Qualified Institution.--For the purposes of subsection
(a), a qualified institution is a research-intensive
institution of higher learning with demonstrated expertise in
the fields of fiber recycling and logistical modeling of
carpet waste collection and preparation.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for carrying
out this section $275,000 for fiscal year 2002, to remain
available until expended.
SEC. 802. ANNUAL REPORT ON UNITED STATES ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
(a) Report.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall include
in each report under section 801(c) of the Department of
Energy Organization Act a section which evaluates the
progress the United States has made toward obtaining the goal
of not more than 50 percent dependence on foreign oil sources
by 2010.
(b) Alternatives.--The information required under this
section to be included in the reports under section 801(c) of
the Department of Energy Organization Act shall include a
specification of what legislative or administrative actions
must be implemented to meet this goal and set forth a range
of options and alternatives with a cost/benefit analysis for
each option or alternative together with an estimate of the
contribution each option or alternative could make to reduce
foreign oil imports. The Secretary shall solicit information
from the public and request information from the Energy
Information Agency and other agencies to develop the
information required under this section. The information
shall indicate, in detail, options and alternatives to--
(1) increase the use of renewable domestic energy sources,
including conventional and nonconventional sources;
(2) conserve energy resources, including improving
efficiencies and decreasing consumption; and
(3) increase domestic production and use of oil, natural
gas, nuclear, and coal, including any actions necessary to
provide access to, and transportation of, these energy
resources.
SEC. 803. STUDY OF AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS.
The Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall jointly commence a
study within 60 days after the enactment of this Act to
investigate the impact of aircraft emissions on air quality
in areas that are considered to be in nonattainment for the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone. As part of
this study, the Secretary and the Administrator shall focus
on the impact of emissions by aircraft idling at airports and
on the contribution of such emissions as a percentage of
total emissions in the nonattainment area. Within 180 days of
[[Page 23562]]
the commencement of the study, the Secretary and the
Administrator shall submit a report to the Committees on
Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure of
the United States House of Representatives and to the
Committees on Environment and Public Works and Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate
containing the results of the study and recommendations with
respect to a plan to maintain comprehensive data on aircraft
emissions and methods by which such emissions may be reduced,
without increasing individual aircraft noise, in order to
assist in the attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards.
DIVISION B
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Energy
Research and Technology Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2002. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the Nation's prosperity and way of life are sustained
by energy use;
(2) the growing imbalance between domestic energy
production and consumption means that the Nation is becoming
increasingly reliant on imported energy, which has the
potential to undermine the Nation's economy, standard of
living, and national security;
(3) energy conservation and energy efficiency help maximize
the use of available energy resources, reduce energy
shortages, lower the Nation's reliance on energy imports,
mitigate the impacts of high energy prices, and help protect
the environment and public health;
(4) development of a balanced portfolio of domestic energy
supplies will ensure that future generations of Americans
will have access to the energy they need;
(5) energy efficiency technologies, renewable and
alternative energy technologies, and advanced energy systems
technologies will help diversify the Nation's energy
portfolio with few adverse environmental impacts and are
vital to delivering clean energy to fuel the Nation's
economic growth;
(6) development of reliable, affordable, and
environmentally sound energy efficiency technologies,
renewable and alternative energy technologies, and advanced
energy systems technologies will require maintenance of a
vibrant fundamental scientific knowledge base and continued
scientific and technological innovations that can be
accelerated by Federal funding, whereas commercial deployment
of such systems and technologies are the responsibility of
the private sector;
(7) Federal funding should focus on those programs,
projects, and activities that are long-term, high-risk,
noncommercial, and well-managed, and that provide the
potential for scientific and technological advances; and
(8) public-private partnerships should be encouraged to
leverage scarce taxpayer dollars.
SEC. 2003. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this division are to--
(1) protect and strengthen the Nation's economy, standard
of living, and national security by reducing dependence on
imported energy;
(2) meet future needs for energy services at the lowest
total cost to the Nation, including environmental costs,
giving balanced and comprehensive consideration to
technologies that improve the efficiency of energy end uses
and that enhance energy supply;
(3) reduce the air, water, and other environmental impacts
(including emissions of greenhouse gases) of energy
production, distribution, transportation, and use through the
development of environmentally sustainable energy systems;
(4) consider the comparative environmental impacts of the
energy saved or produced by specific programs, projects, or
activities;
(5) maintain the technological competitiveness of the
United States and stimulate economic growth through the
development of advanced energy systems and technologies;
(6) foster international cooperation by developing
international markets for domestically produced sustainable
energy technologies, and by transferring environmentally
sound, advanced energy systems and technologies to developing
countries to promote sustainable development;
(7) provide sufficient funding of programs, projects, and
activities that are performance-based and modeled as public-
private partnerships, as appropriate; and
(8) enhance the contribution of a given program, project,
or activity to fundamental scientific knowledge.
SEC. 2004. GOALS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), in order to
achieve the purposes of this division under section 2003, the
Secretary should conduct a balanced energy research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application
portfolio of programs guided by the following goals to meet
the purposes of this division under section 2003.
(1) Energy conservation and energy efficiency.--
(A) For the Building Technology, State and Community
Sector, the program should develop technologies, housing
components, designs, and production methods that will, by
2010--
(i) reduce the monthly energy cost of new housing by 20
percent, compared to the cost as of the date of the enactment
of this Act;
(ii) cut the environmental impact and energy use of new
housing by 50 percent, compared to the impact and use as of
the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(iii) improve durability and reduce maintenance costs by 50
percent compared to the durability and costs as of the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(B) For the Industry Sector, the program should, in
cooperation with the affected industries, improve the energy
intensity of the major energy-consuming industries by at
least 25 percent by 2010, compared to the energy intensity as
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(C) For Power Technologies, the program should, in
cooperation with the affected industries--
(i) develop a microturbine (40 to 300 kilowatt) that is
more than 40 percent more efficient by 2006, and more than 50
percent more efficient by 2010, compared to the efficiency as
of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii) develop advanced materials for combustion systems that
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 30 to 50 percent while
increasing efficiency 5 to 10 percent by 2007, compared to
such emissions as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(D) For the Transportation Sector, the program should, in
cooperation with affected industries--
(i) develop a production prototype passenger automobile
that has fuel economy equivalent to 80 miles per gallon of
gasoline by 2004;
(ii) develop class 7 and 8 heavy duty trucks and buses with
ultra low emissions and the ability to use an alternative
fuel that has an average fuel economy equivalent to--
(I) 10 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2007; and
(II) 13 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2010;
(iii) develop a production prototype of a passenger
automobile with zero equivalent emissions that has an average
fuel economy of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2010; and
(iv) improve, by 2010, the average fuel economy of trucks--
(I) in classes 1 and 2 by 300 percent; and
(II) in classes 3 through 6 by 200 percent,
compared to the fuel economy as of the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Renewable energy.--
(A) For Hydrogen Research, to carry out the Spark M.
Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration
Act of 1990, as amended by subtitle A of title II of this
division.
(B) For bioenergy:
(i) The program should reduce the cost of bioenergy
relative to other energy sources to enable the United States
to triple bioenergy use by 2010.
(ii) For biopower systems, the program should reduce the
cost of such systems to enable commercialization of
integrated power-generating technologies that employ gas
turbines and fuel cells integrated with bioenergy gasifiers
within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(iii) For biofuels, the program should accelerate research,
development, and demonstration on advanced enzymatic
hydrolysis technology for making ethanol from cellulosic
feedstock, with the goal that between 2010 and 2015 ethanol
produced from energy crops would be fully competitive in
terms of price with gasoline as a neat fuel, in either
internal combustion engines or fuel cell vehicles.
(C) For Geothermal Technology Development, the program
should focus on advanced concepts for the long term. The
first priority should be high-grade enhanced geothermal
systems; the second priority should be lower grade, hot dry
rock, and geopressured systems; and the third priority should
be support of field demonstrations of enhanced geothermal
systems technology, including sites in lower grade areas to
demonstrate the benefits of reservoir concepts to different
conditions.
(D) For Hydropower, the program should provide a new
generation of turbine technologies that will increase
generating capacity and will be less damaging to fish and
aquatic ecosystems.
(E) For Concentrating Solar Power, the program should
strengthen ongoing research, development, and demonstration
combining high-efficiency and high-temperature receivers with
advanced thermal storage and power cycles, with the goal of
making solar-only power (including baseload solar power)
widely competitive with fossil fuel power by 2015. The
program should limit or halt its research and development on
power-tower and power-trough technologies because further
refinements to these concepts will not further their
deployment, and should assess the market prospects for solar
dish/engine technologies to determine whether continued
research and development is warranted.
(F) For Photovoltaic Energy Systems, the program should
pursue research, development, and demonstration that will, by
2005, increase the efficiency of thin film modules from the
current 7 percent to 11 percent in
[[Page 23563]]
multi-million watt production; reduce the direct
manufacturing cost of photovoltaic modules by 30 percent from
the current $2.50 per watt to $1.75 per watt by 2005; and
establish greater than a 20-year lifetime of photovoltaic
systems by improving the reliability and lifetime of balance-
of-system components and reducing recurring cost by 40
percent. The program's top priority should be the development
of sound manufacturing technologies for thin-film modules,
and the program should make a concerted effort to integrate
fundamental research and basic engineering research.
(G) For Solar Building Technology Research, the program
should complete research and development on new polymers and
manufacturing processes to reduce the cost of solar water
heating by 50 percent by 2004, compared to the cost as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(H) For Wind Energy Systems, the program should reduce the
cost of wind energy to three cents per kilowatt-hour at Class
6 (15 miles-per-hour annual average) wind sites by 2004, and
4 cents per kilowatt-hour in Class 4 (13 miles-per-hour
annual average) wind sites by 2015, and further if required
so that wind power can be widely competitive with fossil-
fuel-based electricity in a restructured electric industry.
Program research on advanced wind turbine technology should
focus on turbulent flow studies, durable materials to extend
turbine life, blade efficiency, and higher efficiency
operation in low quality wind regimes.
(I) For Electric Energy Systems and Storage, including High
Temperature Superconducting Research and Development, Energy
Storage Systems, and Transmission Reliability, the program
should develop high capacity superconducting transmission
lines and generators, highly reliable energy storage systems,
and distributed generating systems to accommodate multiple
types of energy sources under common interconnect standards.
(J) For the International Renewable Energy and Renewable
Energy Production Incentive programs, and Renewable Program
Support, the program should encourage the commercial
application of renewable energy technologies by developed and
developing countries, State and local governmental entities
and nonprofit electric cooperatives, and by the competitive
domestic market.
(3) Nuclear energy.--
(A) For university nuclear science and engineering, the
program should carry out the provisions of subtitle A of
title III of this division.
(B) For fuel cycle research, development, and
demonstration, the program should carry out the provisions of
subtitle B of title III of this division.
(C) For the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, the program
should accomplish the objectives of section 2341(b) of this
Act.
(D) For the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program, the
program should accomplish the objectives of section 2342(b)
of this Act.
(E) For Nuclear Energy Technologies, the program should
carry out the provisions of section 2343 of this Act.
(F) For Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, the program
should ensure that the United States has adequate capability
to power future satellite and space missions.
(4) Fossil energy.--
(A) For core fossil energy research and development, the
program should achieve the goals outlined by the Department's
Vision 21 Program. This research should address fuel-flexible
gasification and turbines, fuel cells, advanced-combustion
systems, advanced fuels and chemicals, advanced modeling and
systems analysis, materials and heat exchangers,
environmental control technologies, gas-stream purification,
gas-separation technology, and sequestration research and
development focused on cost-effective novel concepts for
capturing, reusing or storing, or otherwise mitigating carbon
and other greenhouse gas emissions.
(B) For offshore oil and natural gas resources, the program
should investigate and develop technologies to--
(i) extract methane hydrates in coastal waters of the
United States, in accordance with the provisions of the
Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000; and
(ii) develop natural gas and oil reserves in the ultra-
deepwater of the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico. Research
and development on ultra-deepwater resource recovery shall
focus on improving the safety and efficiency of such recovery
and of sub-sea production technology used for such recovery,
while lowering costs.
(C) For transportation fuels, the program should support a
comprehensive transportation fuels strategy to increase the
price elasticity of oil supply and demand by focusing
research on reducing the cost of producing transportation
fuels from natural gas and indirect liquefaction of coal.
(5) Science.--The Secretary, through the Office of Science,
should--
(A) develop and maintain a robust portfolio of fundamental
scientific and energy research, including High Energy and
Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic
Energy Sciences (including Materials Sciences, Chemical
Sciences, Engineering and Geosciences, and Energy
Biosciences), Advanced Scientific Computing, Energy Research
and Analysis, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities
Support, Fusion Energy Sciences, and Facilities and
Infrastructure;
(B) maintain, upgrade, and expand, as appropriate, and in
accordance with the provisions of this division, the
scientific user facilities maintained by the Office of
Science, and ensure that they are an integral part of the
Department's mission for exploring the frontiers of
fundamental energy sciences; and
(C) ensure that its fundamental energy sciences programs,
where appropriate, help inform the applied research and
development programs of the Department.
(b) Review and Assessment.--The Secretary shall perform an
assessment that establishes measurable cost and performance-
based goals, or that modifies the goals under subsection (a),
as appropriate, for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 for each of
the programs authorized by this division that would enable
each such program to meet the purposes of this division under
section 2003. Such assessment shall be based on the latest
scientific and technical knowledge, and shall also take into
consideration, as appropriate, the comparative environmental
impacts (including emissions of greenhouse gases) of the
energy saved or produced by specific programs.
(c) Consultation.--In establishing the measurable cost and
performance-based goals under subsection (b), the Secretary
shall consult with the private sector, institutions of higher
learning, national laboratories, environmental organizations,
professional and technical societies, and any other persons
as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(d) Schedule.--The Secretary shall--
(1) issue and publish in the Federal Register a set of
draft measurable cost and performance-based goals for the
programs authorized by this division for public comment--
(A) in the case of a program established before the date of
the enactment of this Act, not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) in the case of a program not established before the
date of the enactment of this Act, not later than 120 days
after the date of establishment of the program;
(2) not later than 60 days after the date of publication
under paragraph (1), after taking into consideration any
public comments received, transmit to the Congress and
publish in the Federal Register the final measurable cost and
performance-based goals; and
(3) update all such cost and performance-based goals on a
biennial basis.
SEC. 2005. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this division, except as otherwise
provided--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(3) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
and
(4) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
SEC. 2006. AUTHORIZATIONS.
Authorizations of appropriations under this division are
for environmental research and development, scientific and
energy research, development, and demonstration, and
commercial application of energy technology programs,
projects, and activities.
SEC. 2007. BALANCE OF FUNDING PRIORITIES.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the funding of the various programs authorized by titles
I through IV of this division should remain in the same
proportion to each other as provided in this division,
regardless of the total amount of funding made available for
those programs.
(b) Report to Congress.--If for fiscal year 2002, 2003, or
2004 the amounts appropriated in general appropriations Acts
for the programs authorized in titles I through IV of this
division are not in the same proportion to one another as are
the authorizations for such programs in this division, the
Secretary and the Administrator shall, within 60 days after
the date of the enactment of the last general appropriations
Act appropriating amounts for such programs, transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report describing the
programs, projects, and activities that would have been
funded if the proportions provided for in this division had
been maintained in the appropriations. The amount
appropriated for the program receiving the highest percentage
of its authorized funding for a fiscal year shall be used as
the baseline for calculating the proportional deficiencies of
appropriations for other programs in that fiscal year.
TITLE I--ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Subtitle A--Alternative Fuel Vehicles
SEC. 2101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Acceleration Act of 2001''.
[[Page 23564]]
SEC. 2102. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this subtitle, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Alternative fuel vehicle.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``alternative fuel vehicle'' means a motor vehicle
that is powered--
(i) in whole or in part by electricity, including
electricity supplied by a fuel cell;
(ii) by liquefied natural gas;
(iii) by compressed natural gas;
(iv) by liquefied petroleum gas;
(v) by hydrogen;
(vi) by methanol or ethanol at no less than 85 percent by
volume; or
(vii) by propane.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``alternative fuel vehicle'' does
not include--
(i) any vehicle designed to operate solely on gasoline or
diesel derived from fossil fuels, regardless of whether it
can also be operated on an alternative fuel; or
(ii) any vehicle that the Secretary determines, by rule,
does not yield substantial environmental benefits over a
vehicle operating solely on gasoline or diesel derived from
fossil fuels.
(2) Pilot program.--The term ``pilot program'' means the
competitive grant program established under section 2103.
(3) Ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicle.--The term ``ultra-low
sulfur diesel vehicle'' means a vehicle powered by a heavy-
duty diesel engine that--
(A) is fueled by diesel fuel which contains sulfur at not
more than 15 parts per million; and
(B) emits not more than the lesser of--
(i) for vehicles manufactured in--
(I) model years 2001 through 2003, 3.0 grams per brake
horsepower-hour of nonmethane hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen and .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of
particulate matter; and
(II) model years 2004 through 2006, 2.5 grams per brake
horsepower-hour of nonmethane hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen and .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of
particulate matter; or
(ii) the emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons, oxides of
nitrogen, and particulate matter of the best performing
technology of ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles of the same
type that are commercially available.
SEC. 2103. PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
competitive grant pilot program to provide not more than 15
grants to State governments, local governments, or
metropolitan transportation authorities to carry out a
project or projects for the purposes described in subsection
(b).
(b) Grant Purposes.--Grants under this section may be used
for the following purposes:
(1) The acquisition of alternative fuel vehicles,
including--
(A) passenger vehicles;
(B) buses used for public transportation or transportation
to and from schools;
(C) delivery vehicles for goods or services;
(D) ground support vehicles at public airports, including
vehicles to carry baggage or push airplanes away from
terminal gates; and
(E) motorized two-wheel bicycles, scooters, or other
vehicles for use by law enforcement personnel or other State
or local government or metropolitan transportation authority
employees.
(2) The acquisition of ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles.
(3) Infrastructure necessary to directly support an
alternative fuel vehicle project funded by the grant,
including fueling and other support equipment.
(4) Operation and maintenance of vehicles, infrastructure,
and equipment acquired as part of a project funded by the
grant.
(c) Applications.--
(1) Requirements.--The Secretary shall issue requirements
for applying for grants under the pilot program. At a
minimum, the Secretary shall require that applications be
submitted by the head of a State or local government or a
metropolitan transportation authority, or any combination
thereof, and shall include--
(A) at least one project to enable passengers or goods to
be transferred directly from one alternative fuel vehicle or
ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicle to another in a linked
transportation system;
(B) a description of the projects proposed in the
application, including how they meet the requirements of this
subtitle;
(C) an estimate of the ridership or degree of use of the
projects proposed in the application;
(D) an estimate of the air pollution emissions reduced and
fossil fuel displaced as a result of the projects proposed in
the application, and a plan to collect and disseminate
environmental data, related to the projects to be funded
under the grant, over the life of the projects;
(E) a description of how the projects proposed in the
application will be sustainable without Federal assistance
after the completion of the term of the grant;
(F) a complete description of the costs of each project
proposed in the application, including acquisition,
construction, operation, and maintenance costs over the
expected life of the project;
(G) a description of which costs of the projects proposed
in the application will be supported by Federal assistance
under this subtitle; and
(H) documentation to the satisfaction of the Secretary that
diesel fuel containing sulfur at not more than 15 parts per
million is available for carrying out the projects, and a
commitment by the applicant to use such fuel in carrying out
the projects.
(2) Partners.--An applicant under paragraph (1) may carry
out projects under the pilot program in partnership with
public and private entities.
(d) Selection Criteria.--In evaluating applications under
the pilot program, the Secretary shall consider each
applicant's previous experience with similar projects and
shall give priority consideration to applications that--
(1) are most likely to maximize protection of the
environment;
(2) demonstrate the greatest commitment on the part of the
applicant to ensure funding for the proposed projects and the
greatest likelihood that each project proposed in the
application will be maintained or expanded after Federal
assistance under this subtitle is completed; and
(3) exceed the minimum requirements of subsection
(c)(1)(A).
(e) Pilot Project Requirements.--
(1) Maximum amount.--The Secretary shall not provide more
than $20,000,000 in Federal assistance under the pilot
program to any applicant.
(2) Cost sharing.--The Secretary shall not provide more
than 50 percent of the cost, incurred during the period of
the grant, of any project under the pilot program.
(3) Maximum period of grants.--The Secretary shall not fund
any applicant under the pilot program for more than 5 years.
(4) Deployment and distribution.--The Secretary shall seek
to the maximum extent practicable to achieve nationwide
deployment of alternative fuel vehicles through the pilot
program, and shall ensure a broad geographic distribution of
project sites.
(5) Transfer of information and knowledge.--The Secretary
shall establish mechanisms to ensure that the information and
knowledge gained by participants in the pilot program are
transferred among the pilot program participants and to other
interested parties, including other applicants that submitted
applications.
(f) Schedule.--
(1) Publication.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register, Commerce Business Daily, and elsewhere as
appropriate, a request for applications to undertake projects
under the pilot program. Applications shall be due within 6
months of the publication of the notice.
(2) Selection.--Not later than 6 months after the date by
which applications for grants are due, the Secretary shall
select by competitive, peer review all applications for
projects to be awarded a grant under the pilot program.
(g) Limit on Funding.--The Secretary shall provide not less
than 20 percent and not more than 25 percent of the grant
funding made available under this section for the acquisition
of ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles.
SEC. 2104. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Initial Report.--Not later than 2 months after the date
grants are awarded under this subtitle, the Secretary shall
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
containing--
(1) an identification of the grant recipients and a
description of the projects to be funded;
(2) an identification of other applicants that submitted
applications for the pilot program; and
(3) a description of the mechanisms used by the Secretary
to ensure that the information and knowledge gained by
participants in the pilot program are transferred among the
pilot program participants and to other interested parties,
including other applicants that submitted applications.
(b) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the
pilot program ends, the Secretary shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report containing an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot program,
including an assessment of the benefits to the environment
derived from the projects included in the pilot program as
well as an estimate of the potential benefits to the
environment to be derived from widespread application of
alternative fuel vehicles and ultra-low sulfur diesel
vehicles.
SEC. 2105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$200,000,000 to carry out this subtitle, to remain available
until expended.
Subtitle B--Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Systems
SEC. 2121. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Our ability to take advantage of our renewable,
indigenous resources in a cost-effective manner can be
greatly advanced through systems that compensate for the
intermittent nature of these resources through distributed
power hybrid systems.
(2) Distributed power hybrid systems can--
(A) shelter consumers from temporary energy price
volatility created by supply and demand mismatches;
[[Page 23565]]
(B) increase the reliability of energy supply; and
(C) address significant local differences in power and
economic development needs and resource availability that
exist throughout the United States.
(3) Realizing these benefits will require a concerted and
integrated effort to remove market barriers to adopting
distributed power hybrid systems by--
(A) developing the technological foundation that enables
designing, testing, certifying, and operating distributed
power hybrid systems; and
(B) providing the policy framework that reduces such
barriers.
(4) While many of the individual distributed power hybrid
systems components are either available or under development
in existing private and public sector programs, the
capabilities to integrate these components into workable
distributed power hybrid systems that maximize benefits to
consumers in a safe manner often are not coherently being
addressed.
SEC. 2122. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the term ``distributed power hybrid system'' means a
system using 2 or more distributed power sources, operated
together with associated supporting equipment, including
storage equipment, and software necessary to provide electric
power onsite and to an electric distribution system; and
(2) the term ``distributed power source'' means an
independent electric energy source of usually 10 megawatts or
less located close to a residential, commercial, or
industrial load center, including--
(A) reciprocating engines;
(B) turbines;
(C) microturbines;
(D) fuel cells;
(E) solar electric systems;
(F) wind energy systems;
(G) biopower systems;
(H) geothermal power systems; or
(I) combined heat and power systems.
SEC. 2123. STRATEGY.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and
transmit to the Congress a distributed power hybrid systems
strategy showing--
(1) needs best met with distributed power hybrid systems
configurations, especially systems including one or more
solar or renewable power sources; and
(2) technology gaps and barriers (including barriers to
efficient connection with the power grid) that hamper the use
of distributed power hybrid systems.
(b) Elements.--The strategy shall provide for development
of--
(1) system integration tools (including databases, computer
models, software, sensors, and controls) needed to plan,
design, build, and operate distributed power hybrid systems
for maximum benefits;
(2) tests of distributed power hybrid systems, power parks,
and microgrids, including field tests and cost-shared
demonstrations with industry;
(3) design tools to characterize the benefits of
distributed power hybrid systems for consumers, to reduce
testing needs, to speed commercialization, and to generate
data characterizing grid operations, including
interconnection requirements;
(4) precise resource assessment tools to map local
resources for distributed power hybrid systems; and
(5) a comprehensive research, development, demonstration,
and commercial application program to ensure the reliability,
efficiency, and environmental integrity of distributed energy
resources, focused on filling gaps in distributed power
hybrid systems technologies identified under subsection
(a)(2), which may include--
(A) integration of a wide variety of advanced technologies
into distributed power hybrid systems;
(B) energy storage devices;
(C) environmental control technologies;
(D) interconnection standards, protocols, and equipment;
and
(E) ancillary equipment for dispatch and control.
(c) Implementation and Integration.--The Secretary shall
implement the strategy transmitted under subsection (a) and
the research program under subsection (b)(5). Activities
pursuant to the strategy shall be integrated with other
activities of the Department's Office of Power Technologies.
SEC. 2124. HIGH POWER DENSITY INDUSTRY PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
a comprehensive research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application program to improve energy efficiency,
reliability, and environmental responsibility in high power
density industries, such as data centers, server farms,
telecommunications facilities, and heavy industry.
(b) Areas.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall consider technologies that provide--
(1) significant improvement in efficiency of high power
density facilities, and in data and telecommunications
centers, using advanced thermal control technologies;
(2) significant improvements in air-conditioning efficiency
in facilities such as data centers and telecommunications
facilities;
(3) significant advances in peak load reduction; and
(4) advanced real time metering and load management and
control devices.
(c) Implementation and Integration.--Activities pursuant to
this program shall be integrated with other activities of the
Department's Office of Power Technologies.
SEC. 2125. MICRO-COGENERATION ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.
The Secretary shall make competitive, merit-based grants to
consortia of private sector entities for the development of
micro-cogeneration energy technology. The consortia shall
explore the creation of small-scale combined heat and power
through the use of residential heating appliances. There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $20,000,000 to
carry out this section, to remain available until expended.
SEC. 2126. PROGRAM PLAN.
Within 4 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary, in consultation with other appropriate
Federal agencies, shall prepare and transmit to the Congress
a 5-year program plan to guide activities under this
subtitle. In preparing the program plan, the Secretary shall
consult with appropriate representatives of the distributed
energy resources, power transmission, and high power density
industries to prioritize appropriate program areas. The
Secretary shall also seek the advice of utilities, energy
services providers, manufacturers, institutions of higher
learning, other appropriate State and local agencies,
environmental organizations, professional and technical
societies, and any other persons the Secretary considers
appropriate.
SEC. 2127. REPORT.
Two years after date of the enactment of this Act and at 2-
year intervals thereafter, the Secretary, jointly with other
appropriate Federal agencies, shall transmit a report to
Congress describing the progress made to achieve the purposes
of this subtitle.
SEC. 2128. VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, shall work with the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and other
standards development organizations toward the development of
voluntary consensus standards for distributed energy systems
for use in manufacturing and using equipment and systems for
connection with electric distribution systems, for obtaining
electricity from, or providing electricity to, such systems.
Subtitle C--Secondary Electric Vehicle Battery Use
SEC. 2131. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle, the term--
(1) ``battery'' means an energy storage device that
previously has been used to provide motive power in a vehicle
powered in whole or in part by electricity; and
(2) ``associated equipment'' means equipment located at the
location where the batteries will be used that is necessary
to enable the use of the energy stored in the batteries.
SEC. 2132. ESTABLISHMENT OF SECONDARY ELECTRIC VEHICLE
BATTERY USE PROGRAM.
(a) Program.--The Secretary shall establish and conduct a
research, development, and demonstration program for the
secondary use of batteries where the original use of such
batteries was in transportation applications. Such program
shall be--
(1) designed to demonstrate the use of batteries in
secondary application, including utility and commercial power
storage and power quality;
(2) structured to evaluate the performance, including
longevity of useful service life and costs, of such batteries
in field operations, and evaluate the necessary supporting
infrastructure, including disposal and reuse of batteries;
and
(3) coordinated with ongoing secondary battery use programs
underway at the national laboratories and in industry.
(b) Solicitation.--(1) Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
solicit proposals to demonstrate the secondary use of
batteries and associated equipment and supporting
infrastructure in geographic locations throughout the United
States. The Secretary may make additional solicitations for
proposals if the Secretary determines that such solicitations
are necessary to carry out this section.
(2)(A) Proposals submitted in response to a solicitation
under this section shall include--
(i) a description of the project, including the batteries
to be used in the project, the proposed locations and
applications for the batteries, the number of batteries to be
demonstrated, and the type, characteristics, and estimated
life-cycle costs of the batteries compared to other energy
storage devices currently used;
(ii) the contribution, if any, of State or local
governments and other persons to the demonstration project;
(iii) the type of associated equipment to be demonstrated
and the type of supporting infrastructure to be demonstrated;
and
(iv) any other information the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(B) If the proposal includes a lease arrangement, the
proposal shall indicate the terms
[[Page 23566]]
of such lease arrangement for the batteries and associated
equipment.
(c) Selection of Proposals.--(1)(A) The Secretary shall,
not later than 3 months after the closing date established by
the Secretary for receipt of proposals under subsection (b),
select at least 5 proposals to receive financial assistance
under this section.
(B) No one project selected under this section shall
receive more than 25 percent of the funds authorized under
this section. No more than 3 projects selected under this
section shall demonstrate the same battery type.
(2) In selecting a proposal under this section, the
Secretary shall consider--
(A) the ability of the proposer to acquire the batteries
and associated equipment and to successfully manage and
conduct the demonstration project, including the reporting
requirements set forth in paragraph (3)(B);
(B) the geographic and climatic diversity of the projects
selected;
(C) the long-term technical and competitive viability of
the batteries to be used in the project and of the original
manufacturer of such batteries;
(D) the suitability of the batteries for their intended
uses;
(E) the technical performance of the battery, including the
expected additional useful life and the battery's ability to
retain energy;
(F) the environmental effects of the use of and disposal of
the batteries proposed to be used in the project selected;
(G) the extent of involvement of State or local government
and other persons in the demonstration project and whether
such involvement will--
(i) permit a reduction of the Federal cost share per
project; or
(ii) otherwise be used to allow the Federal contribution to
be provided to demonstrate a greater number of batteries; and
(H) such other criteria as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Conditions.--The Secretary shall require that--
(A) as a part of a demonstration project, the users of the
batteries provide to the proposer information regarding the
operation, maintenance, performance, and use of the
batteries, and the proposer provide such information to the
battery manufacturer, for 3 years after the beginning of the
demonstration project;
(B) the proposer provide to the Secretary such information
regarding the operation, maintenance, performance, and use of
the batteries as the Secretary may request during the period
of the demonstration project; and
(C) the proposer provide at least 50 percent of the costs
associated with the proposal.
SEC. 2133. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary,
from amounts authorized under section 2161(a), for purposes
of this subtitle--
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(3) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
Such appropriations may remain available until expended.
Subtitle D--Green School Buses
SEC. 2141. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Clean Green School Bus
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2142. ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot
program for awarding grants on a competitive basis to
eligible entities for the demonstration and commercial
application of alternative fuel school buses and ultra-low
sulfur diesel school buses.
(b) Requirements.--Not later than 3 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
and publish in the Federal register grant requirements on
eligibility for assistance, and on implementation of the
program established under subsection (a), including
certification requirements to ensure compliance with this
subtitle.
(c) Solicitation.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall solicit
proposals for grants under this section.
(d) Eligible Recipients.--A grant shall be awarded under
this section only--
(1) to a local governmental entity responsible for
providing school bus service for one or more public school
systems; or
(2) jointly to an entity described in paragraph (1) and a
contracting entity that provides school bus service to the
public school system or systems.
(e) Types of Grants.--
(1) In general.--Grants under this section shall be for the
demonstration and commercial application of technologies to
facilitate the use of alternative fuel school buses and
ultra-low sulfur diesel school buses in lieu of buses
manufactured before model year 1977 and diesel-powered buses
manufactured before model year 1991.
(2) No economic benefit.--Other than the receipt of the
grant, a recipient of a grant under this section may not
receive any economic benefit in connection with the receipt
of the grant.
(3) Priority of grant applications.--The Secretary shall
give priority to awarding grants to applicants who can
demonstrate the use of alternative fuel buses and ultra-low
sulfur diesel school buses in lieu of buses manufactured
before model year 1977.
(f) Conditions of Grant.--A grant provided under this
section shall include the following conditions:
(1) All buses acquired with funds provided under the grant
shall be operated as part of the school bus fleet for which
the grant was made for a minimum of 5 years.
(2) Funds provided under the grant may only be used--
(A) to pay the cost, except as provided in paragraph (3),
of new alternative fuel school buses or ultra-low sulfur
diesel school buses, including State taxes and contract fees;
and
(B) to provide--
(i) up to 10 percent of the price of the alternative fuel
buses acquired, for necessary alternative fuel infrastructure
if the infrastructure will only be available to the grant
recipient; and
(ii) up to 15 percent of the price of the alternative fuel
buses acquired, for necessary alternative fuel infrastructure
if the infrastructure will be available to the grant
recipient and to other bus fleets.
(3) The grant recipient shall be required to provide at
least the lesser of 15 percent of the total cost of each bus
received or $15,000 per bus.
(4) In the case of a grant recipient receiving a grant to
demonstrate ultra-low sulfur diesel school buses, the grant
recipient shall be required to provide documentation to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that diesel fuel containing
sulfur at not more than 15 parts per million is available for
carrying out the purposes of the grant, and a commitment by
the applicant to use such fuel in carrying out the purposes
of the grant.
(g) Buses.--Funding under a grant made under this section
may be used to demonstrate the use only of new alternative
fuel school buses or ultra-low sulfur diesel school buses--
(1) with a gross vehicle weight of greater than 14,000
pounds;
(2) that are powered by a heavy duty engine;
(3) that, in the case of alternative fuel school buses,
emit not more than--
(A) for buses manufactured in model years 2001 and 2002,
2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour of nonmethane
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and .01 grams per brake
horsepower-hour of particulate matter; and
(B) for buses manufactured in model years 2003 through
2006, 1.8 grams per brake horsepower-hour of nonmethane
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and .01 grams per brake
horsepower-hour of particulate matter; and
(4) that, in the case of ultra-low sulfur diesel school
buses, emit not more than--
(A) for buses manufactured in model years 2001 through
2003, 3.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour of nonmethane
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and .01 grams per brake
horsepower-hour of particulate matter; and
(B) for buses manufactured in model years 2004 through
2006, 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour of nonmethane
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and .01 grams per brake
horsepower-hour of particulate matter,
except that under no circumstances shall buses be acquired
under this section that emit nonmethane hydrocarbons, oxides
of nitrogen, or particulate matter at a rate greater than the
best performing technology of ultra-low sulfur diesel school
buses commercially available at the time the grant is made.
(h) Deployment and Distribution.--The Secretary shall seek
to the maximum extent practicable to achieve nationwide
deployment of alternative fuel school buses through the
program under this section, and shall ensure a broad
geographic distribution of grant awards, with a goal of no
State receiving more than 10 percent of the grant funding
made available under this section for a fiscal year.
(i) Limit on Funding.--The Secretary shall provide not less
than 20 percent and not more than 25 percent of the grant
funding made available under this section for any fiscal year
for the acquisition of ultra-low sulfur diesel school buses.
(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``alternative fuel school bus'' means a bus
powered substantially by electricity (including electricity
supplied by a fuel cell), or by liquefied natural gas,
compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen,
propane, or methanol or ethanol at no less than 85 percent by
volume; and
(2) the term ``ultra-low sulfur diesel school bus'' means a
school bus powered by diesel fuel which contains sulfur at
not more than 15 parts per million.
SEC. 2143. FUEL CELL BUS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish a program for entering into cooperative agreements
with private sector fuel cell bus developers for the
development of fuel cell-powered school buses, and
subsequently with not less than 2 units of local government
using natural gas-powered school buses and such private
sector fuel cell bus developers to demonstrate the use of
fuel cell-powered school buses.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal contribution for
activities funded under this section shall be not less than--
(1) 20 percent for fuel infrastructure development
activities; and
[[Page 23567]]
(2) 50 percent for demonstration activities and for
development activities not described in paragraph (1).
(c) Funding.--No more than $25,000,000 of the amounts
authorized under section 2144 may be used for carrying out
this section for the period encompassing fiscal years 2002
through 2006.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than October
1, 2006, the Secretary shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report that--
(1) evaluates the process of converting natural gas
infrastructure to accommodate fuel cell-powered school buses;
and
(2) assesses the results of the development and
demonstration program under this section.
SEC. 2144. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
for carrying out this subtitle, to remain available until
expended--
(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(5) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
Subtitle E--Next Generation Lighting Initiative
SEC. 2151. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as ``Next Generation Lighting
Initiative Act''.
SEC. 2152. DEFINITION.
In this subtitle, the term ``Lighting Initiative'' means
the ``Next Generation Lighting Initiative'' established under
section 2153(a).
SEC. 2153. NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING INITIATIVE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish a lighting initiative to be known as the ``Next
Generation Lighting Initiative'' to research, develop, and
conduct demonstration activities on advanced lighting
technologies, including white light emitting diodes.
(b) Research Objectives.--The research objectives of the
Lighting Initiative shall be to develop, by 2011, advanced
lighting technologies that, compared to incandescent and
fluorescent lighting technologies as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, are--
(1) longer lasting;
(2) more energy-efficient; and
(3) cost-competitive.
SEC. 2154. STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with other Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall complete a
study on strategies for the development and commercial
application of advanced lighting technologies. The Secretary
shall request a review by the National Academies of Sciences
and Engineering of the study under this subsection, and shall
transmit the results of the study to the appropriate
congressional committees.
(b) Requirements.--The study shall--
(1) develop a comprehensive strategy to implement the
Lighting Initiative; and
(2) identify the research and development, manufacturing,
deployment, and marketing barriers that must be overcome to
achieve a goal of a 25 percent market penetration by advanced
lighting technologies into the incandescent and fluorescent
lighting market by the year 2012.
(c) Implementation.--As soon as practicable after the
review of the study under subsection (a) is transmitted to
the Secretary by the National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering, the Secretary shall adapt the implementation of
the Lighting Initiative taking into consideration the
recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering.
SEC. 2155. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subject to section 2603 of this Act, the
Secretary may make merit-based competitive grants to firms
and research organizations that conduct research,
development, and demonstration projects related to advanced
lighting technologies.
(b) Annual Review.--
(1) In general.--An annual independent review of the grant-
related activities of firms and research organizations
receiving a grant under this section shall be conducted by a
committee appointed by the Secretary under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), or, at the request of
the Secretary, a committee appointed by the National
Academies of Sciences and Engineering.
(2) Requirements.--Using clearly defined standards
established by the Secretary, the review shall assess
technology advances and progress toward commercialization of
the grant-related activities of firms or research
organizations during each fiscal year of the grant program.
(c) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The national
laboratories and other Federal agencies, as appropriate,
shall cooperate with and provide technical and financial
assistance to firms and research organizations conducting
research, development, and demonstration projects carried out
under this subtitle.
Subtitle F--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 2161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Operation and Maintenance.--In addition to amounts
authorized to be appropriated under section 2105, section
2125, and section 2144, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for subtitle B, subtitle C,
subtitle E, and for Energy Conservation operation and
maintenance (including Building Technology, State and
Community Sector (Nongrants), Industry Sector, Transportation
Sector, Power Technologies, and Policy and Management)
$625,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $700,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003, and $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, to remain
available until expended.
(b) Limits on Use of Funds.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated in subsection (a) may be used for--
(1) Building Technology, State and Community Sector--
(A) Residential Building Energy Codes;
(B) Commercial Building Energy Codes;
(C) Lighting and Appliance Standards;
(D) Weatherization Assistance Program; or
(E) State Energy Program; or
(2) Federal Energy Management Program.
Subtitle G--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation
Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 2171. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Authorization
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2172. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator for Office of Air and Radiation Climate Change
Protection Programs $121,942,000 for fiscal year 2002,
$126,800,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $131,800,000 for
fiscal year 2004 to remain available until expended, of
which--
(1) $52,731,000 for fiscal year 2002, $54,800,000 for
fiscal year 2003, and $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall
be for Buildings;
(2) $32,441,000 for fiscal year 2002, $33,700,000 for
fiscal year 2003, and $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall
be for Transportation;
(3) $27,295,000 for fiscal year 2002, $28,400,000 for
fiscal year 2003, and $29,500,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall
be for Industry;
(4) $1,700,000 for fiscal year 2002, $1,800,000 for fiscal
year 2003, and $1,900,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be for
Carbon Removal;
(5) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2002, $2,600,000 for fiscal
year 2003, and $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be for
State and Local Climate; and
(6) $5,275,000 for fiscal year 2002, $5,500,000 for fiscal
year 2003, and $5,700,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be for
International Capacity Building.
SEC. 2173. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Production or Provision of Articles or Services.--None
of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this subtitle
may be used to produce or provide articles or services for
the purpose of selling the articles or services to a person
outside the Federal Government, unless the Administrator
determines that comparable articles or services are not
available from a commercial source in the United States.
(b) Requests for Proposals.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this subtitle may be used by the
Environmental Protection Agency to prepare or initiate
Requests for Proposals for a program if the program has not
been authorized by Congress.
SEC. 2174. COST SHARING.
(a) Research and Development.--Except as otherwise provided
in this subtitle, for research and development programs
carried out under this subtitle, the Administrator shall
require a commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 20
percent of the cost of the project. The Administrator may
reduce or eliminate the non-Federal requirement under this
subsection if the Administrator determines that the research
and development is of a basic or fundamental nature.
(b) Demonstration and Commercial Application.--Except as
otherwise provided in this subtitle, the Administrator shall
require at least 50 percent of the costs directly and
specifically related to any demonstration or commercial
application project under this subtitle to be provided from
non-Federal sources. The Administrator may reduce the non-
Federal requirement under this subsection if the
Administrator determines that the reduction is necessary and
appropriate considering the technological risks involved in
the project and is necessary to meet the objectives of this
subtitle.
(c) Calculation of Amount.--In calculating the amount of
the non-Federal commitment under subsection (a) or (b), the
Administrator may include personnel, services, equipment, and
other resources.
SEC. 2175. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATION AND COMMERCIAL
APPLICATIONS OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.
The Administrator shall provide funding for scientific or
energy demonstration or commercial application of energy
technology programs, projects, or activities of the Office of
Air and Radiation only for technologies or processes that can
be reasonably expected to yield new, measurable benefits to
the cost, efficiency, or performance of the technology or
process.
SEC. 2176. REPROGRAMMING.
(a) Authority.--The Administrator may use amounts
appropriated under this subtitle
[[Page 23568]]
for a program, project, or activity other than the program,
project, or activity for which such amounts were appropriated
only if--
(1) the Administrator has transmitted to the appropriate
congressional committees a report described in subsection (b)
and a period of 30 days has elapsed after such committees
receive the report;
(2) amounts used for the program, project, or activity do
not exceed--
(A) 105 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
project, or activity; or
(B) $250,000 more than the amount authorized for the
program, project, or activity,
whichever is less; and
(3) the program, project, or activity has been presented
to, or requested of, the Congress by the Administrator.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)
is a report containing a full and complete statement of the
action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances
relied upon in support of the proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 30-day period under
subsection (a), there shall be excluded any day on which
either House of Congress is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
(c) Limitations.--(1) In no event may the total amount of
funds obligated pursuant to this subtitle exceed the total
amount authorized to be appropriated by this subtitle.
(2) Funds appropriated pursuant to this subtitle may not be
used for an item for which Congress has declined to authorize
funds.
SEC. 2177. BUDGET REQUEST FORMAT.
The Administrator shall provide to the appropriate
congressional committees, to be transmitted at the same time
as the Environmental Protection Agency's annual budget
request submission, a detailed justification for budget
authorization for the programs, projects, and activities for
which funds are authorized by this subtitle. Each such
document shall include, for the fiscal year for which funding
is being requested and for the 2 previous fiscal years--
(1) a description of, and funding requested or allocated
for, each such program, project, or activity;
(2) an identification of all recipients of funds to conduct
such programs, projects, and activities; and
(3) an estimate of the amounts to be expended by each
recipient of funds identified under paragraph (2).
SEC. 2178. OTHER PROVISIONS.
(a) Annual Operating Plan and Reports.--The Administrator
shall provide simultaneously to the Committee on Science of
the House of Representatives--
(1) any annual operating plan or other operational funding
document, including any additions or amendments thereto; and
(2) any report relating to the environmental research or
development, scientific or energy research, development, or
demonstration, or commercial application of energy technology
programs, projects, or activities of the Environmental
Protection Agency,
provided to any committee of Congress.
(b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall
provide notice to the appropriate congressional committees
not later than 15 days before any reorganization of any
environmental research or development, scientific or energy
research, development, or demonstration, or commercial
application of energy technology program, project, or
activity of the Office of Air and Radiation.
Subtitle H--National Building Performance Initiative
SEC. 2181. NATIONAL BUILDING PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE.
(a) Interagency Group.--Not later than 3 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy shall establish an
Interagency Group responsible for the development and
implementation of a National Building Performance Initiative
to address energy conservation and research and development
and related issues. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall provide necessary administrative support for
the Interagency Group.
(b) Plan.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Interagency Group shall transmit
to the Congress a multiyear implementation plan describing
the Federal role in reducing the costs, including energy
costs, of using, owning, and operating commercial,
institutional, residential, and industrial buildings by 30
percent by 2020. The plan shall include--
(1) research, development, and demonstration of systems and
materials for new construction and retrofit, on the building
envelope and components; and
(2) the collection and dissemination in a usable form of
research results and other pertinent information to the
design and construction industry, government officials, and
the general public.
(c) National Building Performance Advisory Committee.--A
National Building Performance Advisory Committee shall be
established to advise on creation of the plan, review
progress made under the plan, advise on any improvements that
should be made to the plan, and report to the Congress on
actions that have been taken to advance the Nation's
capability in furtherance of the plan. The members shall
include representatives of a broad cross-section of interests
such as the research, technology transfer, architectural,
engineering, and financial communities; materials and systems
suppliers; State, county, and local governments; the
residential, multifamily, and commercial sectors of the
construction industry; and the insurance industry.
(d) Report.--The Interagency Group shall, within 90 days
after the end of each fiscal year, transmit a report to the
Congress describing progress achieved during the preceding
fiscal year by government at all levels and by the private
sector, toward implementing the plan developed under
subsection (b), and including any amendments to the plan.
TITLE II--RENEWABLE ENERGY
Subtitle A--Hydrogen
SEC. 2201. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Robert S. Walker and
George E. Brown, Jr. Hydrogen Energy Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2202. PURPOSES.
Section 102(b) of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended to read
as follows:
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
``(1) to direct the Secretary to conduct research,
development, and demonstration activities leading to the
production, storage, transportation, and use of hydrogen for
industrial, commercial, residential, transportation, and
utility applications;
``(2) to direct the Secretary to develop a program of
technology assessment, information dissemination, and
education in which Federal, State, and local agencies,
members of the energy, transportation, and other industries,
and other entities may participate; and
``(3) to develop methods of hydrogen production that
minimize adverse environmental impacts, with emphasis on
efficient and cost-effective production from renewable energy
resources.''.
SEC. 2203. DEFINITIONS.
Section 102(c) of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated
by paragraph (1) of this section, the following new
paragraph:
``(1) `advisory committee' means the advisory committee
established under section 108;''.
SEC. 2204. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
Section 103 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 103. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
``(a) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of the Robert S. Walker and George E. Brown,
Jr. Hydrogen Energy Act of 2001, and biennially thereafter,
the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a detailed report on
the status and progress of the programs and activities
authorized under this Act.
``(b) Contents.--A report under subsection (a) shall
include, in addition to any views and recommendations of the
Secretary--
``(1) an assessment of the extent to which the program is
meeting the purposes specified in section 102(b);
``(2) a determination of the effectiveness of the
technology assessment, information dissemination, and
education program established under section 106;
``(3) an analysis of Federal, State, local, and private
sector hydrogen-related research, development, and
demonstration activities to identify productive areas for
increased intergovernmental and private-public sector
collaboration; and
``(4) recommendations of the advisory committee for any
improvements needed in the programs and activities authorized
by this Act.''.
SEC. 2205. HYDROGEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 104 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 104. HYDROGEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
conduct a hydrogen research and development program relating
to production, storage, transportation, and use of hydrogen,
with the goal of enabling the private sector to demonstrate
the technical feasibility of using hydrogen for industrial,
commercial, residential, transportation, and utility
applications.
``(b) Elements.--In conducting the program authorized by
this section, the Secretary shall--
``(1) give particular attention to developing an
understanding and resolution of critical technical issues
preventing the introduction of hydrogen as an energy carrier
into the marketplace;
``(2) initiate or accelerate existing research and
development in critical technical issues
[[Page 23569]]
that will contribute to the development of more economical
hydrogen production, storage, transportation, and use,
including critical technical issues with respect to
production (giving priority to those production techniques
that use renewable energy resources as their primary source
of energy for hydrogen production), liquefaction,
transmission, distribution, storage, and use (including use
of hydrogen in surface transportation); and
``(3) survey private sector and public sector hydrogen
research and development activities worldwide, and take steps
to ensure that research and development activities under this
section do not--
``(A) duplicate any available research and development
results; or
``(B) displace or compete with the privately funded
hydrogen research and development activities of United States
industry.
``(c) Evaluation of Technologies.--The Secretary shall
evaluate, for the purpose of determining whether to undertake
or fund research and development activities under this
section, any reasonable new or improved technology that could
lead or contribute to the development of economical hydrogen
production, storage, transportation, and use.
``(d) Research and Development Support.--The Secretary is
authorized to arrange for tests and demonstrations and to
disseminate to researchers and developers information, data,
and other materials necessary to support the research and
development activities authorized under this section and
other efforts authorized under this Act, consistent with
section 106 of this Act.
``(e) Competitive Peer Review.--The Secretary shall carry
out or fund research and development activities under this
section only on a competitive basis using peer review.
``(f) Cost Sharing.--For research and development programs
carried out under this section, the Secretary shall require a
commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of
the cost of the project. The Secretary may reduce or
eliminate the non-Federal requirement under this subsection
if the Secretary determines that the research and development
is of a basic or fundamental nature.''.
SEC. 2206. DEMONSTRATIONS.
Section 105 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``, preferably in self-
contained locations,'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at self-contained
sites'' and inserting ``, which shall include a fuel cell bus
demonstration program to address hydrogen production,
storage, and use in transit bus applications''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Non-Federal Funding
Requirement.--'' after ``(c)''.
SEC. 2207. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.
Section 106 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 106. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, INFORMATION DISSEMINATION,
AND EDUCATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Program.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with
the advisory committee, conduct a program designed to
accelerate wider application of hydrogen production, storage,
transportation, and use technologies, including application
in foreign countries to increase the global market for the
technologies and foster global economic development without
harmful environmental effects.
``(b) Information.--The Secretary, in carrying out the
program authorized by subsection (a), shall--
``(1) undertake an update of the inventory and assessment,
required under section 106(b)(1) of this Act as in effect
before the date of the enactment of the Robert S. Walker and
George E. Brown, Jr. Hydrogen Energy Act of 2001, of hydrogen
technologies and their commercial capability to economically
produce, store, transport, or use hydrogen in industrial,
commercial, residential, transportation, and utility sector;
and
``(2) develop, with other Federal agencies as appropriate
and industry, an information exchange program to improve
technology transfer for hydrogen production, storage,
transportation, and use, which may consist of workshops,
publications, conferences, and a database for the use by the
public and private sectors.''.
SEC. 2208. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.
Section 107 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (a) to read as
follows:
``(1) shall establish a central point for the coordination
of all hydrogen research, development, and demonstration
activities of the Department; and''; and
(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with other
Federal agencies as appropriate, and the advisory committee,
in carrying out the Secretary's authorities pursuant to this
Act.''.
SEC. 2209. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Section 108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 108. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall enter into
appropriate arrangements with the National Academies of
Sciences and Engineering to establish an advisory committee
consisting of experts drawn from domestic industry, academia,
Governmental laboratories, and financial, environmental, and
other organizations, as appropriate, to review and advise on
the progress made through the programs and activities
authorized under this Act.
``(b) Cooperation.--The heads of Federal agencies shall
cooperate with the advisory committee in carrying out this
section and shall furnish to the advisory committee such
information as the advisory committee reasonably deems
necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Review.--The advisory committee shall review and make
any necessary recommendations to the Secretary on--
``(1) the implementation and conduct of programs and
activities authorized under this Act; and
``(2) the economic, technological, and environmental
consequences of the deployment of hydrogen production,
storage, transportation, and use systems.
``(d) Responsibilities of the Secretary.--The Secretary
shall consider, but need not adopt, any recommendations of
the advisory committee under subsection (c). The Secretary
shall provide an explanation of the reasons that any such
recommendations will not be implemented and include such
explanation in the report to Congress under section 103(a) of
this Act.''.
SEC. 2210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 109 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Research and Development; Advisory Committee.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry
out sections 104 and 108--
``(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(2) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(4) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(5) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
``(b) Demonstration.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 105--
``(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(4) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(5) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
SEC. 2211. REPEAL.
(a) Repeal.--Title II of the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2 of the Hydrogen Future
Act of 1996 is amended by striking ``titles II and III'' and
inserting ``title III''.
Subtitle B--Bioenergy
SEC. 2221. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Bioenergy Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2222. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that bioenergy has potential to help--
(1) meet the Nation's energy needs;
(2) reduce reliance on imported fuels;
(3) promote rural economic development;
(4) provide for productive utilization of agricultural
residues and waste materials, and forestry residues and
byproducts; and
(5) protect the environment.
SEC. 2223. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the term ``bioenergy'' means energy derived from any
organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring
basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood
wastes and residues, plants (including aquatic plants),
grasses, residues, fibers, and animal and other organic
wastes;
(2) the term ``biofuels'' includes liquid or gaseous fuels,
industrial chemicals, or both;
(3) the term ``biopower'' includes the generation of
electricity or process steam or both; and
(4) the term ``integrated bioenergy research and
development'' includes biopower and biofuels applications.
SEC. 2224. AUTHORIZATION.
The Secretary is authorized to conduct environmental
research and development, scientific and energy research,
development, and demonstration, and commercial application of
energy technology programs, projects, and activities related
to bioenergy, including biopower energy systems, biofuels
energy systems, and integrated bioenergy research and
development.
SEC. 2225. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Biopower Energy Systems.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for Biopower Energy Systems
programs, projects, and activities--
(1) $45,700,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $52,500,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $60,300,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $69,300,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(5) $79,600,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(b) Biofuels Energy Systems.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for biofuels energy systems
programs, projects, and activities--
[[Page 23570]]
(1) $53,500,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $61,400,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $70,600,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $81,100,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(5) $93,200,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(c) Integrated Bioenergy Research and Development.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for
integrated bioenergy research and development programs,
projects, and activities, $49,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2002 through 2006. Activities funded under this
subsection shall be coordinated with ongoing related programs
of other Federal agencies, including the Plant Genome Program
of the National Science Foundation. Of the funds authorized
under this subsection, at least $5,000,000 for each fiscal
year shall be for training and education targeted to minority
and social disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
(d) Integrated Applications.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under this subtitle may be used to assist in the
planning, design, and implementation of projects to convert
rice straw and barley grain into biopower or biofuels.
Subtitle C--Transmission Infrastructure Systems
SEC. 2241. TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND COMMERCIAL
APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
a comprehensive research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application program to ensure the reliability,
efficiency, and environmental integrity of electrical
transmission systems. Such program shall include advanced
energy technologies and systems, high capacity
superconducting transmission lines and generators, advanced
grid reliability and efficiency technologies development,
technologies contributing to significant load reductions,
advanced metering, load management and control technologies,
and technology transfer and education.
(b) Technology.--In carrying out this subtitle, the
Secretary may include research, development, and
demonstration on and commercial application of improved
transmission technologies including the integration of the
following technologies into improved transmission systems:
(1) High temperature superconductivity.
(2) Advanced transmission materials.
(3) Self-adjusting equipment, processes, or software for
survivability, security, and failure containment.
(4) Enhancements of energy transfer over existing lines.
(5) Any other infrastructure technologies, as appropriate.
SEC. 2242. PROGRAM PLAN.
Within 4 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary, in consultation with other appropriate
Federal agencies, shall prepare and transmit to Congress a 5-
year program plan to guide activities under this subtitle. In
preparing the program plan, the Secretary shall consult with
appropriate representatives of the transmission
infrastructure systems industry to select and prioritize
appropriate program areas. The Secretary shall also seek the
advice of utilities, energy services providers,
manufacturers, institutions of higher learning, other
appropriate State and local agencies, environmental
organizations, professional and technical societies, and any
other persons as the Secretary considers appropriate.
SEC. 2243. REPORT.
Two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
at 2-year intervals thereafter, the Secretary, in
consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, shall
transmit a report to Congress describing the progress made to
achieve the purposes of this subtitle and identifying any
additional resources needed to continue the development and
commercial application of transmission infrastructure
technologies.
Subtitle D--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 2261. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Operation and Maintenance.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for Renewable Energy operation
and maintenance, including activities under subtitle C,
Geothermal Technology Development, Hydropower, Concentrating
Solar Power, Photovoltaic Energy Systems, Solar Building
Technology Research, Wind Energy Systems, High Temperature
Superconducting Research and Development, Energy Storage
Systems, Transmission Reliability, International Renewable
Energy Program, Renewable Energy Production Incentive
Program, Renewable Program Support, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, and Program Direction, and including amounts
authorized under the amendment made by section 2210 and
amounts authorized under section 2225, $535,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, $639,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and
$683,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, to remain available until
expended.
(b) Wave Powered Electric Generation.--Within the amounts
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out a research
program, in conjunction with other appropriate Federal
agencies, on wave powered electric generation.
(c) Assessment of Renewable Energy Resources.--
(1) In general.--Using funds authorized in subsection (a),
of this section, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Congress, within 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, an assessment of all renewable energy resources
available within the United States.
(2) Resource assessment.--Such report shall include a
detailed inventory describing the available amount and
characteristics of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal,
hydroelectric, and other renewable energy sources, and an
estimate of the costs needed to develop each resource. The
report shall also include such other information as the
Secretary believes would be useful in siting renewable energy
generation, such as appropriate terrain, population and load
centers, nearby energy infrastructure, and location of energy
resources.
(3) Availability.--The information and cost estimates in
this report shall be updated annually and made available to
the public, along with the data used to create the report.
(4) Sunset.--This subsection shall expire at the end of
fiscal year 2004.
(d) Limits on Use of Funds.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated in subsection (a) may be used for--
(1) Departmental Energy Management Program; or
(2) Renewable Indian Energy Resources.
TITLE III--NUCLEAR ENERGY
Subtitle A--University Nuclear Science and Engineering
SEC. 2301. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as ``Department of Energy
University Nuclear Science and Engineering Act''.
SEC. 2302. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) United States university nuclear science and
engineering programs are in a state of serious decline, with
nuclear engineering enrollment at a 35-year low. Since 1980,
the number of nuclear engineering university programs has
declined nearly 40 percent, and over two-thirds of the
faculty in these programs are 45 years of age or older. Also,
since 1980, the number of university research and training
reactors in the United States has declined by over 50
percent. Most of these reactors were built in the late 1950s
and 1960s with 30-year to 40-year operating licenses, and
many will require relicensing in the next several years.
(2) A decline in a competent nuclear workforce, and the
lack of adequately trained nuclear scientists and engineers,
will affect the ability of the United States to solve future
nuclear waste storage issues, operate existing and design
future fission reactors in the United States, respond to
future nuclear events worldwide, help stem the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, and design and operate naval nuclear
reactors.
(3) The Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, a principal Federal agency for
civilian research in nuclear science and engineering, is well
suited to help maintain tomorrow's human resource and
training investment in the nuclear sciences and engineering.
SEC. 2303. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, through the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, shall support a
program to maintain the Nation's human resource investment
and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and engineering
consistent with the Department's statutory authorities
related to civilian nuclear research, development, and
demonstration and commercial application of energy
technology.
(b) Duties of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology.--In carrying out the program under this subtitle,
the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology shall--
(1) develop a robust graduate and undergraduate fellowship
program to attract new and talented students;
(2) assist universities in recruiting and retaining new
faculty in the nuclear sciences and engineering through a
Junior Faculty Research Initiation Grant Program;
(3) maintain a robust investment in the fundamental nuclear
sciences and engineering through the Nuclear Engineering
Education Research Program;
(4) encourage collaborative nuclear research among
industry, national laboratories, and universities through the
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative;
(5) assist universities in maintaining reactor
infrastructure; and
(6) support communication and outreach related to nuclear
science and engineering.
(c) Maintaining University Research and Training Reactors
and Associated Infrastructure.--The Secretary, through the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, shall
provide for the following university research and training
reactor infrastructure maintenance and research activities:
(1) Refueling of university research reactors with low
enriched fuels, upgrade of operational instrumentation, and
sharing of reactors among universities.
(2) In collaboration with the United States nuclear
industry, assistance, where necessary, in relicensing and
upgrading university training reactors as part of a student
training program.
[[Page 23571]]
(3) A university reactor research and training award
program that provides for reactor improvements as part of a
focused effort that emphasizes research, training, and
education.
(d) University-DOE Laboratory Interactions.--The Secretary,
through the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,
shall develop--
(1) a sabbatical fellowship program for university faculty
to spend extended periods of time at Department of Energy
laboratories in the areas of nuclear science and technology;
and
(2) a visiting scientist program in which laboratory staff
can spend time in academic nuclear science and engineering
departments.
The Secretary may under subsection (b)(1) provide for
fellowships for students to spend time at Department of
Energy laboratories in the areas of nuclear science and
technology under the mentorship of laboratory staff.
(e) Operations and Maintenance.--To the extent that the use
of a university research reactor is funded under this
subtitle, funds authorized under this subtitle may be used to
supplement operation of the research reactor during the
investigator's proposed effort. The host institution shall
provide at least 50 percent of the cost of the reactor's
operation.
(f) Merit Review Required.--All grants, contracts,
cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance awards
under this subtitle shall be made only after independent
merit review.
(g) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a 5-year
plan on how the programs authorized in this subtitle will be
implemented. The plan shall include a review of the projected
personnel needs in the fields of nuclear science and
engineering and of the scope of nuclear science and
engineering education programs at the Department and other
Federal agencies.
SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Total Authorization.--The following sums are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary, to remain available
until expended, for the purposes of carrying out this
subtitle:
(1) $30,200,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $41,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $47,900,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $55,600,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $64,100,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(b) Graduate and Undergraduate Fellowships.--Of the funds
authorized by subsection (a), the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section
2303(b)(1):
(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $3,100,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(c) Junior Faculty Research Initiation Grant Program.--Of
the funds authorized by subsection (a), the following sums
are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section
2303(b)(2):
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(d) Nuclear Engineering Education Research Program.--Of the
funds authorized by subsection (a), the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section
2303(b)(3):
(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(e) Communication and Outreach Related to Nuclear Science
and Engineering.--Of the funds authorized by subsection (a),
the following sums are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out section 2303(b)(5):
(1) $200,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $200,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $300,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $300,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $300,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(f) Refueling of University Research Reactors and
Instrumentation Upgrades.--Of the funds authorized by
subsection (a), the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 2303(c)(1):
(1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(g) Relicensing Assistance.--Of the funds authorized by
subsection (a), the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 2303(c)(2):
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(h) Reactor Research and Training Award Program.--Of the
funds authorized by subsection (a), the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section
2303(c)(3):
(1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(i) University-DOE Laboratory Interactions.--Of the funds
authorized by subsection (a), the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 2303(d):
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2006.
Subtitle B--Advanced Fuel Recycling Technology Research and Development
Program
SEC. 2321. PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Director of the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, shall
conduct an advanced fuel recycling technology research and
development program to further the availability of
proliferation-resistant fuel recycling technologies as an
alternative to aqueous reprocessing in support of evaluation
of alternative national strategies for spent nuclear fuel and
the Generation IV advanced reactor concepts, subject to
annual review by the Secretary's Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee or other independent entity, as
appropriate.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall report on the activities
of the advanced fuel recycling technology research and
development program, as part of the Department's annual
budget submission.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this
section--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004.
Subtitle C--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 2341. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE.
(a) Program.--The Secretary, through the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology, shall conduct a Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative for grants to be competitively
awarded and subject to peer review for research relating to
nuclear energy.
(b) Objectives.--The program shall be directed toward
accomplishing the objectives of--
(1) developing advanced concepts and scientific
breakthroughs in nuclear fission and reactor technology to
address and overcome the principal technical and scientific
obstacles to the expanded use of nuclear energy in the United
States;
(2) advancing the state of nuclear technology to maintain a
competitive position in foreign markets and a future domestic
market;
(3) promoting and maintaining a United States nuclear
science and engineering infrastructure to meet future
technical challenges;
(4) providing an effective means to collaborate on a cost-
shared basis with international agencies and research
organizations to address and influence nuclear technology
development worldwide; and
(5) promoting United States leadership and partnerships in
bilateral and multilateral nuclear energy research.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this
section--
(1) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004.
SEC. 2342. NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM.
(a) Program.--The Secretary, through the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology, shall conduct a Nuclear
Energy Plant Optimization research and development program
jointly with industry and cost-shared by industry by at least
50 percent and subject to annual review by the Secretary's
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee or other
independent entity, as appropriate.
(b) Objectives.--The program shall be directed toward
accomplishing the objectives of--
(1) managing long-term effects of component aging; and
(2) improving the efficiency and productivity of existing
nuclear power stations.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this
section--
(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2003 and
2004.
SEC. 2343. NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, shall conduct a study
of Generation IV nuclear energy systems, including
development of a technology roadmap and performance of
research and development necessary to make an informed
technical decision regarding the most promising candidates
for commercial application.
(b) Reactor Characteristics.--To the extent practicable, in
conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall study nuclear energy systems that offer the highest
probability of achieving the goals for Generation IV nuclear
energy systems, including--
(1) economics competitive with any other generators;
[[Page 23572]]
(2) enhanced safety features, including passive safety
features;
(3) substantially reduced production of high-level waste,
as compared with the quantity of waste produced by reactors
in operation on the date of the enactment of this Act;
(4) highly proliferation-resistant fuel and waste;
(5) sustainable energy generation including optimized fuel
utilization; and
(6) substantially improved thermal efficiency, as compared
with the thermal efficiency of reactors in operation on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult with appropriate
representatives of industry, institutions of higher
education, Federal agencies, and international, professional,
and technical organizations.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the
Secretary shall transmit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report describing the activities of the
Secretary under this section, and plans for research and
development leading to a public/private cooperative
demonstration of one or more Generation IV nuclear energy
systems.
(2) Contents.--The report shall contain--
(A) an assessment of all available technologies;
(B) a summary of actions needed for the most promising
candidates to be considered as viable commercial options
within the five to ten years after the date of the report,
with consideration of regulatory, economic, and technical
issues;
(C) a recommendation of not more than three promising
Generation IV nuclear energy system concepts for further
development;
(D) an evaluation of opportunities for public/private
partnerships;
(E) a recommendation for structure of a public/private
partnership to share in development and construction costs;
(F) a plan leading to the selection and conceptual design,
by September 30, 2004, of at least one Generation IV nuclear
energy system concept recommended under subparagraph (C) for
demonstration through a public/private partnership;
(G) an evaluation of opportunities for siting demonstration
facilities on Department of Energy land; and
(H) a recommendation for appropriate involvement of other
Federal agencies.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
and to carry out the recommendations in the report
transmitted under subsection (d)--
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004.
SEC. 2344. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Operation and Maintenance.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out activities
authorized under this title for nuclear energy operation and
maintenance, including amounts authorized under sections
2304(a), 2321(c), 2341(c), 2342(c), and 2343(e), and
including Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Test Reactor
Landlord, and Program Direction, $191,200,000 for fiscal year
2002, $199,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $207,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004, to remain available until expended.
(b) Construction.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary--
(1) $950,000 for fiscal year 2002, $2,200,000 for fiscal
year 2003, $1,246,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $1,699,000
for fiscal year 2005 for completion of construction of
Project 99-E-200, Test Reactor Area Electric Utility Upgrade,
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; and
(2) $500,000 for fiscal year 2002, $500,000 for fiscal year
2003, $500,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $500,000 for fiscal
year 2005, for completion of construction of Project 95-E-
201, Test Reactor Area Fire and Life Safety Improvements,
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
(c) Limits on Use of Funds.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated in subsection (a) may be used for--
(1) Nuclear Energy Isotope Support and Production;
(2) Argonne National Laboratory-West Operations;
(3) Fast Flux Test Facility; or
(4) Nuclear Facilities Management.
TITLE IV--FOSSIL ENERGY
Subtitle A--Coal
SEC. 2401. COAL AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAMS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $172,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, $179,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and
$186,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, to remain available until
expended, for other coal and related technologies research
and development programs, which shall include--
(1) Innovations for Existing Plants;
(2) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle;
(3) advanced combustion systems;
(4) Turbines;
(5) Sequestration Research and Development;
(6) innovative technologies for demonstration;
(7) Transportation Fuels and Chemicals;
(8) Solid Fuels and Feedstocks;
(9) Advanced Fuels Research; and
(10) Advanced Research.
(b) Limit on use of Funds.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
no funds may be used to carry out the activities authorized
by this section after September 30, 2002, unless the
Secretary has transmitted to the Congress the report required
by this subsection and 1 month has elapsed since that
transmission. The report shall include a plan containing--
(1) a detailed description of how proposals will be
solicited and evaluated, including a list of all activities
expected to be undertaken;
(2) a detailed list of technical milestones for each coal
and related technology that will be pursued;
(3) a description of how the programs authorized in this
section will be carried out so as to complement and not
duplicate activities authorized under division E.
(c) Gasification.--The Secretary shall fund at least one
gasification project with the funds authorized under this
section.
Subtitle B--Oil and Gas
SEC. 2421. PETROLEUM-OIL TECHNOLOGY.
The Secretary shall conduct a program of research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application on
petroleum-oil technology. The program shall address--
(1) Exploration and Production Supporting Research;
(2) Oil Technology Reservoir Management/Extension; and
(3) Effective Environmental Protection.
SEC. 2422. GAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a program of research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application on
natural gas technologies. The program shall address--
(1) Exploration and Production;
(2) Infrastructure; and
(3) Effective Environmental Protection.
SEC. 2423. NATURAL GAS AND OIL DEPOSITS REPORT.
Two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
at 2-year intervals thereafter, the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with other appropriate Federal
agencies, shall transmit a report to the Congress assessing
the contents of natural gas and oil deposits at existing
drilling sites off the coast of Louisiana and Texas.
SEC. 2424. OIL SHALE RESEARCH.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Energy for fiscal year 2002 $10,000,000, to be divided
equally between grants for research on Eastern oil shale and
grants for research on Western oil shale.
Subtitle C--Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Drilling
SEC. 2441. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2442. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the term ``deepwater'' means water depths greater than
200 meters but less than 1,500 meters;
(2) the term ``Fund'' means the Ultra-Deepwater and
Unconventional Gas Research Fund established under section
2450;
(3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001);
(4) the term ``Research Organization'' means the Research
Organization created pursuant to section 2446(a);
(5) the term ``ultra-deepwater'' means water depths greater
than 1,500 meters; and
(6) the term ``unconventional'' means located in heretofore
inaccessible or uneconomic formations on land.
SEC. 2443. ULTRA-DEEPWATER PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall establish a program of research,
development, and demonstration of ultra-deepwater natural gas
and other petroleum exploration and production technologies,
in areas currently available for Outer Continental Shelf
leasing. The program shall be carried out by the Research
Organization as provided in this subtitle.
SEC. 2444. NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY.
The National Energy Technology Laboratory and the United
States Geological Survey, when appropriate, shall carry out
programs of long-term research into new natural gas and other
petroleum exploration and production technologies and
environmental mitigation technologies for production from
unconventional and ultra-deepwater resources, including
methane hydrates. Such Laboratory shall also conduct a
program of research, development, and demonstration of new
technologies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
from unconventional and ultra-deepwater natural gas or other
petroleum exploration and production activities, including
sub-sea floor carbon sequestration technologies.
SEC. 2445. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall, within 3 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish an
Advisory Committee consisting of 7 members, each having
extensive operational knowledge of and experience in the
natural gas and other petroleum exploration and production
industry
[[Page 23573]]
who are not Federal Government employees or contractors. A
minimum of 4 members shall have extensive knowledge of ultra-
deepwater natural gas or other petroleum exploration and
production technologies, a minimum of 2 members shall have
extensive knowledge of unconventional natural gas or other
petroleum exploration and production technologies, and at
least 1 member shall have extensive knowledge of greenhouse
gas emission reduction technologies, including carbon
sequestration.
(b) Function.--The Advisory Committee shall advise the
Secretary on the selection of an organization to create the
Research Organization and on the implementation of this
subtitle.
(c) Compensation.--Members of the Advisory Committee shall
serve without compensation but shall receive travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
applicable provisions under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code.
(d) Administrative Costs.--The costs of activities carried
out by the Secretary and the Advisory Committee under this
subtitle shall be paid or reimbursed from the Fund.
(e) Duration of Advisory Committee.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the
Advisory Committee.
SEC. 2446. RESEARCH ORGANIZATION.
(a) Selection of Research Organization.--The Secretary,
within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
shall solicit proposals from eligible entities for the
creation of the Research Organization, and within 3 months
after such solicitation, shall select an entity to create the
Research Organization.
(b) Eligible Entities.--Entities eligible to create the
Research Organization shall--
(1) have been in existence as of the date of the enactment
of this Act;
(2) be entities exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(3) be experienced in planning and managing programs in
natural gas or other petroleum exploration and production
research, development, and demonstration.
(c) Proposals.--A proposal from an entity seeking to create
the Research Organization shall include a detailed
description of the proposed membership and structure of the
Research Organization.
(d) Functions.--The Research Organization shall--
(1) award grants on a competitive basis to qualified--
(A) research institutions;
(B) institutions of higher education;
(C) companies; and
(D) consortia formed among institutions and companies
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) for the purpose of
conducting research, development, and demonstration of
unconventional and ultra-deepwater natural gas or other
petroleum exploration and production technologies; and
(2) review activities under those grants to ensure that
they comply with the requirements of this subtitle and serve
the purposes for which the grant was made.
SEC. 2447. GRANTS.
(a) Types of Grants.--
(1) Unconventional.--The Research Organization shall award
grants for research, development, and demonstration of
technologies to maximize the value of the Government's
natural gas and other petroleum resources in unconventional
reservoirs, and to develop technologies to increase the
supply of natural gas and other petroleum resources by
lowering the cost and improving the efficiency of exploration
and production of unconventional reservoirs, while improving
safety and minimizing environmental impacts.
(2) Ultra-deepwater.--The Research Organization shall award
grants for research, development, and demonstration of
natural gas or other petroleum exploration and production
technologies to--
(A) maximize the value of the Federal Government's natural
gas and other petroleum resources in the ultra-deepwater
areas;
(B) increase the supply of natural gas and other petroleum
resources by lowering the cost and improving the efficiency
of exploration and production of ultra-deepwater reservoirs;
and
(C) improve safety and minimize the environmental impacts
of ultra-deepwater developments.
(3) Ultra-deepwater architecture.--The Research
Organization shall award a grant to one or more consortia
described in section 2446(d)(1)(D) for the purpose of
developing and demonstrating the next generation architecture
for ultra-deepwater production of natural gas and other
petroleum in furtherance of the purposes stated in paragraph
(2)(A) through (C).
(b) Conditions for Grants.--Grants provided under this
section shall contain the following conditions:
(1) If the grant recipient consists of more than one
entity, the recipient shall provide a signed contract agreed
to by all participating members clearly defining all rights
to intellectual property for existing technology and for
future inventions conceived and developed using funds
provided under the grant, in a manner that is consistent with
applicable laws.
(2) There shall be a repayment schedule for Federal dollars
provided for demonstration projects under the grant in the
event of a successful commercialization of the demonstrated
technology. Such repayment schedule shall provide that the
payments are made to the Secretary with the express intent
that these payments not impede the adoption of the
demonstrated technology in the marketplace. In the event that
such impedance occurs due to market forces or other factors,
the Research Organization shall renegotiate the grant
agreement so that the acceptance of the technology in the
marketplace is enabled.
(3) Applications for grants for demonstration projects
shall clearly state the intended commercial applications of
the technology demonstrated.
(4) The total amount of funds made available under a grant
provided under subsection (a)(3) shall not exceed 50 percent
of the total cost of the activities for which the grant is
provided.
(5) The total amount of funds made available under a grant
provided under subsection (a)(1) or (2) shall not exceed 50
percent of the total cost of the activities covered by the
grant, except that the Research Organization may elect to
provide grants covering a higher percentage, not to exceed 90
percent, of total project costs in the case of grants made
solely to independent producers.
(6) An appropriate amount of funds provided under a grant
shall be used for the broad dissemination of technologies
developed under the grant to interested institutions of
higher education, industry, and appropriate Federal and State
technology entities to ensure the greatest possible benefits
for the public and use of government resources.
(7) Demonstrations of ultra-deepwater technologies for
which funds are provided under a grant may be conducted in
ultra-deepwater or deepwater locations.
(c) Allocation of Funds.--Funds available for grants under
this subtitle shall be allocated as follows:
(1) 15 percent shall be for grants under subsection (a)(1).
(2) 15 percent shall be for grants under subsection (a)(2).
(3) 60 percent shall be for grants under subsection (a)(3).
(4) 10 percent shall be for carrying out section 2444.
SEC. 2448. PLAN AND FUNDING.
(a) Transmittal to Secretary.--The Research Organization
shall transmit to the Secretary an annual plan proposing
projects and funding of activities under each paragraph of
section 2447(a).
(b) Review.--The Secretary shall have 1 month to review the
annual plan, and shall approve the plan, if it is consistent
with this subtitle. If the Secretary approves the plan, the
Secretary shall provide funding as proposed in the plan.
(c) Disapproval.--If the Secretary does not approve the
plan, the Secretary shall notify the Research Organization of
the reasons for disapproval and shall withhold funding until
a new plan is submitted which the Secretary approves. Within
1 month after notifying the Research Organization of a
disapproval, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate
congressional committees of the disapproval.
SEC. 2449. AUDIT.
The Secretary shall retain an independent, commercial
auditor to determine the extent to which the funds authorized
by this subtitle have been expended in a manner consistent
with the purposes of this subtitle. The auditor shall
transmit a report annually to the Secretary, who shall
transmit the report to the appropriate congressional
committees, along with a plan to remedy any deficiencies
cited in the report.
SEC. 2450. FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Ultra-Deepwater
and Unconventional Gas Research Fund'' which shall be
available for obligation to the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts for allocation under section 2447(c).
(b) Funding Sources.--
(1) Loans from treasury.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $900,000,000 for the period
encompassing fiscal years 2002 through 2009. Such amounts
shall be deposited by the Secretary in the Fund, and shall be
considered loans from the Treasury. Income received by the
United States in connection with any ultra-deepwater oil and
gas leases shall be deposited in the Treasury and considered
as repayment for the loans under this paragraph.
(2) Additional appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary
for the fiscal years 2002 through 2009, to be deposited in
the Fund.
(3) Oil and gas lease income.--To the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, not more than 7.5 percent of
the income of the United States from Federal oil and gas
leases may be deposited in the Fund for fiscal years 2002
through 2009.
SEC. 2451. SUNSET.
No funds are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out
this subtitle after fiscal year 2009. The Research
Organization shall
[[Page 23574]]
be terminated when it has expended all funds made available
pursuant to this subtitle.
Subtitle D--Fuel Cells
SEC. 2461. FUEL CELLS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a program of
research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application on fuel cells. The program shall address--
(1) Advanced Research;
(2) Systems Development;
(3) Vision 21-Hybrids; and
(4) Innovative Concepts.
(b) Manufacturing Production and Processes.--In addition to
the program under subsection (a), the Secretary, in
consultation other Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall
establish a program for the demonstration of fuel cell
technologies, including fuel cell proton exchange membrane
technology, for commercial, residential, and transportation
applications. The program shall specifically focus on
promoting the application of and improved manufacturing
production and processes for fuel cell technologies.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Within the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under section 2481(a), there
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the
purpose of carrying out subsection (b), $28,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Subtitle E--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 2481. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Operation and Maintenance.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for operation and maintenance
for subtitle B and subtitle D, and for Fossil Energy Research
and Development Headquarters Program Direction, Field Program
Direction, Plant and Capital Equipment, Cooperative Research
and Development, Import/Export Authorization, and Advanced
Metallurgical Processes $282,000,000 for fiscal year 2002,
$293,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $305,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004, to remain available until expended.
(b) Limits on Use of Funds.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated in subsection (a) may be used for--
(1) Gas Hydrates.
(2) Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration; or
(3) research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application on coal and related technologies, including
activities under subtitle A.
TITLE V--SCIENCE
Subtitle A--Fusion Energy Sciences
SEC. 2501. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Fusion Energy Sciences
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2502. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) economic prosperity is closely linked to an affordable
and ample energy supply;
(2) environmental quality is closely linked to energy
production and use;
(3) population, worldwide economic development, energy
consumption, and stress on the environment are all expected
to increase substantially in the coming decades;
(4) the few energy options with the potential to meet
economic and environmental needs for the long-term future
should be pursued as part of a balanced national energy plan;
(5) fusion energy is an attractive long-term energy source
because of the virtually inexhaustible supply of fuel, and
the promise of minimal adverse environmental impact and
inherent safety;
(6) the National Research Council, the President's
Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology, and the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board have each recently
reviewed the Fusion Energy Sciences Program and each strongly
supports the fundamental science and creative innovation of
the program, and has confirmed that progress toward the goal
of producing practical fusion energy has been excellent,
although much scientific and engineering work remains to be
done;
(7) each of these reviews stressed the need for a magnetic
fusion burning plasma experiment to address key scientific
issues and as a necessary step in the development of fusion
energy;
(8) the National Research Council has also called for a
broadening of the Fusion Energy Sciences Program research
base as a means to more fully integrate the fusion science
community into the broader scientific community; and
(9) the Fusion Energy Sciences Program budget is inadequate
to support the necessary science and innovation for the
present generation of experiments, and cannot accommodate the
cost of a burning plasma experiment constructed by the United
States, or even the cost of key participation by the United
States in an international effort.
SEC. 2503. PLAN FOR FUSION EXPERIMENT.
(a) Plan for United States Fusion Experiment.--The
Secretary, on the basis of full consultation with the Fusion
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board, as appropriate, shall develop a plan
for United States construction of a magnetic fusion burning
plasma experiment for the purpose of accelerating scientific
understanding of fusion plasmas. The Secretary shall request
a review of the plan by the National Academy of Sciences, and
shall transmit the plan and the review to the Congress by
July 1, 2004.
(b) Requirements of Plan.--The plan described in subsection
(a) shall--
(1) address key burning plasma physics issues; and
(2) include specific information on the scientific
capabilities of the proposed experiment, the relevance of
these capabilities to the goal of practical fusion energy,
and the overall design of the experiment including its
estimated cost and potential construction sites.
(c) United States Participation in an International
Experiment.--In addition to the plan described in subsection
(a), the Secretary, on the basis of full consultation with
the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, as appropriate, may also
develop a plan for United States participation in an
international burning plasma experiment for the same purpose,
whose construction is found by the Secretary to be highly
likely and where United States participation is cost
effective relative to the cost and scientific benefits of a
domestic experiment described in subsection (a). If the
Secretary elects to develop a plan under this subsection, he
shall include the information described in subsection (b),
and an estimate of the cost of United States participation in
such an international experiment. The Secretary shall request
a review by the National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering of a plan developed under this subsection, and
shall transmit the plan and the review to the Congress not
later than July 1, 2004.
(d) Authorization of Research and Development.--The
Secretary, through the Fusion Energy Sciences Program, may
conduct any research and development necessary to fully
develop the plans described in this section.
SEC. 2504. PLAN FOR FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary, in full consultation with FESAC,
shall develop and transmit to the Congress a plan for the
purpose of ensuring a strong scientific base for the Fusion
Energy Sciences Program and to enable the experiments
described in section 2503. Such plan shall include as its
objectives--
(1) to ensure that existing fusion research facilities and
equipment are more fully utilized with appropriate
measurements and control tools;
(2) to ensure a strengthened fusion science theory and
computational base;
(3) to ensure that the selection of and funding for new
magnetic and inertial fusion research facilities is based on
scientific innovation and cost effectiveness;
(4) to improve the communication of scientific results and
methods between the fusion science community and the wider
scientific community;
(5) to ensure that adequate support is provided to optimize
the design of the magnetic fusion burning plasma experiments
referred to in section 2503;
(6) to ensure that inertial confinement fusion facilities
are utilized to the extent practicable for the purpose of
inertial fusion energy research and development;
(7) to develop a roadmap for a fusion-based energy source
that shows the important scientific questions, the evolution
of confinement configurations, the relation between these two
features, and their relation to the fusion energy goal;
(8) to establish several new centers of excellence,
selected through a competitive peer-review process and
devoted to exploring the frontiers of fusion science;
(9) to ensure that the National Science Foundation, and
other agencies, as appropriate, play a role in extending the
reach of fusion science and in sponsoring general plasma
science; and
(10) to ensure that there be continuing broad assessments
of the outlook for fusion energy and periodic external
reviews of fusion energy sciences.
SEC. 2505. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
for the development and review, but not for implementation,
of the plans described in this subtitle and for activities of
the Fusion Energy Sciences Program $320,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 and $335,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, of which up
to $15,000,000 for each of fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year
2003 may be used to establish several new centers of
excellence, selected through a competitive peer-review
process and devoted to exploring the frontiers of fusion
science.
Subtitle B--Spallation Neutron Source
SEC. 2521. DEFINITION.
For the purposes of this subtitle, the term ``Spallation
Neutron Source'' means Department Project 99-E-334, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
SEC. 2522. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Construction Funding.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source--
(1) $276,300,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $210,571,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $124,600,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $79,800,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
[[Page 23575]]
(5) $41,100,000 for fiscal year 2006 for completion of
construction.
(b) Authorization of Other Project Funding.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for other
project costs (including research and development necessary
to complete the project, preoperations costs, and capital
equipment not related to construction) of the Spallation
Neutron Source $15,353,000 for fiscal year 2002 and
$103,279,000 for the period encompassing fiscal years 2003
through 2006, to remain available until expended through
September 30, 2006.
SEC. 2523. REPORT.
The Secretary shall report on the Spallation Neutron Source
as part of the Department's annual budget submission,
including a description of the achievement of milestones, a
comparison of actual costs to estimated costs, and any
changes in estimated project costs or schedule.
SEC. 2524. LIMITATIONS.
The total amount obligated by the Department, including
prior year appropriations, for the Spallation Neutron Source
may not exceed--
(1) $1,192,700,000 for costs of construction;
(2) $219,000,000 for other project costs; and
(3) $1,411,700,000 for total project cost.
Subtitle C--Facilities, Infrastructure, and User Facilities
SEC. 2541. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the term ``nonmilitary energy laboratory'' means--
(A) Ames Laboratory;
(B) Argonne National Laboratory;
(C) Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;
(E) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
(F) Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(G) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory;
(H) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory;
(I) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center;
(J) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility; or
(K) any other facility of the Department that the
Secretary, in consultation with the Director, Office of
Science and the appropriate congressional committees,
determines to be consistent with the mission of the Office of
Science; and
(2) the term ``user facility'' means--
(A) an Office of Science facility at a nonmilitary energy
laboratory that provides special scientific and research
capabilities, including technical expertise and support as
appropriate, to serve the research needs of the Nation's
universities, industry, private laboratories, Federal
laboratories, and others, including research institutions or
individuals from other nations where reciprocal
accommodations are provided to United States research
institutions and individuals or where the Secretary considers
such accommodation to be in the national interest; and
(B) any other Office of Science funded facility designated
by the Secretary as a user facility.
SEC. 2542. FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT FOR
NONMILITARY ENERGY LABORATORIES.
(a) Facility Policy.--The Secretary shall develop and
implement a least-cost nonmilitary energy laboratory facility
and infrastructure strategy for--
(1) maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, as
needed;
(2) closing unneeded facilities;
(3) making facility modifications; and
(4) building new facilities.
(b) Plan.--The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive 10-
year plan for conducting future facility maintenance, making
repairs, modifications, and new additions, and constructing
new facilities at each nonmilitary energy laboratory. Such
plan shall provide for facilities work in accordance with the
following priorities:
(1) Providing for the safety and health of employees,
visitors, and the general public with regard to correcting
existing structural, mechanical, electrical, and
environmental deficiencies.
(2) Providing for the repair and rehabilitation of existing
facilities to keep them in use and prevent deterioration, if
feasible.
(3) Providing engineering design and construction services
for those facilities that require modification or additions
in order to meet the needs of new or expanded programs.
(c) Report.--
(1) Transmittal.--Within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
containing the plan prepared under subsection (b).
(2) Contents.--For each nonmilitary energy laboratory, such
report shall contain--
(A) the current priority list of proposed facilities and
infrastructure projects, including cost and schedule
requirements;
(B) a current ten-year plan that demonstrates the
reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet
its missions and to address its long-term operational costs
and return on investment;
(C) the total current budget for all facilities and
infrastructure funding; and
(D) the current status of each facilities and
infrastructure project compared to the original baseline
cost, schedule, and scope.
(3) Additional elements.--The report shall also--
(A) include a plan for new facilities and facility
modifications at each nonmilitary energy laboratory that will
be required to meet the Department's changing missions of the
twenty-first century, including schedules and estimates for
implementation, and including a section outlining long-term
funding requirements consistent with anticipated budgets and
annual authorization of appropriations;
(B) address the coordination of modernization and
consolidation of facilities among the nonmilitary energy
laboratories in order to meet changing mission requirements;
and
(C) provide for annual reports to the appropriate
congressional committees on accomplishments, conformance to
schedules, commitments, and expenditures.
SEC. 2543. USER FACILITIES.
(a) Notice Requirement.--When the Department makes a user
facility available to universities and other potential users,
or seeks input from universities and other potential users
regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user
facility or a proposed user facility, the Department shall
ensure broad public notice of such availability or such need
for input to universities and other potential users.
(b) Competition Requirement.--When the Department considers
the participation of a university or other potential user in
the establishment or operation of a user facility, the
Department shall employ full and open competition in
selecting such a participant.
(c) Prohibition.--The Department may not redesignate a user
facility, as defined by section 2541(b) as something other
than a user facility for avoid the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b).
Subtitle D--Advisory Panel on Office of Science
SEC. 2561. ESTABLISHMENT.
The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, in consultation with the Secretary, shall establish
an Advisory Panel on the Office of Science comprised of
knowledgeable individuals to--
(1) address concerns about the current status and the
future of scientific research supported by the Office;
(2) examine alternatives to the current organizational
structure of the Office within the Department, taking into
consideration existing structures for the support of
scientific research in other Federal agencies and the private
sector; and
(3) suggest actions to strengthen the scientific research
supported by the Office that might be taken jointly by the
Department and Congress.
SEC. 2562. REPORT.
Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Advisory Panel shall transmit its findings and
recommendations in a report to the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and the Secretary. The Director
and the Secretary shall jointly--
(1) consider each of the Panel's findings and
recommendations, and comment on each as they consider
appropriate; and
(2) transmit the Panel's report and the comments of the
Director and the Secretary on the report to the appropriate
congressional committees within 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Department of Energy Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 2581. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Operation and maintenance.--Including the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under
section 2505 for Fusion Energy Sciences and under section
2522(b) for the Spallation Neutron Source, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the Office
of Science (also including subtitle C, High Energy Physics,
Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic
Energy Sciences (except for the Spallation Neutron Source),
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Energy Research
Analysis, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities
Support, Facilities and Infrastructure, Safeguards and
Security, and Program Direction) operation and maintenance
$3,299,558,000 for fiscal year 2002, to remain available
until expended.
(b) Research Regarding Precious Metal Catalysis.--Within
the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
under subsection (a), $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 may be
used to carry out research in the use of precious metals
(excluding platinum, palladium, and rhodium) in catalysis,
either directly though national laboratories, or through the
award of grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts with
public or nonprofit entities.
(c) Construction.--In addition to the amounts authorized to
be appropriated under section 2522(a) for construction of the
Spallation Neutron Source, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for Science--
(1) $19,400,000 for fiscal year 2002, $14,800,000 for
fiscal year 2003, and $8,900,000 for fiscal year 2004 for
completion of constuction of
[[Page 23576]]
Project 98-G-304, Neutrinos at the Main Injector, Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory;
(2) $11,405,000 for fiscal year 2002 for completion of
construction of Project 01-E-300, Laboratory for Comparative
and Functional Genomics, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $8,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003, and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 for completion
of construction of Project 02-SC-002, Project Engineering
Design (PED), Various Locations;
(4) $3,183,000 for fiscal year 2002 for completion of
construction of Project 02-SC-002, Multiprogram Energy
Laboratories Infrastructure Project Engineering Design (PED),
Various Locations; and
(5) $18,633,000 for fiscal year 2002 and $13,029,000 for
fiscal year 2003 for completion of construction of Project
MEL-001, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories, Infrastructure,
Various Locations.
(d) Limits on Use of Funds.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated in subsection (c) may be used for
construction at any national security laboratory as defined
in section 3281(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (50 U.S.C. 2471(1)) or at any nuclear
weapons production facility as defined in section 3281(2) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(50 U.S.C. 2471(2)).
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
Subtitle A--General Provisions for the Department of Energy
SEC. 2601. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES.
(a) Authorized Activities.--Except as otherwise provided in
this division, research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application programs, projects, and activities for
which appropriations are authorized under this division may
be carried out under the procedures of the Federal Nonnuclear
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5901
et seq.), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.), or any other Act under which the Secretary is
authorized to carry out such programs, projects, and
activities, but only to the extent the Secretary is
authorized to carry out such activities under each such Act.
(b) Authorized Agreements.--Except as otherwise provided in
this division, in carrying out research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application programs, projects,
and activities for which appropriations are authorized under
this division, the Secretary may use, to the extent
authorized under applicable provisions of law, contracts,
cooperative agreements, cooperative research and development
agreements under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), grants, joint ventures,
and any other form of agreement available to the Secretary.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``joint venture'' has the meaning given that term under
section 2 of the National Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4301), except that such term may apply
under this section to research, development, demonstration,
and commercial application of energy technology joint
ventures.
(d) Protection of Information.--Section 12(c)(7) of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a(c)(7)), relating to the protection of information,
shall apply to research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application of energy technology programs,
projects, and activities for which appropriations are
authorized under this division.
(e) Inventions.--An invention conceived and developed by
any person using funds provided through a grant under this
division shall be considered a subject invention for the
purposes of chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act).
(f) Outreach.--The Secretary shall ensure that each program
authorized by this division includes an outreach component to
provide information, as appropriate, to manufacturers,
consumers, engineers, architects, builders, energy service
companies, universities, facility planners and managers,
State and local governments, and other entities.
(g) Guidelines and Procedures.--The Secretary shall provide
guidelines and procedures for the transition, where
appropriate, of energy technologies from research through
development and demonstration to commercial application of
energy technology. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
Secretary from--
(1) entering into a contract, cooperative agreement,
cooperative research and development agreement under the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3701 et seq.), grant, joint venture, or any other form of
agreement available to the Secretary under this section that
relates to research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application of energy technology; or
(2) extending a contract, cooperative agreement,
cooperative research and development agreement under the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, grant,
joint venture, or any other form of agreement available to
the Secretary that relates to research, development, and
demonstration to cover commercial application of energy
technology.
(h) Application of Section.--This section shall not apply
to any contract, cooperative agreement, cooperative research
and development agreement under the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.),
grant, joint venture, or any other form of agreement
available to the Secretary that is in effect as of the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2602. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Management and Operating Contracts.--
(1) Competitive procedure requirement.--None of the funds
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary by this
division may be used to award a management and operating
contract for a federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy
laboratory of the Department unless such contract is awarded
using competitive procedures or the Secretary grants, on a
case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation.
The Secretary may not delegate the authority to grant such a
waiver.
(2) Congressional notice.--At least 2 months before a
contract award, amendment, or modification for which the
Secretary intends to grant such a waiver, the Secretary shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
notifying the committees of the waiver and setting forth the
reasons for the waiver.
(b) Production or Provision of Articles or Services.--None
of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
by this division may be used to produce or provide articles
or services for the purpose of selling the articles or
services to a person outside the Federal Government, unless
the Secretary determines that comparable articles or services
are not available from a commercial source in the United
States.
(c) Requests for Proposals.--None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary by this division may be
used by the Department to prepare or initiate Requests for
Proposals for a program if the program has not been
authorized by Congress.
SEC. 2603. COST SHARING.
(a) Research and Development.--Except as otherwise provided
in this division, for research and development programs
carried out under this division, the Secretary shall require
a commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent
of the cost of the project. The Secretary may reduce or
eliminate the non-Federal requirement under this subsection
if the Secretary determines that the research and development
is of a basic or fundamental nature.
(b) Demonstration and Commercial Application.--Except as
otherwise provided in this division, the Secretary shall
require at least 50 percent of the costs directly and
specifically related to any demonstration or commercial
application project under this division to be provided from
non-Federal sources. The Secretary may reduce the non-Federal
requirement under this subsection if the Secretary determines
that the reduction is necessary and appropriate considering
the technological risks involved in the project and is
necessary to meet the objectives of this division.
(c) Calculation of Amount.--In calculating the amount of
the non-Federal commitment under subsection (a) or (b), the
Secretary may include personnel, services, equipment, and
other resources.
SEC. 2604. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATION AND COMMERCIAL
APPLICATION OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.
Except as otherwise provided in this division, the
Secretary shall provide funding for scientific or energy
demonstration and commercial application of energy technology
programs, projects, or activities only for technologies or
processes that can be reasonably expected to yield new,
measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or performance
of the technology or process.
SEC. 2605. REPROGRAMMING.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary may use amounts appropriated
under this division for a program, project, or activity other
than the program, project, or activity for which such amounts
were appropriated only if--
(1) the Secretary has transmitted to the appropriate
congressional committees a report described in subsection (b)
and a period of 30 days has elapsed after such committees
receive the report;
(2) amounts used for the program, project, or activity do
not exceed--
(A) 105 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
project, or activity; or
(B) $250,000 more than the amount authorized for the
program, project, or activity,
whichever is less; and
(3) the program, project, or activity has been presented
to, or requested of, the Congress by the Secretary.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)
is a report containing a full and complete statement of the
action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances
relied upon in support of the proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 30-day period under
subsection (a), there shall be excluded any day on which
either House of Congress is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
[[Page 23577]]
(c) Limitations.--(1) In no event may the total amount of
funds obligated by the Secretary pursuant to this division
exceed the total amount authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary by this division.
(2) Funds appropriated to the Secretary pursuant to this
division may not be used for an item for which Congress has
declined to authorize funds.
Subtitle B--Other Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 2611. NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION.
The Secretary shall provide notice to the appropriate
congressional committees not later than 15 days before any
reorganization of any environmental research or development,
scientific or energy research, development, or demonstration,
or commercial application of energy technology program,
project, or activity of the Department.
SEC. 2612. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.
If, at any time during the construction of a civilian
environmental research and development, scientific or energy
research, development, or demonstration, or commercial
application of energy technology project of the Department
for which no specific funding level is provided by law, the
estimated cost (including any revision thereof) of the
project exceeds $5,000,000, the Secretary may not continue
such construction unless the Secretary has furnished a
complete report to the appropriate congressional committees
explaining the project and the reasons for the estimate or
revision.
SEC. 2613. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
construction on a civilian environmental research and
development, scientific or energy research, development, or
demonstration, or commercial application of energy technology
project of the Department for which funding has been
specifically provided by law may not be started, and
additional obligations may not be incurred in connection with
the project above the authorized funding amount, whenever the
current estimated cost of the construction project exceeds by
more than 10 percent the higher of--
(1) the amount authorized for the project, if the entire
project has been funded by the Congress; or
(2) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project
as shown in the most recent budget justification data
submitted to Congress.
(b) Notice.--An action described in subsection (a) may be
taken if--
(1) the Secretary has submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the proposed actions and
the circumstances making such actions necessary; and
(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which
the report is received by the committees.
(c) Exclusion.--In the computation of the 30-day period
described in subsection (b)(2), there shall be excluded any
day on which either House of Congress is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain.
(d) Exception.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to
any construction project that has a current estimated cost of
less than $5,000,000.
SEC. 2614. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.
(a) Requirement for Conceptual Design.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2) and except as provided in paragraph (3), before
submitting to Congress a request for funds for a construction
project that is in support of a civilian environmental
research and development, scientific or energy research,
development, or demonstration, or commercial application of
energy technology program, project, or activity of the
Department, the Secretary shall complete a conceptual design
for that project.
(2) If the estimated cost of completing a conceptual design
for a construction project exceeds $750,000, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a request for funds for the
conceptual design before submitting a request for funds for
the construction project.
(3) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a
request for funds for a construction project, the total
estimated cost of which is less than $5,000,000.
(b) Authority for Construction Design.--(1) The Secretary
may carry out construction design (including architectural
and engineering services) in connection with any proposed
construction project that is in support of a civilian
environmental research and development, scientific or energy
research, development, and demonstration, or commercial
application of energy technology program, project, or
activity of the Department if the total estimated cost for
such design does not exceed $250,000.
(2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in
connection with any construction project described in
paragraph (1) exceeds $250,000, funds for such design must be
specifically authorized by law.
SEC. 2615. NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP MANDATED
REPORTS.
(a) The Secretary's Review of Energy Efficiency Renewable
Energy, and Alternative Energy Research and Development.--
Upon completion of the Secretary's review of current funding
and historic performance of the Department's energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative energy research
and development programs in response to the recommendations
of the May 16, 2001, Report of the National Energy Policy
Development Group, the Secretary shall transmit a report
containing the results of such review to the appropriate
congressional committees.
(b) Review and Recommendations on Using the Nation's Energy
Resources More Efficiently.--Upon completion of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology reviewing and making
recommendations on using the Nation's energy resources more
efficiently, in response to the recommendation of the May 16,
2001, Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group,
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
shall transmit a report containing the results of such review
and recommendations to the appropriate congressional
committees.
SEC. 2616. PERIODIC REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS.
The Secretary shall enter into appropriate arrangements
with the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering to
ensure that there be periodic reviews and assessments of the
programs authorized by this division, as well as the
measurable cost and performance-based goals for such programs
as established under section 2004, and the progress on
meeting such goals. Such reviews and assessments shall be
conducted at least every 5 years, or more often as the
Secretary considers necessary, and the Secretary shall
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees reports
containing the results of such reviews and assessments.
DIVISION D
SEC. 4101. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
Section 4(b) of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 9816 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``, including capabilities regarding
the provision of energy efficient, affordable housing and
residential energy conservation measures''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``, including such activities relating to the
provision of energy efficient, affordable housing and
residential energy conservation measures that benefit low-
income families''.
SEC. 4102. INCREASE OF CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES CAP FOR ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES.
Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or efficiency'' after ``energy
conservation'';
(2) by striking ``, and except that'' and inserting ``;
except that''; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; and except that each percentage limitation
under this paragraph on the amount of assistance provided
under this title that may be used for the provision of public
services is hereby increased by 10 percent, but such
percentage increase may be used only for the provision of
public services concerning energy conservation or
efficiency''.
SEC. 4103. FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENT HOUSING.
(a) Single Family Housing Mortgage Insurance.--Section
203(b)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2))
is amended, in the first undesignated paragraph beginning
after subparagraph (B)(iii) (relating to solar energy
systems)--
(1) by inserting ``or paragraph (10)''; and
(2) by striking ``20 percent'' and inserting ``30
percent''.
(b) Multifamily Housing Mortgage Insurance.--Section 207(c)
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)) is amended,
in the second undesignated paragraph beginning after
paragraph (3) (relating to solar energy systems and
residential energy conservation measures), by striking ``20
percent'' and inserting ``30 percent''.
(c) Cooperative Housing Mortgage Insurance.--Section 213(p)
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(p)) is amended
by striking ``20 per centum'' and inserting ``30 percent''.
(d) Rehabilitation and Neighborhood Conservation Housing
Mortgage Insurance.--Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)) is
amended by striking ``20 per centum'' and inserting ``30
percent''.
(e) Low-Income Multifamily Housing Mortgage Insurance.--
Section 221(k) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715l(k)) is amended by striking ``20 per centum'' and
inserting ``30 percent''.
(f) Elderly Housing Mortgage Insurance.--The proviso at the
end of section 213(c)(2) of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1715v(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``20 per centum''
and inserting ``30 percent''.
(g) Condominium Housing Mortgage Insurance.--Section 234(j)
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715y(j)) is amended
by striking ``20 per centum'' and inserting ``30 percent''.
SEC. 4104. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND.
Section 9(d)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(1)) is amended--
[[Page 23578]]
(1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (K), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(L) improvement of energy and water-use efficiency by
installing fixtures and fittings that conform to the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards
Institute standards A112.19.2-1998 and A112.18.1-2000, or any
revision thereto, applicable at the time of installation, and
by increasing energy efficiency and water conservation by
such other means as the Secretary determines are
appropriate.''.
SEC. 4105. GRANTS FOR ENERGY-CONSERVING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
ASSISTED HOUSING.
Section 251(b)(1) of the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8231(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``financed with loans'' and inserting
``assisted'';
(2) by inserting after ``1959,'' the following: ``which are
eligible multifamily housing projects (as such term is
defined in section 512 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note))
and are subject to a mortgage restructuring and rental
assistance sufficiency plans under such Act,''; and
(3) by inserting after the period at the end of the first
sentence the following new sentence: ``Such improvements may
also include the installation of energy and water conserving
fixtures and fittings that conform to the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards Institute
standards A112.19.2-1998 and A112.18.1-2000, or any revision
thereto, applicable at the time of installation.''.
SEC. 4106. NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK.
Part 2 of subtitle D of title V of the North American Free
Trade Agreement Implementation Act (22 U.S.C. 290m-290m-3) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 545. SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN ENERGY POLICIES.
``Consistent with the focus of the Bank's Charter on
environmental infrastructure projects, the Board members
representing the United States should use their voice and
vote to encourage the Bank to finance projects related to
clean and efficient energy, including energy conservation,
that prevent, control, or reduce environmental pollutants or
contaminants.''.
DIVISION E
SEC. 5000. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Clean Coal Power
Initiative Act of 2001''.
SEC. 5001. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) reliable, affordable, increasingly clean electricity
will continue to power the growing United States economy;
(2) an increasing use of electrotechnologies, the desire
for continuous environmental improvement, a more competitive
electricity market, and concerns about rising energy prices
add importance to the need for reliable, affordable,
increasingly clean electricity;
(3) coal, which, as of the date of the enactment of this
Act, accounts for more than \1/2\ of all electricity
generated in the United States, is the most abundant fossil
energy resource of the United States;
(4) coal comprises more than 85 percent of all fossil
resources in the United States and exists in quantities
sufficient to supply the United States for 250 years at
current usage rates;
(5) investments in electricity generating facility
emissions control technology over the past 30 years have
reduced the aggregate emissions of pollutants from coal-based
generating facilities by 21 percent, even as coal use for
electricity generation has nearly tripled;
(6) continuous improvement in efficiency and environmental
performance from electricity generating facilities would
allow continued use of coal and preserve less abundant energy
resources for other energy uses;
(7) new ways to convert coal into electricity can
effectively eliminate health-threatening emissions and
improve efficiency by as much as 50 percent, but initial
deployment of new coal generation methods and equipment
entails significant risk that generators may be unable to
accept in a newly competitive electricity market; and
(8) continued environmental improvement in coal-based
generation and increasing the production and supply of power
generation facilities with less air emissions, with the
ultimate goal of near-zero emissions, is important and
desirable.
SEC. 5002. DEFINITIONS.
In this division:
(1) Cost and performance goals.--The term ``cost and
performance goals'' means the cost and performance goals
established under section 5004.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
SEC. 5003. CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program
under--
(1) this division;
(2) the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.);
(3) the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801
et seq.); and
(4) title XIII of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13331 et seq.),
to achieve cost and performance goals established by the
Secretary under section 5004.
SEC. 5004. COST AND PERFORMANCE GOALS.
(a) Review and Assessment.--The Secretary shall perform an
assessment that establishes measurable cost and performance
goals for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 for the programs
authorized by this division. Such assessment shall be based
on the latest scientific, economic, and technical knowledge.
(b) Consultation.--In establishing the cost and performance
goals, the Secretary shall consult with representatives of--
(1) the United States coal industry;
(2) State coal development agencies;
(3) the electric utility industry;
(4) railroads and other transportation industries;
(5) manufacturers of advanced coal-based equipment;
(6) institutions of higher learning, national laboratories,
and professional and technical societies;
(7) organizations representing workers;
(8) organizations formed to--
(A) promote the use of coal;
(B) further the goals of environmental protection; and
(C) promote the production and generation of coal-based
power from advanced facilities; and
(9) other appropriate Federal and State agencies.
(c) Timing.--The Secretary shall--
(1) not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, issue a set of draft cost and performance goals
for public comment; and
(2) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, after taking into consideration any public
comments received, submit to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives, and to the Senate, the final cost and
performance goals.
SEC. 5005. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Clean Coal Power Initiative.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to carry out the Clean Coal Power Initiative
under section 5003 $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2002 through 2011, to remain available until expended.
(b) Limit on use of Funds.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
no funds may be used to carry out the activities authorized
by this Act after September 30, 2002, unless the Secretary
has transmitted to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, and
to the Senate, the report required by this subsection and 1
month has elapsed since that transmission. The report shall
include, with respect to subsection (a), a 10-year plan
containing--
(1) a detailed assessment of whether the aggregate funding
levels provided under subsection (a) are the appropriate
funding levels for that program;
(2) a detailed description of how proposals will be
solicited and evaluated, including a list of all activities
expected to be undertaken;
(3) a detailed list of technical milestones for each coal
and related technology that will be pursued;
(4) recommendations for a mechanism for recoupment of
Federal funding for successful commercial projects; and
(5) a detailed description of how the program will avoid
problems enumerated in General Accounting Office reports on
the Clean Coal Technology Program, including problems that
have resulted in unspent funds and projects that failed
either financially or scientifically.
(c) Applicability.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to any
project begun before September 30, 2002.
SEC. 5006. PROJECT CRITERIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not provide funding
under this division for any project that does not advance
efficiency, environmental performance, and cost
competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that
are in operation or have been demonstrated as of the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical Criteria for Clean Coal Power Initiative.--
(1) Gasification.--(A) In allocating the funds authorized
under section 5005(a), the Secretary shall ensure that at
least 80 percent of the funds are used only for projects on
coal-based gasification technologies, including gasification
combined cycle, gasification fuel cells, gasification
coproduction and hybrid gasification/combustion.
(B) The Secretary shall set technical milestones specifying
emissions levels that coal gasification projects must be
designed to and reasonably expected to achieve. The
milestones shall get more restrictive through the life of the
program. The milestones shall be designed to achieve by 2020
coal gasification projects able--
(i) to remove 99 percent of sulfur dioxide;
(ii) to emit no more than .05 lbs of NOx per million BTU;
(iii) to achieve substantial reductions in mercury
emissions; and
(iv) to achieve a thermal efficiency of 60 percent (higher
heating value).
[[Page 23579]]
(2) Other projects.--For projects not described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall set technical milestones
specifying emissions levels that the projects must be
designed to and reasonably expected to achieve. The
milestones shall get more restrictive through the life of the
program. The milestones shall be designed to achieve by 2010
projects able--
(A) to remove 97 percent of sulfur dioxide;
(B) to emit no more than .08 lbs of NOx per million BTU;
(C) to achieve substantial reductions in mercury emissions;
and
(D) to achieve a thermal efficiency of 45 percent (higher
heating value).
(c) Financial Criteria.--The Secretary shall not provide a
funding award under this division unless the recipient has
documented to the satisfaction of the Secretary that--
(1) the award recipient is financially viable without the
receipt of additional Federal funding;
(2) the recipient will provide sufficient information to
the Secretary for the Secretary to ensure that the award
funds are spent efficiently and effectively; and
(3) a market exists for the technology being demonstrated
or applied, as evidenced by statements of interest in writing
from potential purchasers of the technology.
(d) Financial Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
financial assistance to projects that meet the requirements
of subsections (a), (b), and (c) and are likely to--
(1) achieve overall cost reductions in the utilization of
coal to generate useful forms of energy;
(2) improve the competitiveness of coal among various forms
of energy in order to maintain a diversity of fuel choices in
the United States to meet electricity generation
requirements; and
(3) demonstrate methods and equipment that are applicable
to 25 percent of the electricity generating facilities that
use coal as the primary feedstock as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a coal
or related technology project funded by the Secretary shall
not exceed 50 percent.
(f) Applicability.--Neither the use of any particular
technology, nor the achievement of any emission reduction, by
any facility receiving assistance under this title shall be
taken into account for purposes of making any determination
under the Clean Air Act in applying the provisions of that
Act to a facility not receiving assistance under this title,
including any determination concerning new source performance
standards, lowest achievable emission rate, best available
control technology, or any other standard, requirement, or
limitation.
SEC. 5007. STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and once every 2 years thereafter
through 2016, the Secretary, in cooperation with other
appropriate Federal agencies, shall transmit to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives, and to the Senate, a report
containing the results of a study to--
(1) identify efforts (and the costs and periods of time
associated with those efforts) that, by themselves or in
combination with other efforts, may be capable of achieving
the cost and performance goals;
(2) develop recommendations for the Department of Energy to
promote the efforts identified under paragraph (1); and
(3) develop recommendations for additional authorities
required to achieve the cost and performance goals.
(b) Expert Advice.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give due weight to the expert advice of
representatives of the entities described in section 5004(b).
SEC. 5008. CLEAN COAL CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.
As part of the program authorized in section 5003, the
Secretary shall award competitive, merit-based grants to
universities for the establishment of Centers of Excellence
for Energy Systems of the Future. The Secretary shall provide
grants to universities that can show the greatest potential
for advancing new clean coal technologies.
DIVISION F
SEC. 6001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Energy Security Act''.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROTECTIONS FOR ENERGY SUPPLY AND SECURITY
SEC. 6101. STUDY OF EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON FEDERAL LANDS
TO DETERMINE CAPABILITY TO SUPPORT NEW
PIPELINES OR OTHER TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the head of each Federal agency that
has authorized a right-of-way across Federal lands for
transportation of energy supplies or transmission of
electricity shall review each such right-of-way and submit a
report to the Secretary of Energy and the Chairman of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding--
(1) whether the right-of-way can be used to support new or
additional capacity; and
(2) what modifications or other changes, if any, would be
necessary to accommodate such additional capacity.
(b) Consultations and Considerations.--In performing the
review, the head of each agency shall--
(1) consult with agencies of State, tribal, or local units
of government as appropriate; and
(2) consider whether safety or other concerns related to
current uses might preclude the availability of a right-of-
way for additional or new transportation or transmission
facilities, and set forth those considerations in the report.
SEC. 6102. INVENTORY OF ENERGY PRODUCTION POTENTIAL OF ALL
FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS.
(a) Inventory Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior,
in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Energy, shall conduct an inventory of the energy
production potential of all Federal public lands other than
national park lands and lands in any wilderness area, with
respect to wind, solar, coal, and geothermal power
production.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not include in the
inventory under this section the matters to be identified in
the inventory under section 604 of the Energy Act of 2000 (43
U.S.C. 6217).
(2) Wind and solar power.--The inventory under this
section--
(A) with respect to wind power production shall be limited
to sites having a mean average wind speed--
(i) exceeding 12.5 miles per hour at a height of 33 feet;
and
(ii) exceeding 15.7 miles per hour at a height of 164 feet;
and
(B) with respect to solar power production shall be limited
to areas rated as receiving 450 watts per square meter or
greater.
(c) Examination of Restrictions and Impediments.--The
inventory shall identify the extent and nature of any
restrictions or impediments to the development of such energy
production potential.
(d) Geothermal Power.--The inventory shall include an
update of the 1978 Assessment of Geothermal Resources by the
United States Geological Survey.
(e) Completion and Updating.--The Secretary--
(1) shall complete the inventory by not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) shall update the inventory regularly thereafter.
(f) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and
make publicly available--
(1) a report containing the inventory under this section,
by not later than 2 years after the effective date of this
section; and
(2) each update of such inventory.
SEC. 6103. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS TO ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO
EMERGING ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.--Each Federal agency shall carry out a
review of its regulations and standards to determine those
that act as a barrier to market entry for emerging energy-
efficient technologies, including fuel cells, combined heat
and power, and distributed generation (including small-scale
renewable energy).
(b) Report to Congress.--No later than 18 months after date
of the enactment of this Act, each agency shall provide a
report to the Congress and the President detailing all
regulatory barriers to emerging energy-efficient
technologies, along with actions the agency intends to take,
or has taken, to remove such barriers.
(c) Periodic Review.--Each agency shall subsequently review
its regulations and standards in this manner no less
frequently than every 5 years, and report their findings to
the Congress and the President. Such reviews shall include a
detailed analysis of all agency actions taken to remove
existing barriers to emerging energy technologies.
SEC. 6104. INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, in coordination
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall
establish an administrative interagency task force to develop
an interagency agreement to expedite and facilitate the
environmental review and permitting of interstate natural gas
pipeline projects.
(b) Task Force Members.--The task force shall include a
representative of each of the Bureau of Land Management, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
such other agencies as the Secretary of Energy and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission consider appropriate.
(c) Terms of Agreement.--The interagency agreement shall
require that agencies complete their review of interstate
pipeline projects within a specific period of time after
referral of the matter by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
(d) Submittal of Agreement.--The Secretary of Energy shall
submit a final interagency agreement under this section to
the Congress by not later than 6 months after the effective
date of this section.
[[Page 23580]]
SEC. 6105. ENHANCING ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN MANAGEMENT OF
FEDERAL LANDS.
(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that Federal land managing agencies should enhance the use of
energy efficient technologies in the management of natural
resources.
(b) Energy Efficient Buildings.--To the extent economically
practicable, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture shall seek to incorporate energy efficient
technologies in public and administrative buildings
associated with management of the National Park System,
National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, and
other public lands and resources managed by such Secretaries.
(c) Energy Efficient Vehicles.--To the extent economically
practicable, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture shall seek to use energy efficient motor
vehicles, including vehicles equipped with biodiesel or
hybrid engine technologies, in the management of the National
Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and other
public lands and managed by the Secretaries.
SEC. 6106. EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy and the Chairman
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall jointly
undertake a study of the location and extent of anticipated
demand growth for natural gas consumption in the Western
States, herein defined as the area covered by the Western
System Coordinating Council.
(b) Contents.--The study under subsection (a) shall include
the following:
(1) A review of natural gas demand forecasts by Western
State officials, such as the California Energy Commission and
the California Public Utilities Commission, which indicate
the forecasted levels of demand for natural gas and the
geographic distribution of that forecasted demand.
(2) A review of the locations of proposed new natural gas-
fired electric generation facilities currently in the
approval process in the Western States, and their forecasted
impact on natural gas demand.
(3) A review of the locations of existing interstate
natural gas transmission pipelines, and interstate natural
gas pipelines currently in the planning stage or approval
process, throughout the Western States.
(4) A review of the locations and capacity of intrastate
natural gas pipelines in the Western States.
(5) Recommendations for the coordination of the development
of the natural gas infrastructure indicated in paragraphs (1)
through (4).
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall report the findings and
recommendations resulting from the study required by this
section to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate no later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act. The Chairman of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission shall report on how the
Commission will factor these results into its review of
applications of interstate pipelines within the Western
States to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate no later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
Subtitle A--Offshore Oil and Gas
SEC. 6201. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be referred to as the ``Royalty Relief
Extension Act of 2001''.
SEC. 6202. LEASE SALES IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL PLANNING AREA
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO.
(a) In General.--For all tracts located in water depths of
greater than 200 meters in the Western and Central Planning
Area of the Gulf of Mexico, including that portion of the
Eastern Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico encompassing
whole lease blocks lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West
longitude, any oil or gas lease sale under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act occurring within 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act shall use the bidding
system authorized in section 8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)), except
that the suspension of royalties shall be set at a volume of
not less than the following:
(1) 5 million barrels of oil equivalent for each lease in
water depths of 400 to 800 meters.
(2) 9 million barrels of oil equivalent for each lease in
water depths of 800 to 1,600 meters.
(3) 12 million barrels of oil equivalent for each lease in
water depths greater than 1,600 meters.
(b) Relationship to Existing Authority.--Except as
expressly provided in this section, nothing in this section
is intended to limit the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) to provide royalty suspension.
SEC. 6203. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to affect any
offshore pre-leasing, leasing, or development moratorium,
including any moratorium applicable to the Eastern Planning
Area of the Gulf of Mexico located off the Gulf Coast of
Florida.
SEC. 6204. ANALYSIS OF GULF OF MEXICO FIELD SIZE
DISTRIBUTION, INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS,
AND INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Energy shall enter into appropriate arrangements
with the National Academy of Sciences to commission the
Academy to perform the following:
(1) Conduct an analysis and review of existing Gulf of
Mexico oil and natural gas resource assessments, including--
(A) analysis and review of assessments recently performed
by the Minerals Management Service, the 1999 National
Petroleum Council Gas Study, the Department of Energy's
Offshore Marginal Property Study, and the Advanced Resources
International, Inc. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico model; and
(B) evaluation and comparison of the accuracy of
assumptions of the existing assessments with respect to
resource field size distribution, hydrocarbon potential, and
scenarios for leasing, exploration, and development.
(2) Evaluate the lease terms and conditions offered by the
Minerals Management Service for Lease Sale 178, and compare
the financial incentives offered by such terms and conditions
to financial incentives offered by the terms and conditions
that apply under leases for other offshore areas that are
competing for the same limited offshore oil and gas
exploration and development capital, including offshore areas
of West Africa and Brazil.
(3) Recommend what level of incentives for all water depths
are appropriate in order to ensure that the United States
optimizes the domestic supply of oil and natural gas from the
offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico that are not subject to
current leasing moratoria. Recommendations under this
paragraph should be made in the context of the importance of
the oil and natural gas resources of the Gulf of Mexico to
the future energy and economic needs of the United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
submit a report to the Committee on Resources in the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources in the Senate, summarizing the findings of the
National Academy of Sciences pursuant to subsection (a) and
providing recommendations of the Secretary for new policies
or other actions that could help to further increase oil and
natural gas production from the Gulf of Mexico.
Subtitle B--Improvements to Federal Oil and Gas Management
SEC. 6221. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Federal Oil and Gas
Lease Management Improvement Demonstration Program Act of
2001''.
SEC. 6222. STUDY OF IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFICIENT LEASE
OPERATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly undertake a study of
the impediments to efficient oil and gas leasing and
operations on Federal onshore lands in order to identify
means by which unnecessary impediments to the expeditious
exploration and production of oil and natural gas on such
lands can be removed.
(b) Contents.--The study under subsection (a) shall include
the following:
(1) A review of the process by which Federal land managers
accept or reject an offer to lease, including the timeframes
in which such offers are acted upon, the reasons for any
delays in acting upon such offers, and any recommendations
for expediting the response to such offers.
(2) A review of the approval process for applications for
permits to drill, including the timeframes in which such
applications are approved, the impact of compliance with
other Federal laws on such timeframes, any other reasons for
delays in making such approvals, and any recommendations for
expediting such approvals.
(3) A review of the approval process for surface use plans
of operation, including the timeframes in which such
applications are approved, the impact of compliance with
other Federal laws on such timeframes, any other reasons for
delays in making such approvals, and any recommendations for
expediting such approvals.
(4) A review of the process for administrative appeal of
decisions or orders of officers or employees of the Bureau of
Land Management with respect to a Federal oil or gas lease,
including the timeframes in which such appeals are heard and
decided, any reasons for delays in hearing or deciding such
appeals, and any recommendations for expediting the appeals
process.
(c) Report.--The Secretaries shall report the findings and
recommendations resulting from the study required by this
section to the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate no later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6223. ELIMINATION OF UNWARRANTED DENIALS AND STAYS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that
unwarranted denials and stays of
[[Page 23581]]
lease issuance and unwarranted restrictions on lease
operations are eliminated from the administration of oil and
natural gas leasing on Federal land.
(b) Preparation of Leasing Plan or Analysis.--In preparing
a management plan or leasing analysis for oil or natural gas
leasing on Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management or the Forest Service, the Secretary concerned
shall--
(1) identify and review the restrictions on surface use and
operations imposed under the laws (including regulations) of
the State in which the lands are located;
(2) consult with the appropriate State agency regarding the
reasons for the State restrictions identified under paragraph
(1);
(3) identify any differences between the State restrictions
identified under paragraph (1) and any restrictions on
surface use and operations that would apply under the lease;
and
(4) prepare and provide upon request a written explanation
of such differences.
(c) Rejection of Offer To Lease.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary rejects an offer to lease
Federal lands for oil or natural gas development on the
ground that the land is unavailable for oil and natural gas
leasing, the Secretary shall provide a written, detailed
explanation of the reasons the land is unavailable for
leasing.
(2) Previous resource management decision.--If the
determination of unavailability is based on a previous
resource management decision, the explanation shall include a
careful assessment of whether the reasons underlying the
previous decision are still persuasive.
(3) Segregation of available land from unavailable land.--
The Secretary may not reject an offer to lease Federal land
for oil and natural gas development that is available for
such leasing on the ground that the offer includes land
unavailable for leasing. The Secretary shall segregate
available land from unavailable land, on the offeror's
request following notice by the Secretary, before acting on
the offer to lease.
(d) Disapproval or Required Modification of Surface Use
Plans of Operations and Application for Permit To Drill.--The
Secretary shall provide a written, detailed explanation of
the reasons for disapproving or requiring modifications of
any surface use plan of operations or application for permit
to drill with respect to oil or natural gas development on
Federal lands.
(e) Preservation of Federal Authority.--Nothing in this
section or in any identification, review, or explanation
prepared under this section shall be construed--
(1) to limit the authority of the Federal Government to
impose lease stipulations, restrictions, requirements, or
other terms that are different than those that apply under
State law; or
(2) to affect the procedures that apply to judicial review
of actions taken under this subsection.
SEC. 6224. LIMITATION ON COST RECOVERY FOR APPLICATIONS.
Notwithstanding sections 304 and 504 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734, 1764) and
section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary
shall not recover the Secretary's costs with respect to
applications and other documents relating to oil and gas
leases.
SEC. 6225. CONSULTATION WITH SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
Section 17(h) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(h))
is amended to read as follows:
``(h)(1) In issuing any lease on National Forest System
lands reserved from the public domain, the Secretary of the
Interior shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture in
determining stipulations on surface use under the lease.
``(2)(A) A lease on lands referred to in paragraph (1) may
not be issued if the Secretary of Agriculture determines,
after consultation under paragraph (1) and consultation with
the Regional Forester having administrative jurisdiction over
the National Forest System Lands concerned, that the terms
and conditions of the lease, including any prohibition on
surface occupancy for lease operations, will not be
sufficient to adequately protect such lands under the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.).
``(B) The authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under
this paragraph may be delegated only to the Undersecretary of
Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment.
``(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall include in the
record of decision for a determination under paragraph
(2)(A)--
``(A) any written statement regarding the determination
that is prepared by a Regional Forester consulted by the
Secretary under paragraph (2)(A) regarding the determination;
or
``(B) an explanation why such a statement by the Regional
Forester is not included.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
SEC. 6231. OFFSHORE SUBSALT DEVELOPMENT.
Section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953
(43 U.S.C. 1334) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(k) Suspension of Operations for Subsalt Exploration.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, to
prevent waste caused by the drilling of unnecessary wells and
to facilitate the discovery of additional hydrocarbon
reserves, the Secretary may grant a request for a suspension
of operations under any lease to allow the reprocessing and
reinterpretation of geophysical data to identify and define
drilling objectives beneath allocthonus salt sheets.''.
SEC. 6232. PROGRAM ON OIL AND GAS ROYALTIES IN KIND.
(a) Applicability of Section.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the provisions of this section shall apply
to all royalty in kind accepted by the Secretary of the
Interior under any Federal oil or gas lease or permit under
section 36 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 192),
section 27 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1353), or any other mineral leasing law, in the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act through
September 30, 2006.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--All royalty accruing to the
United States under any Federal oil or gas lease or permit
under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
shall, on the demand of the Secretary of the Interior, be
paid in oil or gas. If the Secretary of the Interior makes
such a demand, the following provisions apply to such
payment:
(1) Delivery by, or on behalf of, the lessee of the royalty
amount and quality due under the lease satisfies the lessee's
royalty obligation for the amount delivered, except that
transportation and processing reimbursements paid to, or
deductions claimed by, the lessee shall be subject to review
and audit.
(2) Royalty production shall be placed in marketable
condition by the lessee at no cost to the United States.
(3) The Secretary of the Interior may--
(A) sell or otherwise dispose of any royalty oil or gas
taken in kind (other than oil or gas taken under section
27(a)(3) of the Outer Continental Shlef Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1353(a)(3)) for not less than the market price; and
(B) transport or process any oil or gas royalty taken in
kind.
(4) The Secretary of the Interior may, notwithstanding
section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, retain and use
a portion of the revenues from the sale of oil and gas
royalties taken in kind that otherwise would be deposited to
miscellaneous receipts, without regard to fiscal year
limitation, or may use royalty production, to pay the cost
of--
(A) transporting the oil or gas,
(B) processing the gas, or
(C) disposing of the oil or gas.
(5) The Secretary may not use revenues from the sale of oil
and gas royalties taken in kind to pay for personnel, travel,
or other administrative costs of the Federal Government.
(c) Reimbursement of Cost.--If the lessee, pursuant to an
agreement with the United States or as provided in the lease,
processes the royalty gas or delivers the royalty oil or gas
at a point not on or adjacent to the lease area, the
Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) reimburse the lessee for the reasonable costs of
transportation (not including gathering) from the lease to
the point of delivery or for processing costs; or
(2) at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior,
allow the lessee to deduct such transportation or processing
costs in reporting and paying royalties in value for other
Federal oil and gas leases.
(d) Benefit to the United States Required.--The Secretary
may receive oil or gas royalties in kind only if the
Secretary determines that receiving such royalties provides
benefits to the United States greater than or equal to those
that would be realized under a comparable royalty in value
program.
(e) Report to Congress.--For each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2006 in which the United States takes oil or gas
royalties in kind from production in any State or from the
Outer Continental Shelf, excluding royalties taken in kind
and sold to refineries under subsection (h), the Secretary of
the Interior shall provide a report to the Congress
describing--
(1) the methodology or methodologies used by the Secretary
to determine compliance with subsection (d), including
performance standards for comparing amounts received by the
United States derived from such royalties in kind to amounts
likely to have been received had royalties been taken in
value;
(2) an explanation of the evaluation that led the Secretary
to take royalties in kind from a lease or group of leases,
including the expected revenue effect of taking royalties in
kind;
(3) actual amounts received by the United States derived
from taking royalties in kind, and costs and savings incurred
by the United States associated with taking royalties in
kind; and
(4) an evaluation of other relevant public benefits or
detriments associated with taking royalties in kind.
(f) Deduction of Expenses.--
(1) In general.--Before making payments under section 35 of
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191) or section 8(g) of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 1337(g)) of
revenues derived from the sale of royalty production taken in
kind from a
[[Page 23582]]
lease, the Secretary of the Interior shall deduct amounts
paid or deducted under subsections (b)(4) and (c), and shall
deposit such amounts to miscellaneous receipts.
(2) Accounting for deductions.--If the Secretary of the
Interior allows the lessee to deduct transportation or
processing costs under subsection (c), the Secretary may not
reduce any payments to recipients of revenues derived from
any other Federal oil and gas lease as a consequence of that
deduction.
(g) Consultation With States.--The Secretary of the
Interior--
(1) shall consult with a State before conducting a royalty
in kind program under this title within the State, and may
delegate management of any portion of the Federal royalty in
kind program to such State except as otherwise prohibited by
Federal law; and
(2) shall consult annually with any State from which
Federal oil or gas royalty is being taken in kind to ensure
to the maximum extent practicable that the royalty in kind
program provides revenues to the State greater than or equal
to those which would be realized under a comparable royalty
in value program.
(h) Provisions for Small Refineries.--
(1) Preference.--If the Secretary of the Interior
determines that sufficient supplies of crude oil are not
available in the open market to refineries not having their
own source of supply for crude oil, the Secretary may grant
preference to such refineries in the sale of any royalty oil
accruing or reserved to the United States under Federal oil
and gas leases issued under any mineral leasing law, for
processing or use in such refineries at private sale at not
less than the market price.
(2) Proration among refineries in production area.--In
disposing of oil under this subsection, the Secretary of the
Interior may, at the discretion of the Secretary, prorate
such oil among such refineries in the area in which the oil
is produced.
(i) Disposition to Federal Agencies.--
(1) Onshore royalty.--Any royalty oil or gas taken by the
Secretary in kind from onshore oil and gas leases may be sold
at not less than the market price to any department or agency
of the United States.
(2) Offshore royalty.--Any royalty oil or gas taken in kind
from Federal oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental
Shelf may be disposed of only under section 27 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353).
(j) Preference for Federal Low-Income Energy Assistance
Programs.--In disposing of royalty oil or gas taken in kind
under this section, the Secretary may grant a preference to
any person, including any State or Federal agency, for the
purpose of providing additional resources to any Federal low-
income energy assistance program.
SEC. 6233. MARGINAL WELL PRODUCTION INCENTIVES.
To enhance the economics of marginal oil and gas production
by increasing the ultimate recovery from marginal wells when
the cash price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, as
posted on the Dow Jones Commodities Index chart, is less than
$15 per barrel for 180 consecutive pricing days or when the
price of natural gas delivered at Henry Hub, Louisiana, is
less than $2.00 per million British thermal units for 180
consecutive days, the Secretary shall reduce the royalty rate
as production declines for--
(1) onshore oil wells producing less than 30 barrels per
day;
(2) onshore gas wells producing less than 120 million
British thermal units per day;
(3) offshore oil wells producing less than 300 barrels of
oil per day; and
(4) offshore gas wells producing less than 1,200 million
British thermal units per day.
SEC. 6234. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS OF NEPA ANALYSES,
DOCUMENTATION, AND STUDIES.
(a) In General.--The Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 37 the following:
``reimbursement for costs of certain analyses, documentation, and
studies
``Sec. 38. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior
may, through royalty credits, reimburse a person who is a
lessee, operator, operating rights owner, or applicant for an
oil or gas lease under this Act for amounts paid by the
person for preparation by the Secretary (or a contractor or
other person selected by the Secretary) of any project-level
analysis, documentation, or related study required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) with respect to the lease.
``(b) Conditions.--The Secretary may provide reimbursement
under subsection (b) only if--
``(1) adequate funding to enable the Secretary to timely
prepare the analysis, documentation, or related study is not
appropriated;
``(2) the person paid the costs voluntarily; and
``(3) the person maintains records of its costs in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply with respect to any lease entered into before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue
regulations implementing the amendments made by this section
by not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 6235. ENCOURAGEMENT OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PROHIBITIONS
ON OFF-SHORE DRILLING IN THE GREAT LAKES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The water resources of the Great Lakes Basin are
precious public natural resources, shared and held in trust
by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the Canadian
Province of Ontario.
(2) The environmental dangers associated with off-shore
drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas outweigh the
potential benefits of such drilling.
(3) In accordance with the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1301 et seq.), each State that borders any of the Great Lakes
has authority over the area between that State's coastline
and the boundary of Canada or another State.
(4) The States of Illinois, Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each have a statutory prohibition
of off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas.
(5) The States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio do not have
such a prohibition.
(6) The Canadian Province of Ontario does not have such a
prohibition, and drilling for and production of gas occurs in
the Canadian portion of Lake Erie.
(b) Encouragement of State and Provincial Prohibitions.--
The Congress encourages--
(1) the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to continue to prohibit off-shore
drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas;
(2) the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio and the
Canadian Province of Ontario to enact a prohibition of such
drilling; and
(3) the Canadian Province of Ontario to require the
cessation of any such drilling and any production resulting
from such drilling.
TITLE III--GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 6301. ROYALTY REDUCTION AND RELIEF.
(a) Royalty Reduction.--Section 5(a) of the Geothermal
Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1004(a)) is amended by striking
``not less than 10 per centum or more than 15 per centum''
and inserting ``not more than 8 per centum''.
(b) Royalty Relief.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5 of the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1004(a)) and any
provision of any lease under that Act, no royalty is required
to be paid--
(A) under any qualified geothermal energy lease with
respect to commercial production of heat or energy from a
facility that begins such production in the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(B) on qualified expansion geothermal energy.
(2) 3-year application.--Paragraph (1) applies only to
commercial production of heat or energy from a facility in
the first 3 years of such production.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Qualified expansion geothermal energy.--The term
``qualified expansion geothermal energy''--
(A) subject to subparagraph (B), means geothermal energy
produced from a generation facility for which the rated
capacity is increased by more than 10 percent as a result of
expansion of the facility carried out in the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) does not include the rated capacity of the generation
facility on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Qualified geothermal energy lease.--The term
``qualified geothermal energy lease'' means a lease under the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)--
(A) that was executed before the end of the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) under which no commercial production of any form of
heat or energy occurred before the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 6302. EXEMPTION FROM ROYALTIES FOR DIRECT USE OF LOW
TEMPERATURE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESOURCES.
(a) In General.--Section 5 of the Geothermal Steam Act of
1970 (30 U.S.C. 1004) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (c) by redesignating subparagraphs (1) and
(2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (d) in order as
paragraphs (1) through (4);
(3) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' after ``Sec. 5.'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Exemption for Use of Low Temperature Resources.--
``(1) In general.--In lieu of any royalty or rental under
subsection (a), a lease for qualified development and direct
utilization of low temperature geothermal resources shall
provide for payment by the lessee of an annual fee of not
less than $100, and not more than $1,000, in accordance with
the schedule issued under paragraph (2).
``(2) Schedule.--The Secretary shall issue a schedule of
fees under this section under
[[Page 23583]]
which a fee is based on the scale of development and
utilization to which the fee applies.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Low temperature geothermal resources.--The term `low
temperature geothermal resources' means geothermal steam and
associated geothermal resources having a temperature of less
than 195 degrees Fahrenheit.
``(B) Qualified development and direct utilization.--The
term `qualified development and direct utilization' means
development and utilization in which all products of
geothermal resources, other than any heat utilized, are
returned to the geothermal formation from which they are
produced.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect on October 1, 2003.
SEC. 6303. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LEASING ON FOREST SERVICE
LANDS.
The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 is amended--
(1) in section 15(b) (30 U.S.C. 1014(b))--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``with the consent of, and'' and inserting
``after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and'';
and
(ii) by striking ``the head of that Department'' and
inserting ``the Secretary of Agriculture''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) A geothermal lease for lands withdrawn or acquired
in aid of functions of the Department of Agriculture may not
be issued if the Secretary of Agriculture, after the
consultation required by paragraph (1) and consultation with
any Regional Forester having administrative jurisdiction over
the lands concerned, determines that no terms or conditions,
including a prohibition on surface occupancy for lease
operations, would be sufficient to adequately protect such
lands under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
``(B) The authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under
this paragraph may be delegated only to the Undersecretary of
Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment.
``(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall include in the
record of decision for a determination under paragraph
(2)(A)--
``(A) any written statement regarding the determination
that is prepared by a Regional Forester consulted by the
Secretary under paragraph (2)(A) regarding the determination;
or
``(B) an explanation why such a statement by the Regional
Forester is not included.
SEC. 6304. DEADLINE FOR DETERMINATION ON PENDING
NONCOMPETITIVE LEASE APPLICATIONS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall, with respect
to each application pending on the date of the enactment of
this Act for a lease under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970
(30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), issue a final determination of--
(1) whether or not to conduct a lease sale by competitive
bidding; and
(2) whether or not to award a lease without competitive
bidding.
SEC. 6305. OPENING OF PUBLIC LANDS UNDER MILITARY
JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and
other provisions of Federal law applicable to development of
geothermal energy resources within public lands, all public
lands under the jurisdiction of a Secretary of a military
department shall be open to the operation of such laws and
development and utilization of geothermal steam and
associated geothermal resources, as that term is defined in
section 2 of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C.
1001), without the necessity for further action by the
Secretary or the Congress.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2689 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``including public
lands,'' and inserting ``other than public lands,''.
(c) Treatment of Existing Leases.--Upon the expiration of
any lease in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
of public lands under the jurisdiction of a military
department for the development of any geothermal resource,
such lease may, at the option of the lessee--
(1) be treated as a lease under the Geothermal Steam Act of
1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and be renewed in accordance
with such Act; or
(2) be renewed in accordance with the terms of the lease,
if such renewal is authorized by such terms.
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Interior, with the
advice and concurrence of the Secretary of the military
department concerned, shall prescribe such regulations to
carry out this section as may be necessary. Such regulations
shall contain guidelines to assist in determining how much,
if any, of the surface of any lands opened pursuant to this
section may be used for purposes incident to geothermal
energy resources development and utilization.
(e) Closure for Purposes of National Defense or Security.--
In the event of a national emergency or for purposes of
national defense or security, the Secretary of the Interior,
at the request of the Secretary of the military department
concerned, shall close any lands that have been opened to
geothermal energy resources leasing pursuant to this section.
SEC. 6306. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.
The amendments made by this title apply with respect to any
lease executed before, on, or after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 6307. REVIEW AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.
The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly review and
report to the Congress regarding the status of all moratoria
on and withdrawals from leasing under the Geothermal Steam
Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) of known geothermal
resources areas (as that term is defined in section 2 of that
Act (30 U.S.C. 1001), specifying for each such area whether
the basis for such moratoria or withdrawal still applies.
SEC. 6308. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS OF NEPA ANALYSES,
DOCUMENTATION, AND STUDIES.
(a) In General.--The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30
U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``reimbursement for costs of certain analyses, documentation, and
studies
``Sec. 38. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior
may, through royalty credits, reimburse a person who is a
lessee, operator, operating rights owner, or applicant for a
lease under this Act for amounts paid by the person for
preparation by the Secretary (or a contractor or other person
selected by the Secretary) of any project-level analysis,
documentation, or related study required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
with respect to the lease.
``(b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall may provide
reimbursement under subsection (a) only if--
``(1) adequate funding to enable the Secretary to timely
prepare the analysis, documentation, or related study is not
appropriated;
``(2) the person paid the costs voluntarily; and
``(3) the person maintains records of its costs in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply with respect to any lease entered into before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue
regulations implementing the amendments made by this section
by not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
TITLE IV--HYDROPOWER
SEC. 6401. STUDY AND REPORT ON INCREASING ELECTRIC POWER
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a study of the potential for increasing electric
power production capability at existing facilities under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(b) Content.--The study under this section shall include
identification and description in detail of each facility
that is capable, with or without modification, of producing
additional hydroelectric power, including estimation of the
existing potential for the facility to generate hydroelectric
power.
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
report on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the study under this section by not later than 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary
shall include in the report the following:
(1) The identifications, descriptions, and estimations
referred to in subsection (b).
(2) A description of activities the Secretary is currently
conducting or considering, or that could be considered, to
produce additional hydroelectric power from each identified
facility.
(3) A summary of action that has already been taken by the
Secretary to produce additional hydroelectric power from each
identified facility.
(4) The costs to install, upgrade, or modify equipment or
take other actions to produce additional hydroelectric power
from each identified facility.
(5) The benefits that would be achieved by such
installation, upgrade, modification, or other action,
including quantified estimates of any additional energy or
capacity from each facility identified under subsection (b).
(6) A description of actions that are planned, underway, or
might reasonably be considered to increase hydroelectric
power production by replacing turbine runners.
(7) A description of actions that are planned, underway, or
might reasonably be considered to increase hydroelectric
power production by performing generator uprates and rewinds.
(8) The impact of increased hydroelectric power production
on irrigation, fish, wildlife, Indian tribes, river health,
water quality, navigation, recreation, fishing, and flood
control.
(9) Any additional recommendations the Secretary considers
advisable to increase hydroelectric power production from,
and reduce costs and improve efficiency at, facilities under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
[[Page 23584]]
SEC. 6402. INSTALLATION OF POWERFORMER AT FOLSOM POWER PLANT,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may install
a powerformer at the Bureau of Reclamation Folsom power plant
in Folsom, California, to replace a generator and transformer
that are due for replacement due to age.
(b) Reimbursable Costs.--Costs incurred by the United
States for installation of a powerformer under this section
shall be treated as reimbursable costs and shall bear
interest at current long-term borrowing rates of the United
States Treasury at the time of acquisition.
(c) Local Cost Sharing.--In addition to reimbursable costs
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall seek contributions
from power users toward the costs of the powerformer and its
installation.
SEC. 6403. STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INCREASED OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCIES IN HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Interior shall conduct a
study of operational methods and water scheduling techniques
at all hydroelectric power plants under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary that have an electric power
production capacity greater than 50 megawatts, to--
(1) determine whether such power plants and associated
river systems are operated so as to maximize energy and
capacity capabilities; and
(2) identify measures that can be taken to improve
operational flexibility at such plants to achieve such
maximization.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report on the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study under
this section by not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, including a summary of the
determinations and identifications under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subsection (a).
(c) Cooperation by Federal Power Marketing
Administrations.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the
Administrator of each Federal power marketing administration
in--
(1) determining how the value of electric power produced by
each hydroelectric power facility that produces power
marketed by the administration can be maximized; and
(2) implementing measures identified under subsection
(a)(2).
(d) Limitation on Implementation of Measures.--
Implementation under subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) shall be
limited to those measures that can be implemented within the
constraints imposed on Department of the Interior facilities
by other uses required by law.
SEC. 6404. SHIFT OF PROJECT LOADS TO OFF-PEAK PERIODS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) review electric power consumption by Bureau of
Reclamation facilities for water pumping purposes; and
(2) make such adjustments in such pumping as possible to
minimize the amount of electric power consumed for such
pumping during periods of peak electric power consumption,
including by performing as much of such pumping as possible
during off-peak hours at night.
(b) Consent of Affected Irrigation Customers Required.--The
Secretary may not under this section make any adjustment in
pumping at a facility without the consent of each person that
has contracted with the United States for delivery of water
from the facility for use for irrigation and that would be
affected by such adjustment.
(c) Existing Obligations Not Affected.--This section shall
not be construed to affect any existing obligation of the
Secretary to provide electric power, water, or other benefits
from Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
TITLE V--ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN DOMESTIC ENERGY
SEC. 6501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Arctic Coastal Plain
Domestic Energy Security Act of 2001''.
SEC. 6502. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Coastal plain.--The term ``Coastal Plain'' means that
area identified as such in the map entitled ``Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge'', dated August 1980, as referenced in
section 1002(b) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3142(b)(1)), comprising
approximately 1,549,000 acres.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'', except as otherwise
provided, means the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary's designee.
SEC. 6503. LEASING PROGRAM FOR LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL
PLAIN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as
are necessary--
(1) to establish and implement in accordance with this
title a competitive oil and gas leasing program under the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) that will result
in an environmentally sound program for the exploration,
development, and production of the oil and gas resources of
the Coastal Plain; and
(2) to administer the provisions of this title through
regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions,
prohibitions, stipulations, and other provisions that ensure
the oil and gas exploration, development, and production
activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no significant
adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat,
subsistence resources, and the environment, and including, in
furtherance of this goal, by requiring the application of the
best commercially available technology for oil and gas
exploration, development, and production to all exploration,
development, and production operations under this title in a
manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the
public for the mineral resources to be leased.
(b) Repeal.--Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3143) is repealed.
(c) Compliance With Requirements Under Certain Other
Laws.--
(1) Compatibility.--For purposes of the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the oil and gas
leasing program and activities authorized by this section in
the Coastal Plain are deemed to be compatible with the
purposes for which the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was
established, and that no further findings or decisions are
required to implement this determination.
(2) Adequacy of the department of the interior's
legislative environmental impact statement.--The ``Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on
the Coastal Plain prepared pursuant to section 1002 of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16
U.S.C. 3142) and section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is
deemed to satisfy the requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that apply with respect to
actions authorized to be taken by the Secretary to develop
and promulgate the regulations for the establishment of a
leasing program authorized by this title before the conduct
of the first lease sale.
(3) Compliance with nepa for other actions.--Before
conducting the first lease sale under this title, the
Secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with
respect to the actions authorized by this title that are not
referred to in paragraph (2). Notwithstanding any other law,
the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing
alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental
effects of such courses of action. The Secretary shall only
identify a preferred action for such leasing and a single
leasing alternative, and analyze the environmental effects
and potential mitigation measures for those two alternatives.
The identification of the preferred action and related
analysis for the first lease sale under this title shall be
completed within 18 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act. The Secretary shall only consider public comments
that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action
and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an
environmental analysis. Notwithstanding any other law,
compliance with this paragraph is deemed to satisfy all
requirements for the analysis and consideration of the
environmental effects of proposed leasing under this title.
(d) Relationship to State and Local Authority.--Nothing in
this title shall be considered to expand or limit State and
local regulatory authority.
(e) Special Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with the
State of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope
Borough, may designate up to a total of 45,000 acres of the
Coastal Plain as a Special Area if the Secretary determines
that the Special Area is of such unique character and
interest so as to require special management and regulatory
protection. The Secretary shall designate as such a Special
Area the Sadlerochit Spring area, comprising approximately
4,000 acres as depicted on the map referred to in section
6502(1).
(2) Management.--Each such Special Area shall be managed so
as to protect and preserve the area's unique and diverse
character including its fish, wildlife, and subsistence
resource values.
(3) Exclusion from leasing or surface occupancy.--The
Secretary may exclude any Special Area from leasing. If the
Secretary leases a Special Area, or any part thereof, for
purposes of oil and gas exploration, development, production,
and related activities, there shall be no surface occupancy
of the lands comprising the Special Area.
(4) Directional drilling.--Notwithstanding the other
provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may lease all or
a portion of a Special Area under terms that permit the use
of horizontal drilling technology from sites on leases
located outside the area.
(f) Limitation on Closed Areas.--The Secretary's sole
authority to close lands within the Coastal Plain to oil and
gas leasing and to exploration, development, and production
is that set forth in this title.
(g) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this title,
including rules and regulations relating to protection of the
fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and
environment of the Coastal
[[Page 23585]]
Plain, by no later than 15 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Revision of regulations.--The Secretary shall
periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the rules and
regulations issued under subsection (a) to reflect any
significant biological, environmental, or engineering data
that come to the Secretary's attention.
SEC. 6504. LEASE SALES.
(a) In General.--Lands may be leased pursuant to this title
to any person qualified to obtain a lease for deposits of oil
and gas under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.).
(b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
establish procedures for--
(1) receipt and consideration of sealed nominations for any
area in the Coastal Plain for inclusion in, or exclusion (as
provided in subsection (c)) from, a lease sale;
(2) the holding of lease sales after such nomination
process; and
(3) public notice of and comment on designation of areas to
be included in, or excluded from, a lease sale.
(c) Lease Sale Bids.--Bidding for leases under this title
shall be by sealed competitive cash bonus bids.
(d) Acreage Minimum in First Sale.--In the first lease sale
under this title, the Secretary shall offer for lease those
tracts the Secretary considers to have the greatest potential
for the discovery of hydrocarbons, taking into consideration
nominations received pursuant to subsection (b)(1), but in no
case less than 200,000 acres.
(e) Timing of Lease Sales.--The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct the first lease sale under this title within 22
months after the date of the enactment of this title; and
(2) conduct additional sales so long as sufficient interest
in development exists to warrant, in the Secretary's
judgment, the conduct of such sales.
SEC. 6505. GRANT OF LEASES BY THE SECRETARY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may grant to the highest
responsible qualified bidder in a lease sale conducted
pursuant to section 6504 any lands to be leased on the
Coastal Plain upon payment by the lessee of such bonus as may
be accepted by the Secretary.
(b) Subsequent Transfers.--No lease issued under this title
may be sold, exchanged, assigned, sublet, or otherwise
transferred except with the approval of the Secretary. Prior
to any such approval the Secretary shall consult with, and
give due consideration to the views of, the Attorney General.
SEC. 6506. LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(a) In General.--An oil or gas lease issued pursuant to
this title shall--
(1) provide for the payment of a royalty of not less than
12\1/2\ percent in amount or value of the production removed
or sold from the lease, as determined by the Secretary under
the regulations applicable to other Federal oil and gas
leases;
(2) provide that the Secretary may close, on a seasonal
basis, portions of the Coastal Plain to exploratory drilling
activities as necessary to protect caribou calving areas and
other species of fish and wildlife;
(3) require that the lessee of lands within the Coastal
Plain shall be fully responsible and liable for the
reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain and any other
Federal lands that are adversely affected in connection with
exploration, development, production, or transportation
activities conducted under the lease and within the Coastal
Plain by the lessee or by any of the subcontractors or agents
of the lessee;
(4) provide that the lessee may not delegate or convey, by
contract or otherwise, the reclamation responsibility and
liability to another person without the express written
approval of the Secretary;
(5) provide that the standard of reclamation for lands
required to be reclaimed under this title shall be, as nearly
as practicable, a condition capable of supporting the uses
which the lands were capable of supporting prior to any
exploration, development, or production activities, or upon
application by the lessee, to a higher or better use as
approved by the Secretary;
(6) contain terms and conditions relating to protection of
fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the environment as
required pursuant to section 6503(a)(2);
(7) provide that the lessee, its agents, and its
contractors use best efforts to provide a fair share, as
determined by the level of obligation previously agreed to in
the 1974 agreement implementing section 29 of the Federal
Agreement and Grant of Right of Way for the Operation of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, of employment and contracting for
Alaska Natives and Alaska Native Corporations from throughout
the State;
(8) prohibit the export of oil produced under the lease;
and
(9) contain such other provisions as the Secretary
determines necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions
of this title and the regulations issued under this title.
(b) Project Labor Agreements.--The Secretary, as a term and
condition of each lease under this title and in recognizing
the Government's proprietary interest in labor stability and
in the ability of construction labor and management to meet
the particular needs and conditions of projects to be
developed under the leases issued pursuant to this title and
the special concerns of the parties to such leases, shall
require that the lessee and its agents and contractors
negotiate to obtain a project labor agreement for the
employment of laborers and mechanics on production,
maintenance, and construction under the lease.
SEC. 6507. COASTAL PLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
(a) No Significant Adverse Effect Standard To Govern
Authorized Coastal Plain Activities.--The Secretary shall,
consistent with the requirements of section 6503, administer
the provisions of this title through regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations,
and other provisions that--
(1) ensure the oil and gas exploration, development, and
production activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no
significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment;
(2) require the application of the best commercially
available technology for oil and gas exploration,
development, and production on all new exploration,
development, and production operations; and
(3) ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage
covered by production and support facilities, including
airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for
support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the
Coastal Plain.
(b) Site-Specific Assessment and Mitigation.--The Secretary
shall also require, with respect to any proposed drilling and
related activities, that--
(1) a site-specific analysis be made of the probable
effects, if any, that the drilling or related activities will
have on fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the
environment;
(2) a plan be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
(in that order and to the extent practicable) any significant
adverse effect identified under paragraph (1); and
(3) the development of the plan shall occur after
consultation with the agency or agencies having jurisdiction
over matters mitigated by the plan.
(c) Regulations To Protect Coastal Plain Fish and Wildlife
Resources, Subsistence Users, and the Environment.--Before
implementing the leasing program authorized by this title,
the Secretary shall prepare and promulgate regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations,
and other measures designed to ensure that the activities
undertaken on the Coastal Plain under this title are
conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes and
environmental requirements of this title.
(d) Compliance With Federal and State Environmental Laws
and Other Requirements.--The proposed regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, and
stipulations for the leasing program under this title shall
require compliance with all applicable provisions of Federal
and State environmental law and shall also require the
following:
(1) Standards at least as effective as the safety and
environmental mitigation measures set forth in items 1
through 29 at pages 167 through 169 of the ``Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on
the Coastal Plain.
(2) Seasonal limitations on exploration, development, and
related activities, where necessary, to avoid significant
adverse effects during periods of concentrated fish and
wildlife breeding, denning, nesting, spawning, and migration.
(3) That exploration activities, except for surface
geological studies, be limited to the period between
approximately November 1 and May 1 each year and that
exploration activities shall be supported by ice roads,
winter trails with adequate snow cover, ice pads, ice
airstrips, and air transport methods, except that such
exploration activities may occur at other times, if--
(A) the Secretary determines, after affording an
opportunity for public comment and review, that special
circumstances exist necessitating that exploration activities
be conducted at other times of the year; and
(B) the Secretary finds that such exploration will have no
significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain.
(4) Design safety and construction standards for all
pipelines and any access and service roads, that--
(A) minimize, to the maximum extent possible, adverse
effects upon the passage of migratory species such as
caribou; and
(B) minimize adverse effects upon the flow of surface water
by requiring the use of culverts, bridges, and other
structural devices.
(5) Prohibitions on public access and use on all pipeline
access and service roads.
(6) Stringent reclamation and rehabilitation requirements,
consistent with the standards set forth in this title,
requiring the removal from the Coastal Plain of all oil and
gas development and production facilities, structures, and
equipment upon completion of oil and gas production
operations, except that the Secretary may exempt from the
requirements of this paragraph those facilities, structures,
or equipment that the Secretary determines would assist in
the management of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
that are donated to the United States for that purpose.
[[Page 23586]]
(7) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on access by
all modes of transportation.
(8) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on sand and
gravel extraction.
(9) Consolidation of facility siting.
(10) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on use of
explosives.
(11) Avoidance, to the extent practicable, of springs,
streams, and river system; the protection of natural surface
drainage patterns, wetlands, and riparian habitats; and the
regulation of methods or techniques for developing or
transporting adequate supplies of water for exploratory
drilling.
(12) Avoidance or reduction of air traffic-related
disturbance to fish and wildlife.
(13) Treatment and disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes,
solid wastes, reserve pit fluids, drilling muds and cuttings,
and domestic wastewater, including an annual waste management
report, a hazardous materials tracking system, and a
prohibition on chlorinated solvents, in accordance with
applicable Federal and State environmental law.
(14) Fuel storage and oil spill contingency planning.
(15) Research, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
(16) Field crew environmental briefings.
(17) Avoidance of significant adverse effects upon
subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping by subsistence
users.
(18) Compliance with applicable air and water quality
standards.
(19) Appropriate seasonal and safety zone designations
around well sites, within which subsistence hunting and
trapping shall be limited.
(20) Reasonable stipulations for protection of cultural and
archeological resources.
(21) All other protective environmental stipulations,
restrictions, terms, and conditions deemed necessary by the
Secretary.
(e) Considerations.--In preparing and promulgating
regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions,
prohibitions, and stipulations under this section, the
Secretary shall consider the following:
(1) The stipulations and conditions that govern the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leasing program, as set
forth in the 1999 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement.
(2) The environmental protection standards that governed
the initial Coastal Plain seismic exploration program under
parts 37.31 to 37.33 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) The land use stipulations for exploratory drilling on
the KIC-ASRC private lands that are set forth in Appendix 2
of the August 9, 1983, agreement between Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation and the United States.
(f) Facility Consolidation Planning.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, after providing for
public notice and comment, prepare and update periodically a
plan to govern, guide, and direct the siting and construction
of facilities for the exploration, development, production,
and transportation of Coastal Plain oil and gas resources.
(2) Objectives.--The plan shall have the following
objectives:
(A) Avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities and
activities.
(B) Encouraging consolidation of common facilities and
activities.
(C) Locating or confining facilities and activities to
areas that will minimize impact on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment.
(D) Utilizing existing facilities wherever practicable.
(E) Enhancing compatibility between wildlife values and
development activities.
SEC. 6508. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Filing of Complaint.--
(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), any complaint
seeking judicial review of any provision of this title or any
action of the Secretary under this title shall be filed in
any appropriate district court of the United States--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), within the 90-
day period beginning on the date of the action being
challenged; or
(B) in the case of a complaint based solely on grounds
arising after such period, within 90 days after the
complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the
grounds for the complaint.
(2) Venue.--Any complaint seeking judicial review of an
action of the Secretary under this title may be filed only in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
(3) Limitation on scope of certain review.--Judicial review
of a Secretarial decision to conduct a lease sale under this
title, including the environmental analysis thereof, shall be
limited to whether the Secretary has complied with the terms
of this division and shall be based upon the administrative
record of that decision. The Secretary's identification of a
preferred course of action to enable leasing to proceed and
the Secretary's analysis of environmental effects under this
division shall be presumed to be correct unless shown
otherwise by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(b) Limitation on Other Review.--Actions of the Secretary
with respect to which review could have been obtained under
this section shall not be subject to judicial review in any
civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement.
SEC. 6509. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAIN.
(a) Exemption.--Title XI of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.) shall
not apply to the issuance by the Secretary under section 28
of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) of rights-of-way
and easements across the Coastal Plain for the transportation
of oil and gas.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in
any right-of-way or easement referred to in subsection (a)
such terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure that
transportation of oil and gas does not result in a
significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife,
subsistence resources, their habitat, and the environment of
the Coastal Plain, including requirements that facilities be
sited or designed so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of
roads and pipelines.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall include in
regulations under section 6503(g) provisions granting rights-
of-way and easements described in subsection (a) of this
section.
SEC. 6510. CONVEYANCE.
In order to maximize Federal revenues by removing clouds on
title to lands and clarifying land ownership patterns within
the Coastal Plain, the Secretary, notwithstanding the
provisions of section 1302(h)(2) of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3192(h)(2)), shall
convey--
(1) to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation the surface estate
of the lands described in paragraph 2 of Public Land Order
6959, to the extent necessary to fulfill the Corporation's
entitlement under section 12 of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611); and
(2) to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation the subsurface
estate beneath such surface estate pursuant to the August 9,
1983, agreement between the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
and the United States of America.
SEC. 6511. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT AID AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Financial Assistance Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may use amounts available
from the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance
Fund established by subsection (d) to provide timely
financial assistance to entities that are eligible under
paragraph (2) and that are directly impacted by the
exploration for or production of oil and gas on the Coastal
Plain under this title.
(2) Eligible entities.--The North Slope Borough, Kaktovik,
and other boroughs, municipal subdivisions, villages, and any
other community organized under Alaska State law shall be
eligible for financial assistance under this section.
(b) Use of Assistance.--Financial assistance under this
section may be used only for--
(1) planning for mitigation of the potential effects of oil
and gas exploration and development on environmental, social,
cultural, recreational and subsistence values;
(2) implementing mitigation plans and maintaining
mitigation projects; and
(3) developing, carrying out, and maintaining projects and
programs that provide new or expanded public facilities and
services to address needs and problems associated with such
effects, including firefighting, police, water, waste
treatment, medivac, and medical services.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--Any community that is eligible for
assistance under this section may submit an application for
such assistance to the Secretary, in such form and under such
procedures as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
(2) North slope borough communities.--A community located
in the North Slope Borough may apply for assistance under
this section either directly to the Secretary or through the
North Slope Borough.
(3) Application assistance.--The Secretary shall work
closely with and assist the North Slope Borough and other
communities eligible for assistance under this section in
developing and submitting applications for assistance under
this section.
(d) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury the
Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund.
(2) Use.--Amounts in the fund may be used only for
providing financial assistance under this section.
(3) Deposits.--Subject to paragraph (4), there shall be
deposited into the fund amounts received by the United States
as revenues derived from rents, bonuses, and royalties under
on leases and lease sales authorized under this title.
(4) Limitation on deposits.--The total amount in the fund
may not exceed $10,000,000.
(5) Investment of balances.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest amounts in the fund in interest bearing
government securities.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To provide financial
assistance under this section there is authorized to be
appropriated to
[[Page 23587]]
the Secretary from the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact
Aid Assistance Fund $5,000,000 for each fiscal year.
SEC. 6512. REVENUE ALLOCATION.
(a) Federal and State Distribution.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 6504 of this Act,
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et. seq.), or any
other law, of the amount of adjusted bonus, rental, and
royalty revenues from oil and gas leasing and operations
authorized under this title--
(A) 50 percent shall be paid to the State of Alaska; and
(B) the balance shall be deposited into the Renewable
Energy Technology Investment Fund and the Royalties
Conservation Fund as provided in this section.
(2) Adjustments.--Adjustments to bonus, rental, and royalty
amounts from oil and gas leasing and operations authorized
under this title shall be made as necessary for overpayments
and refunds from lease revenues received in current or
subsequent periods before distribution of such revenues
pursuant to this section.
(3) Timing of payments to state.--Payments to the State of
Alaska under this section shall be made semiannually.
(b) Renewable Energy Technology Investment Fund.--
(1) Establishment and availability.--There is hereby
established in the Treasury of the United States a separate
account which shall be known as the ``Renewable Energy
Technology Investment Fund''.
(2) Deposits.--Fifty percent of adjusted revenues from
bonus payments for leases issued under this title shall be
deposited into the Renewable Energy Technology Investment
Fund.
(3) Use, generally.--Subject to paragraph (4), funds
deposited into the Renewable Energy Technology Investment
Fund shall be used by the Secretary of Energy to finance
research grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements and
expenses of direct research by Federal agencies, including
the costs of administering and reporting on such a program of
research, to improve and demonstrate technology and develop
basic science information for development and use of
renewable and alternative fuels including wind energy, solar
energy, geothermal energy, and energy from biomass. Such
research may include studies on deployment of such technology
including research on how to lower the costs of introduction
of such technology and of barriers to entry into the market
of such technology.
(4) Use for adjustments and refunds.--If for any
circumstances, adjustments or refunds of bonus amounts
deposited pursuant to this title become warranted, 50 percent
of the amount necessary for the sum of such adjustments and
refunds may be paid by the Secretary from the Renewable
Energy Technology Investment Fund.
(5) Consultation and coordination.--Any specific use of the
Renewable Energy Technology Investment Fund shall be
determined only after the Secretary of Energy consults and
coordinates with the heads of other appropriate Federal
agencies.
(6) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter, the
Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the
use of funds under this subsection and the impact of and
efforts to integrate such uses with other energy research
efforts.
(c) Royalties Conservation Fund.--
(1) Establishment and availability.--There is hereby
established in the Treasury of the United States a separate
account which shall be known as the ``Royalties Conservation
Fund''.
(2) Deposits.--Fifty percent of revenues from rents and
royalty payments for leases issued under this title shall be
deposited into the Royalties Conservation Fund.
(3) Use, generally.--Subject to paragraph (4), funds
deposited into the Royalties Conservation Fund--
(A) may be used by the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to finance grants, contracts,
cooperative agreements, and expenses for direct activities of
the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to
restore and otherwise conserve lands and habitat and to
eliminate maintenance and improvements backlogs on Federal
lands, including the costs of administering and reporting on
such a program; and
(B) may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to finance
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and expenses--
(i) to preserve historic Federal properties;
(ii) to assist States and Indian Tribes in preserving their
historic properties;
(iii) to foster the development of urban parks; and
(iv) to conduct research to improve the effectiveness and
lower the costs of habitat restoration.
(4) Use for adjustments and refunds.--If for any
circumstances, refunds or adjustments of royalty and rental
amounts deposited pursuant to this title become warranted, 50
percent of the amount necessary for the sum of such
adjustments and refunds may be paid from the Royalties
Conservation Fund.
(d) Availability.--Moneys covered into the accounts
established by this section--
(1) shall be available for expenditure only to the extent
appropriated therefor;
(2) may be appropriated without fiscal-year limitation; and
(3) may be obligated or expended only as provided in this
section.
TITLE VI--CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SEC. 6601. ENERGY CONSERVATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) conduct a study to identify, evaluate, and recommend
opportunities for conserving energy by reducing the amount of
energy used by facilities of the Department of the Interior;
and
(2) wherever feasible and appropriate, reduce the use of
energy from traditional sources by encouraging use of
alternative energy sources, including solar power and power
from fuel cells, throughout such facilities and the public
lands of the United States.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress--
(1) by not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a report containing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the study under
subsection (a)(1); and
(2) by not later than December 31 each year, an annual
report describing progress made in--
(A) conserving energy through opportunities recommended in
the report under paragraph (1); and
(B) encouraging use of alternative energy sources under
subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 6602. AMENDMENT TO BUY INDIAN ACT.
Section 23 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (25 U.S.C. 47;
commonly known as the ``Buy Indian Act'') is amended by
inserting ``energy products, and energy by-products,'' after
``printing,''.
TITLE VII--COAL
SEC. 6701. LIMITATION ON FEES WITH RESPECT TO COAL LEASE
APPLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS.
Notwithstanding sections 304 and 504 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734, 1764) and
section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary
shall not recover the Secretary's costs with respect to
applications and other documents relating coal leases.
SEC. 6702. MINING PLANS.
Section 2(d)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
202a(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The Secretary may establish a period of more than 40
years if the Secretary determines that the longer period--
``(i) will ensure the maximum economic recovery of a coal
deposit; or
``(ii) the longer period is in the interest of the orderly,
efficient, or economic development of a coal resources.''.
SEC. 6703. PAYMENT OF ADVANCE ROYALTIES UNDER COAL LEASES.
(a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920 (30 U.S.C. 207(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) Each lease shall be subjected to the condition of
diligent development and continued operation of the mine or
mines, except where operations under the lease are
interrupted by strikes, the elements, or casualties not
attributable to the lessee.
``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Interior, upon determining
that the public interest will be served thereby, may suspend
the condition of continued operation upon the payment of
advance royalties.
``(B) Such advance royalties shall be computed based on the
average price for coal sold in the spot market from the same
region during the last month of each applicable continued
operation year.
``(C) The aggregate number of years during the initial and
any extended term of any lease for which advance royalties
may be accepted in lieu of the condition of continued
operation shall not exceed 20.
``(3) The amount of any production royalty paid for any
year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of
any advance royalties paid under such lease to the extent
that such advance royalties have not been used to reduce
production royalties for a prior year.
``(4) This subsection shall be applicable to any lease or
logical mining unit in existence on the date of the enactment
of this paragraph or issued or approved after such date.
``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
affect the requirement contained in the second sentence of
subsection (a) relating to commencement of production at the
end of 10 years.''.
(b) Authority To Waive, Suspend, or Reduce Advance
Royalties.--Section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
209) is amended by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 6704. ELIMINATION OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF COAL
LEASE OPERATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN.
Section 7(c) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 207(c))
is amended by striking ``and not later than three years after
a lease is issued,''.
[[Page 23588]]
TITLE VIII--INSULAR AREAS ENERGY SECURITY
SEC. 6801. INSULAR AREAS ENERGY SECURITY.
Section 604 of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize
appropriations for certain insular areas of the United
States, and for other purposes'', approved December 24, 1980
(Public Law 96-597; 94 Stat. 3480-3481), is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4) by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following
new paragraphs:
``(5) electric power transmission and distribution lines in
insular areas are inadequate to withstand damage caused by
the hurricanes and typhoons which frequently occur in insular
areas and such damage often costs millions of dollars to
repair; and
``(6) the refinement of renewable energy technologies since
the publication of the 1982 Territorial Energy Assessment
prepared pursuant to subsection (c) reveals the need to
reassess the state of energy production, consumption,
infrastructure, reliance on imported energy, and indigenous
sources in regard to the insular areas.'';
(3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e)(1) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy and the chief executive officer
of each insular area, shall update the plans required under
subsection (c) by--
``(A) updating the contents required by subsection (c);
``(B) drafting long-term energy plans for such insular
areas with the objective of reducing, to the extent feasible,
their reliance on energy imports by the year 2010 and
maximizing, to the extent feasible, use of indigenous energy
sources; and
``(C) drafting long-term energy transmission line plans for
such insular areas with the objective that the maximum
percentage feasible of electric power transmission and
distribution lines in each insular area be protected from
damage caused by hurricanes and typhoons.
``(2) Not later than May 31, 2003, the Secretary of the
Interior shall submit to Congress the updated plans for each
insular area required by this subsection.''; and
(4) by amending subsection (g)(4) to read as follows:
``(4) Power line grants for territories.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to make grants to governments of territories of
the United States to carry out eligible projects to protect
electric power transmission and distribution lines in such
territories from damage caused by hurricanes and typhoons.
``(B) Eligible projects.--The Secretary may award grants
under subparagraph (A) only to governments of territories of
the United States that submit written project plans to the
Secretary for projects that meet the following criteria:
``(i) The project is designed to protect electric power
transmission and distribution lines located in one or more of
the territories of the United States from damage caused by
hurricanes and typhoons.
``(ii) The project is likely to substantially reduce the
risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering.
``(iii) The project addresses one or more problems that
have been repetitive or that pose a significant risk to
public health and safety.
``(iv) The project is not likely to cost more than the
value of the reduction in direct damage and other negative
impacts that the project is designed to prevent or mitigate.
The cost benefit analysis required by this criterion shall be
computed on a net present value basis.
``(v) The project design has taken into consideration long-
term changes to the areas and persons it is designed to
protect and has manageable future maintenance and
modification requirements.
``(vi) The project plan includes an analysis of a range of
options to address the problem it is designed to prevent or
mitigate and a justification for the selection of the project
in light of that analysis.
``(vii) The applicant has demonstrated to the Secretary
that the matching funds required by subparagraph (D) are
available.
``(C) Priority.--When making grants under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall give priority to grants for projects
which are likely to--
``(i) have the greatest impact on reducing future disaster
losses; and
``(ii) best conform with plans that have been approved by
the Federal Government or the government of the territory
where the project is to be carried out for development or
hazard mitigation for that territory.
``(D) Matching requirement.--The Federal share of the cost
for a project for which a grant is provided under this
paragraph shall not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of
that project. The non-Federal share of the cost may be
provided in the form of cash or services.
``(E) Treatment of funds for certain purposes.--Grants
provided under this paragraph shall not be considered as
income, a resource, or a duplicative program when determining
eligibility or benefit levels for Federal major disaster and
emergency assistance.
``(F) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $5,000,000 for
each fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph.''.
DIVISION G
SEC. 7101. BUY AMERICAN.
No funds authorized under this Act shall be available to
any person or entity that has been convicted of violating the
Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
DIVISION H
SEC. 8101. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 15, the following:
``CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING
``Sec.
``301. Definitions.
``302. Prohibition on human cloning.
``Sec. 301. Definitions
``In this chapter:
``(1) Human cloning.--The term `human cloning' means human
asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear
material from one or more human somatic cells into a
fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has
been removed or inactivated so as to produce a living
organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically
virtually identical to an existing or previously existing
human organism.
``(2) Asexual reproduction.--The term `asexual
reproduction' means reproduction not initiated by the union
of oocyte and sperm.
``(3) Somatic cell.--The term `somatic cell' means a
diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained
or derived from a living or deceased human body at any stage
of development.
``Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning
``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or
entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate
commerce, knowingly--
``(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
``(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human
cloning; or
``(3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced
by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
``(b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or
entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any
purpose an embryo produced by human cloning, or any product
derived from such embryo.
``(c) Penalties.--
``(1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity that violates
this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.
``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity that violates
any provision of this section shall be subject to, in the
case of a violation that involves the derivation of a
pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000
and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the gross
gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than
$1,000,000.
``(d) Scientific Research.--Nothing in this section
restricts areas of scientific research not specifically
prohibited by this section, including research in the use of
nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce
molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues,
organs, plants, or animals other than humans.''.
(b) Study and Report.--
(1) In general.--The General Accounting Office shall
conduct a study to assess the need (if any) for amendment of
the prohibition on human cloning, as defined in section 301
of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section,
which study shall include--
(A) a discussion of new developments in medical technology
concerning human cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer,
the need (if any) for somatic cell nuclear transfer to
produce medical advances, current public attitudes and
prevailing ethical views concerning the use of somatic cell
nuclear transfer, and potential legal implications of
research in somatic cell nuclear transfer; and
(B) a review of any technological developments that may
require that technical changes be made to chapter 16 of title
18, United States Code, as added by this section.
(2) Report.--The General Accounting Office shall transmit
to Congress, within 4 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, a report containing the findings and conclusions of
its study, together with recommendations for any legislation
or administrative actions which it considers appropriate.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 15 the following:
``16. Human Cloning..........................................301''.....
(d) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendments made
by this section, shall take effect the day after the date of
enactment of this Act, and shall expire on the date that is
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
____
SA 2172. Mr. HOLLINGS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1743, to create a temporary reinsurance mechanism
to enhance the availability of terrorism
[[Page 23589]]
insurance; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF TERRORISM RISK-RELATED
INCREASED PREMIUM PASSTHROUGH ACCOUNTS.
Amounts received by participating insurers as increased
premiums under section 9(a) and deposited in the separate
segregated account required by section 9(b), and amounts
earned as interest, dividends, or other income on funds
deposited in such account, shall be exempt from all Federal,
State, and local income and excise taxes, and may not be
taken into account for the purpose of determining any other
tax liability of the participating insurer.
____
SA 2173. Mr. BURNS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 10, to provide for pension reform, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE IX--CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK
SEC. 901. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
(a) Authority.--Chapter 223 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 223--CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK
``Sec.
``22301. Capital grants for railroad track.
``Sec. 22301. Capital grants for railroad track
``(a) Establishment of Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish a program of capital grants for the rehabilitation,
preservation, or improvement of railroad track (including
roadbed, bridges, and related track structures) of class II
and class III railroads. Such grants shall be for
rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track used primarily
for freight transportation to a standard ensuring that the
track can be operated safely and efficiently, including
grants for rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track to
handle 286,000 pound rail cars. Grants may be provided under
this chapter--
``(A) directly to the class II or class III railroad; or
``(B) with the concurrence of the class II or class III
railroad, to a State or local government.
``(2) State cooperation.--Class II and class III railroad
applicants for a grant under this chapter are encouraged to
utilize the expertise and assistance of State transportation
agencies in applying for and administering such grants. State
transportation agencies are encouraged to provide such
expertise and assistance to such railroads.
``(3) Interim regulations.--Not later than December 31,
2001, the Secretary shall issue temporary regulations to
implement the program under this section. Subchapter II of
chapter 5 of title 5 does not apply to a temporary regulation
issued under this paragraph or to an amendment to such a
temporary regulation.
``(4) Final regulations.--Not later than October 1, 2002,
the Secretary shall issue final regulations to implement the
program under this section.
``(b) Maximum Federal Share.--The maximum Federal share for
carrying out a project under this section shall be 80 percent
of the project cost. The non-Federal share may be provided by
any non-Federal source in cash, equipment, or supplies. Other
in-kind contributions may be approved by the Secretary on a
case by case basis consistent with this chapter.
``(c) Project Eligibility.--For a project to be eligible
for assistance under this section the track must have been
operated or owned by a class II or class III railroad as of
the date of the enactment of the Railroad Track Modernization
Act of 2001.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Grants provided under this section
shall be used to implement track capital projects as soon as
possible. In no event shall grant funds be contractually
obligated for a project later than the end of the third
Federal fiscal year following the year in which the grant was
awarded. Any funds not so obligated by the end of such fiscal
year shall be returned to the Secretary for reallocation.
``(e) Additional Purpose.--In addition to making grants for
projects as provided in subsection (a), the Secretary may
also make grants to supplement direct loans or loan
guarantees made under title V of the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(d)), for
projects described in the last sentence of section 502(d) of
such title. Grants made under this subsection may be used, in
whole or in part, for paying credit risk premiums, lowering
rates of interest, or providing for a holiday on principal
payments.
``(f) Employee Protection.--The Secretary shall require as
a condition of any grant made under this section that the
recipient railroad provide a fair arrangement at least as
protective of the interests of employees who are affected by
the project to be funded with the grant as the terms imposed
under section 11326(a), as in effect on the date of the
enactment of the Railroad Track Modernization Act of 2001.
``(g) Labor Standards.--
``(1) Prevailing wages.--The Secretary shall ensure that
laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and
subcontractors in construction work financed by a grant made
under this section will be paid wages not less than those
prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as
determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Act of March
3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et
seq.). The Secretary shall make a grant under this section
only after being assured that required labor standards will
be maintained on the construction work.
``(2) Wage rates.--Wage rates in a collective bargaining
agreement negotiated under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.
151 et seq.) are deemed for purposes of this subsection to
comply with the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-
Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.).
``(h) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
projects carried out with grant assistance under this section
to determine the public interest benefits associated with the
light density railroad networks in the States and their
contribution to a multimodal transportation system. Not later
than March 31, 2003, the Secretary shall report to Congress
any recommendations the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding the eligibility of light density rail networks for
Federal infrastructure financing.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $350,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2004 for carrying out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 223
in the table of chapters of subtitle V of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
22301''.ITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK...............................
____
SA 2174. Mr. BURNS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 10, to provide for pension reform, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE IX--RAILROAD COMPETITION, ARBITRATION, AND SERVICE
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES
CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Railroad
Competition, Arbitration, and Service Act of 2001''.
(b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this title an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 902. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are as follows:
(1) To eliminate unreasonable barriers to competition among
rail carriers.
(2) To provide for use of expedited, private means for the
resolution of disputes between shippers and carriers.
SEC. 903. CLARIFICATION OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.
Section 10101 is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In
regulating''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Primary Objectives.--The primary objectives of the
rail transportation policy of the United States are as
follows:
``(1) To ensure effective competition among rail carriers
at origins and destinations.
``(2) To maintain reasonable rates for rail transportation
where effective competition among rail carriers has not been
achieved.
``(3) To maintain consistent and efficient rail
transportation service for shippers.''.
SEC. 904. ARBITRATION OF CERTAIN RAIL RATE, SERVICE, AND
OTHER DISPUTES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Authority.--Chapter 117 of title 49 is amended by
adding the following section after section 11707:
``Sec. 11708. Arbitration of certain rail rate, service, and
other disputes
``(a) Election of Arbitration.--A dispute described in
subsection (b) shall be submitted for resolution by
arbitration upon the election of any party to the dispute
that is not a rail carrier.
``(b) Covered Disputes.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), subsection (a) applies to any dispute between
a party described in subsection (a) and a rail carrier that--
``(A) arises under section 10701(c), 10701(d), 10702,
10704(a)(1), 10707, 10741, 10745, 10746, 11101(a), 11102,
11121, 11122, or 11706 of this title; and
``(B) involves--
``(i) the payment of money;
``(ii) a rate charged by the rail carrier; or
``(iii) transportation by the rail carrier.
``(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to a dispute if the
resolution of the dispute would necessarily involve the
promulgation of regulations generally applicable to all rail
carriers.
``(c) Arbitration Procedures.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall prescribe in
[[Page 23590]]
regulations the procedures for the resolution of disputes
submitted for arbitration under subsection (a). The
regulations shall include the following:
``(1) Procedures, including time limits, for the selection
of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators for a dispute from
among arbitrators listed on the roster of arbitrators
established and maintained by the Secretary under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Policies, requirements, and procedures for the
compensation of each arbitrator for a dispute to be paid by
the parties to the dispute.
``(3) Procedures for expedited arbitration of a dispute,
including procedures for discovery authorized in the exercise
of discretion by the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators.
``(d) Selection of Arbitrators.--(1) The Secretary of
Transportation shall establish, maintain, and revise as
necessary a roster of arbitrators who--
``(A) are experienced in transportation or economic issues
within the jurisdiction of the Board or issues similar to
those issues;
``(B) satisfy requirements for neutrality and other
qualification requirements prescribed by the Secretary;
``(C) consent to serve as arbitrators under this section;
and
``(D) are not officers or employees of the United States.
(2) For a dispute involving an amount not in excess of
$1,000,000, the regulations under subsection (c) shall
provide for arbitration by a single arbitrator selected by--
``(A) the parties to the dispute; or
``(B) if the parties cannot agree, the Secretary of
Transportation, from the roster of arbitrators prescribed
under paragraph (1).
``(3)(A) For a dispute involving an amount in excess of
$1,000,000, the regulations under subsection (c) shall
provide for arbitration by a panel of three arbitrators
selected as follows:
``(i) One arbitrator selected by the party electing the
arbitration.
``(ii) One arbitrator selected by the rail carrier or all
of the rail carriers who are parties to the dispute, as the
case may be.
``(iii) One arbitrator selected by the two arbitrators
selected under clauses (i) and (ii).
``(B) If a selection of an arbitrator is not made under
clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) within the time
limits prescribed in the regulations, then the Secretary
shall select the arbitrator from the roster of arbitrators
prescribed under paragraph (1).
``(e) Disputes on Rates or Charges.--(1) The requirements
of this subsection apply to a dispute submitted under this
section for resolution of an issue of the reasonableness of a
rate or charge imposed by a rail carrier.
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the decision of an
arbitrator or panel of arbitrators in a dispute on an issue
described in paragraph (1) shall be one of the final offers
of the parties to the dispute.
``(B) A decision under subparagraph (A) may not provide for
a rate for transportation by a rail carrier that would result
in a revenue-variable cost percentage for such transportation
that is less than 180 percent, as determined under standards
applied in the administration of section 10707(d) of this
title.
``(3) If the party electing arbitration of a dispute
described in paragraph (1) seeks compensation for damages
incurred by the party as a result of a specific rate or
charge imposed by a rail carrier for the transportation of
items for the party and the party alleges an amount of
damages that does not exceed $500,000 for any year as a
result of the imposition of the specific rate or charge, the
arbitrator, in making a decision on the dispute, shall
consider the rates or charges, respectively, that are imposed
by rail carriers for the transportation of similar items
under similar circumstances in rail transportation markets
where there is effective competition, as determined under
standards applied by the Board in the administration of
section 10707(a) of this title.
``(f) Time for Issuance of Arbitration Decision.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle limiting
the time for the taking of an action under this subtitle, the
arbitrator or panel of arbitrators for a dispute submitted
for resolution under this section shall issue a final
decision on the dispute within the maximum period after the
date on which the arbitrator or panel is selected to resolve
the dispute under this section, as follows:
``(1) In the case of a dispute involving $1,000,000 or
less, 120 days.
``(2) In the case of a dispute involving more than
$1,000,000, 180 days.
``(g) Authorized Relief.--A decision of an arbitrator or
panel of arbitrators under this section may grant relief in
either or both of the following forms:
``(1) Monetary damages, to the extent authorized to be
provided by the Board in such a dispute under this subtitle.
``(2) An order that requires specific performance of any
obligation under a statute determined to be applicable,
including any limitation of rates to reasonable rates, for
any period not in excess of two years beginning on the date
of the decision.
``(h) Judicial Confirmation and Review.--The following
provisions of title 9 shall apply to an arbitration decision
issued in a dispute under this section:
``(1) Section 9 (relating to confirmation of an award in an
arbitration decision), which shall be applied as if the
parties had entered into an agreement under title 9 to submit
the dispute to the arbitration and had provided in that
agreement for a judgment of an unspecified court to be
entered on the award made pursuant to the arbitration.
``(2) Section 10 (relating to judicial vacation of an award
in an arbitration decision).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 11707 the following:
``11708. Arbitration of certain rail rate, service, and other
disputes.''.
(b) Time for Implementing Certain Requirements.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate regulations,
prescribe a roster of arbitrators, and complete any other
action that is necessary for the implementation of section
11708 of title 49, United States Code (as added by subsection
(a)).
SEC. 905. ELIMINATION OF BARRIERS TO COMPETITION BETWEEN
CLASS I CARRIERS AND CLASS II AND CLASS III
CARRIERS.
(a) Restriction on Approval or Exemption of Carriers'
Activities by Surface Transportation Board.--Section 10901 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) The Board may not issue under this section a
certificate authorizing an activity described in subsection
(a), or exempt from the applicability of this section under
section 10502 of this title such an activity that involves a
transfer of interest in a line of railroad, by a Class I rail
carrier to a Class II or III rail carrier if the activity
directly or indirectly would result in--
``(A) a restriction of the ability of the Class II or Class
III rail carrier to interchange traffic with other carriers;
or
``(B) a restriction of competition between or among rail
carriers in the region affected by the activity in a manner
or to an extent that would violate antitrust laws of the
United States (notwithstanding any exemption from the
applicability of antitrust laws that is provided under
section 10706 of this title or any other provision of law).
``(2) Any party to an activity referred to in paragraph (1)
that has been carried out, or any rail shipper affected by
such an activity, may request the Board to review the
activity to determine whether the activity has resulted in a
restriction described in that paragraph. If, upon review of
the activity, the Board determines that the activity resulted
in such a restriction and the restriction has been in effect
for at least 10 years, the Board shall declare the
restriction to be unlawful and terminate the restriction
unless the Board finds that the termination of the
restriction would materially impair the ability of an
affected rail carrier to provide service to the public or
would otherwise be inconsistent with the public interest.
``(3) In this subsection:
``(A) The term`antitrust laws' has the meaning given that
term in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton
Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that such term also means
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)
to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods
of competition.
``(B) The terms `class I rail carrier', `class II rail
carrier', and `class III rail carrier' mean, respectively, a
rail carrier classified under regulations of the Board as a
Class I rail carrier, Class II rail carrier, and Class III
rail carrier.''.
(b) Applicability to Previously Approved or Exempted
Activities.--Paragraph (2) of section 10901(e) of title 49,
United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall apply
with respect to any activity referred to in that paragraph
for which the Surface Transportation Board issued a
certificate authorizing the activity under section 10901 of
such title, or exempted the activity from the necessity for
such a certificate under section 10502 of such title, before,
on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 906. SYSTEM WIDE COMPETITION.
(a) Trackage Rights.--Chapter 111 is amended by inserting
after section 11102 the following new section:
``Sec. 11102a. Trackage rights
``(a) Alternative Rail Carrier Service.--(1) A person who
uses or seeks to use rail service for major train load
shipments to or from a facility (whether located in a
terminal area or served by terminal facilities) that has
physical access solely to one rail carrier may request, as
provided in this subsection, that rail service for such
shipments be provided to or from that facility by--
``(A) an existing Class I rail carrier; or
``(B) an existing Class II rail carrier, existing Class III
rail carrier, or new rail service provider that, as
determined by the Federal Railroad Administration before the
person makes the request--
``(i) is or is likely to be capable of transporting the
major train load shipments over the facilities of the one
rail carrier to or from the facility with the physical access
solely to that rail carrier;
``(ii) is or is likely to be capable of doing so in
compliance with applicable Federal Railroad Administration
regulations and with
[[Page 23591]]
the operating and safety rules of the rail carrier
responsible for dispatching for the use of the facilities;
and
``(iii) has or is likely to have the financial ability (or
insurance coverage with limits customary in the railroad
industry) to satisfy liability claims arising from its
operations.
``(2) For the purposes of this section a major train load
shipment is any train load shipment that consists of 50 or
more rail cars and is tendered all at one time on a single
bill of lading.
``(b) Procedure for Requesting Service.--(1) A person
seeking under subsection (a) to obtain from an alternative
rail service provider transportation for major train load
shipments to or from a facility described in paragraph (1) of
that subsection shall file with the Board a notice of intent
to request that service. The notice shall include the
following:
``(A) A description of the facilities to be used by the
alternative service provider.
``(B) A statement that the person has attempted without
success, through negotiations with the rail carrier that has
been providing the person with rail service to or from the
facility, to obtain the proposed service from that rail
carrier on terms similar to those available from the
alternative rail service provider.
``(C) Any other details of the proposed service.
``(D) If the alternative rail service provider is a
provider described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1),
a certification by the Federal Railroad Administration of the
determinations required for eligibility under that
subparagraph.
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (D), rail service
described in a notice filed with the Board under paragraph
(1) may be provided by the alternative rail service provider
referred to in the notice beginning 60 days after the notice
is so filed unless, before the expiration of that 60-day
period, the Board determines that the alternative rail
service provider's use of the facilities involved--
``(i) will be unsafe;
``(ii) is not operationally feasible; or
``(iii) will substantially impair the ability of the other
rail carrier or rail carriers using the facilities to provide
transportation over those facilities in accordance with the
reasonable requirements of the customers served by the other
carrier or carriers as of the date of the Board's
determination.
``(B) The rail carrier or carriers that own or provide
transportation over the facilities to be used by an
alternative rail service provider in rail service covered by
a notice filed with the Board under paragraph (1) shall have
the burden of proving the matters described in clauses (i),
(ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A).
``(C) The Board shall consult with the Federal Railroad
Administration in determining the facts regarding any
allegation by a rail carrier or rail carriers that an
alternative rail service provider's use of facilities would
be unsafe.
``(D) An alternative rail service provider may not begin to
provide any rail service under subparagraph (A) before the
provider's train crews are qualified to operate over the
facilities to be used to provide the service, as determined
under rules applicable to such operations.
``(c) Dispatching and Other Responsibilities.--(1) The rail
carrier responsible for controlling rail operations on, or
for dispatching for the use of, facilities used by any
alternative rail service provider pursuant to a notice filed
with the Board under subsection (b) shall--
``(A) continue to perform those functions for all rail
carriers using the facilities, including the alternative rail
service provider; and
``(B) dispatch trains for the alternative rail service
provider, without discrimination, on the same basis that the
rail carrier would apply if it were providing the
transportation for the traffic transported by the alternative
rail service provider.
``(2) The Board shall have jurisdiction over, and shall
promptly resolve, any disputes arising under paragraph
(1)(B).
``(d) Compensation for Use of Facilities.--(1) An
alternative rail service provider that, pursuant to a notice
filed with the Board under subsection (b), is providing
transportation over facilities owned by another rail carrier
shall compensate the owner of the facilities on such terms as
the alternative rail service provider and the owner may
agree. The terms of compensation shall be adjusted annually,
as the parties may agree, effective as of the anniversary of
the date on which the alternative rail service provider began
to use the facilities.
``(2)(A) The terms of compensation for an owner of
facilities for the use of facilities by an alternative rail
service provider shall be established on a basis that
provides for the alternative rail service provider to
compensate the owner at a level that--
``(i) defrays the relevant costs incurred by the owner for
transportation over those facilities to the extent of a share
that is proportionate to the use of those facilities by the
alternative rail service provider in relation to the use of
those facilities by all users of the facilities; and
``(ii) provides the owner with a reasonable return on and
of the owner's net book investment in road property for the
facilities (exclusive of write-ups or write-downs resulting
from mergers and consolidations of any of the facilities that
were acquired from another rail carrier on or after July 1,
1995).
``(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), an alternative
rail service provider's proportionate share of the total
relevant costs incurred by the owner of facilities for the
use of facilities during the first 12 months of the
provider's use of the facilities pursuant to a notice filed
with the Board under subsection (b) shall be the ratio of--
``(i) the extent to which the alternative rail service
provider is reasonably expected to use the facilities during
that 12-month period, measured in gross ton-miles, to
``(ii) the total volume of the use of the facilities by all
users of the facilities during the 12 calendar months
preceding the month in which the notice was filed with the
Board, measured in gross ton-miles.
``(C) For the purpose of calculating an annual adjustment
of the terms of compensation for an owner of facilities for
the use of those facilities for rail service by an
alternative rail service provider, the ratio applied under
subparagraph (A) for determining the alternative rail service
provider's proportionate share of the total relevant costs
incurred by the owner of facilities for the use of facilities
shall be the ratio of--
``(i) the total volume of the use of the facilities by the
alternative rail service provider during the 12 calendar
months preceding the month in which the adjustment takes
effect, measured in gross ton-miles, to
``(ii) the total volume of the use of the facilities by all
users of the facilities during those 12 months, measured in
gross ton-miles.
``(D) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the total
relevant costs for use of facilities shall include the
following:
``(i) Roadway maintenance expenses.
``(ii) Costs reasonably related to the dispatching or
control of the operation of users' trains.
``(iii) Any ad valorem taxes.
``(3)(A) If the owner of facilities to be used by an
alternative rail service provider pursuant to a notice filed
with the Board under subsection (b) and the alternative rail
service provider do not agree on the terms of compensation
for the initial use of the facilities before the expiration
of the 60-day period applicable to the notice under paragraph
(2) of that subsection (b), either party (or the person
requesting the rail service from the alternative rail service
provider) may request the Board to establish the terms of
compensation. The Board shall establish those terms of
compensation, in accordance with the standards applicable
under this subsection, within 60 days after receiving such a
request. The terms so established shall be effective
retroactively as of the date on which the 60-day period
applicable under subsection (b)(2) expires.
``(B) If the owner of facilities and an alternative rail
service provider do not agree on an annual adjustment to
terms of compensation under paragraph (1) before the
anniversary of the date on which the alternative rail service
provider began to use the facilities, either party may submit
the dispute to the Board. The Board shall resolve the dispute
within 60 days after the dispute is submitted. Any adjustment
pursuant to a resolution of the dispute shall take effect
retroactively as of that anniversary date.
``(e) New and Enhanced Facilities.--(1) If it is necessary
for an owner of facilities to construct a new connecting
track or interlocker or any other new facility or to improve
a connecting track, interlocker, or other facility of that
owner solely to accommodate the commencement of rail service
by an alternative rail service provider under this section,
the person requesting the rail service by the alternative
rail service provider over those facilities shall pay the
entire reasonable cost of the construction or improvement.
The owner constructing the new facility or facilities shall
own the newly constructed or improved facility or facilities,
as the case may be.
``(2) If, at any time during the period of use of
facilities by one or more alternative rail service providers
pursuant to this section, it is necessary to construct or
improve facilities to ensure the safe or efficient operation
of rail service by the alternative rail service providers and
all other rail carriers using the facilities to provide rail
service, the reasonable cost of the construction or
improvement shall be shared by the owner and each of the
users of the facilities on such terms as those parties may
agree. Any dispute concerning such terms shall be promptly
resolved by the Board upon the request of any such user.
``(f) Relationship to Other Authorities.--This section may
not be construed to provide an exclusive remedy, nor to limit
the availability of any other remedy under this part, to
users of rail transportation for the enhancement of
intramodal rail competition.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after
section 11102 the following new item:
``11102a. Trackage rights.''.
SEC. 907. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect
on January 1, 2002.
(b) Exceptions.--Section 906 and the amendment made by that
section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act.
____________________
[[Page 23592]]
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on November 29, 2001, at 10 a.m., to conduct a
hearing on ``Housing and Community Development Needs: The FY 2003 HUD
Budget.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a
nomination hearing.
Agenda
Nominees: John V. Hanford, III, of Virginia, to be Ambassador at
Large for International Religious Freedom; Arthur E. Dewey, of
Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Population, Refugees,
and Migration); and John D. Ong, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to Norway.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday,
November 29, 2001, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen room 226.
Agenda
I. Committee Business: Subcommittees.
II. Unfinished Business: S. 986, A bill to allow media coverage of
court proceedings [Grassley / Schumer / Leahy / Smith / Allard /
Feingold / Specter / Durbin / DeWine / Allen / Edwards / Cantwell].
III. Nominations: Harris L. Hartz to be United States Circuit Court
Judge for the Tenth Circuit; John D. Bates to be United States District
Court Judge for the District of Columbia; Kurt D. Engelhardt to be
United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of
Louisiana; Joe L. Heaton to be United States District Court Judge for
the Western District of Oklahoma; William P. Johnson to be United
States District Court Judge for the District of New Mexico; Clay D.
Land to be United States District Court Judge for the Middle District
of Georgia; Frederick J. Martone to be United States District Court
Judge for the District of Arizona; Danny C. Reeves to be United States
District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Julie A.
Robinson to be United States District Court Judge for the District of
Kansas; James E. Rogan to be Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office at the Department of Commerce; and Thomas L.
Sansonetti to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
To be United States Attorney: David R. Dugas for the Middle District
of Louisiana; Edward H. Kubo for the District of Hawaii; James A.
McDevitt for the Eastern District of Washington; David E. O'Meilia for
the Northern District of Oklahoma; Sheldon S. Sperling for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma; Johnny Keane Sutton for the Western District of
Texas; and Richard S. Thompson for the Southern District of Georgia.
IV. Bills: S. 304, Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment
Act of 2001 [Hatch / Leahy / Biden / DeWine / Thurmond].
V. Resolutions:
S. Res. 140, A resolution designating the week beginning September
15, 2002, as ``National Civic Participation Week'' [Roberts / Feinstein
/ Reid / Warner].
H. Con. Res. 88, Expressing the sense of the Congress that the
President should issue a proclamation recognizing a National Lao-Hmong
Recognition Day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2001 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a nomination
hearing.
Agenda
Nominees: James McGee, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of
Swaziland; Kenneth Moorefield, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the
Gabonese Republic; and John Price, of Utah, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Mauritius, and to serve concurrently and without additional
compensation as Ambassador to the Federal and Islamic Republic of The
Comoros and Ambassador to the Republic of Seychelles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal
Services
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation and Federal Services be authorized to meet on Thursday,
November 29, 2001 at 9:30 A.M. for a hearing entitled ``Combating
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) with Non-
Proliferation Programs: Non-Proliferation Assistance Coordination Act
of 2001, Part II.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 180
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay
before the Senate a message from the House on S. 180, that the Senate
disagree to the House amendment, agree to the request for a conference
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate,
with no intervening action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. On behalf of the majority leader, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations:
Nos. 573, 574, 576, 577 through 582, and the nominations on the
Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements thereon be printed in
the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action, and the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
John Thomas Korsmo, of North Dakota, to be a Director of
the Federal Housing Finance Board for a term expiring
February 27, 2002.
John Thomas Korsmo, of North Dakota, to be a Director of
the Federal Housing Finance Board for a term expiring
February 27, 2009. (Reappointment)
Franz S. Leichter, of New York, to be a Director of the
Federal Housing Finance Board for a term expiring February
27, 2006.
Allan I. Mendelowitz, of Connecticut, to be a Director of
the Federal Housing Finance Board for a term expiring
February 27, 2007.
air force
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Bruce A. Wright, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be general
Lt. Gen. Donald G. Cook, 0000
ARMY
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
[[Page 23593]]
To be brigadier general
Col. Elder Granger, 0000
Col. George W. Weightman, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be brigadier general
Colonel Byron S. Bagby, 0000
Colonel Leo A. Brooks, Jr., 0000
Colonel Sean J. Byrne, 0000
Colonel Charles A. Cartwright, 0000
Colonel Philip D. Coker, 0000
Colonel Thomas R. Csrnko, 0000
Colonel Robert L. Davis, 0000
Colonel John DeFreitas, III, 0000
Colonel Robert E. Durbin, 0000
Colonel Gina S. Farrisee, 0000
Colonel David A. Fastabend, 0000
Colonel Richard P. Formica, 0000
Colonel Kathleen M. Gainey, 0000
Colonel Daniel A. Hahn, 0000
Colonel Frank G. Helmick, 0000
Colonel Rhett A. Hernandez, 0000
Colonel Mark P. Hertling, 0000
Colonel James T. Hirai, 0000
Colonel Paul S. Izzo, 0000
Colonel James L. Kennon, 0000
Colonel Mark T. Kimmitt, 0000
Colonel Robert P. Lennox, 0000
Colonel Douglas E. Lute, 0000
Colonel Timothy P. McHale, 0000
Colonel Richard W. Mills, 0000
Colonel Benjamin R. Mixon, 0000
Colonel James R. Moran, 0000
Colonel James R. Myles, 0000
Colonel Larry C. Newman, 0000
Colonel Carroll F. Pollett, 0000
Colonel Robert J. Reese, 0000
Colonel Stephen V. Reeves, 0000
Colonel Richard J. Rowe, Jr., 0000
Colonel Edward J. Sinclair, 0000
Colonel Eric F. Smith, 0000
Colonel Abraham J. Turner, 0000
Colonel Volney J. Warner, 0000
Colonel John C. Woods, 0000
Colonel Howard W. Yellen, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Lester Martinez-Lopez, 0000
Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk
air force
PN1175 Air Force nominations (2) beginning CESARIO F.
FERRER, JR., and ending RAYMOND Y. HOWELL, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of October 30, 2001.
army
PN1165 Army nominations (4) beginning ROBERT A. JOHNSON,
and ending JOHN T. WASHINGTON III, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of October 25, 2001.
PN1176 Army nominations (12) beginning SAMUEL CALDERON, and
ending FRANK E. WISMER, III, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
October 30, 2001.
PN1203 Army nomination of Carol E. Pilat, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 8, 2001.
PN1204 Army nomination of Iluminada S. Calicdan, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 8, 2001.
PN1205 Army nomination of *James W. Ware, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 8, 2001.
PN1206 Army nomination of Mee S. Paek, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 8, 2001.
PN1224 Army nominations (8) beginning MARION S. CORNWELL,
and ending GARY L. WHITE, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 15, 2001.
PN1225 Army nominations (30) beginning CHERYL A. ADAMS, and
ending DEBBIE T. WINTERS, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 15, 2001.
PN1226 Army nominations (40) beginning WILLIE J. ATKINSON,
and ending WILLEM P. VANDEMERWE, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 15, 2001.
PN1227 Army nominations (50) beginning DAVID S. ALLEMAN,
and ending WILLIAM P. YEOMANS, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 15, 2001.
PN1228 Army nominations (112) beginning LYNN F. ABRAMS, and
ending BURKHARDT H. ZORN, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 15, 2001.
PN1229 Army nominations (4) beginning CHARLES B. COLISON,
and ending ARLENE SPIRER, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 15, 2001.
navy
PN1177 Navy nominations (39) beginning BRADFORD W. BAKER,
and ending DAVID J. WICKERSHAM, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of October 30, 2001.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to legislative session.
____________________
MEASURES INDEFINITELY POSTPONED--S. 1191, S. 1215, AND S. 1216
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
calendar items be indefinitely postponed: Calendar No. 91, S. 1191;
Calendar No. 95, S. 1215; and Calendar No. 97, S. 1216.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. For the information of the Senate, these items are Senate-
numbered appropriations bills. The conference reports on the House-
numbered bills are now public laws.
____________________
NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG COALITION INSTITUTE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 159, H.R. 2291.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2291) to extend the authorization of the Drug-
Free Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years,
to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition
Institute, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered, read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid
on the table, and that any statements relating to this bill be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2291) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF PATRICIA Q. STONESIFER
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 26 and
the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 26) providing for the
appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen regent of
the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed
in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S.J. Res. 26) was read the third time and passed, as
follows:
S.J. Res. 26
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in
accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the
expiration of the term of Dr. Homer Neal of Michigan on
December 7, 2001, is filled by the appointment of Patricia Q.
Stonesifer of Washington. The appointment is for a term of 6
years and shall take effect on December 8, 2001.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 2722
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that H.R. 2722, which
was just received from the House, is at the desk. I now ask for its
first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2722) to implement effective measures to stop
trade in conflict diamonds, and for other purposes.
[[Page 23594]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object
to my own request on behalf of a number of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bill will be
read the second time on the next legislative day.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 3189
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 3189, received from
the House, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3189) to extend the Export Administration Act
until April 20, 2002.
Mr. REID. I now ask for its second reading but object to my own
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bill will
receive its second reading on the next legislative day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2001
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m.,
Friday, November 30; that immediately following the prayer and the
pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning
hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I remind the Senate that there have been
three cloture motions filed with respect to H.R. 10. All first-degree
amendments must be filed prior to 1 p.m. tomorrow, Friday.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:17 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, November 30, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate November 29, 2001:
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES
J. JOSEPH GRANDMAISON, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 20, 2005, VICE RITA
M. RODRIGUEZ.
THE JUDICIARY
JEANETTE J. CLARK, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FOR THE TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS, VICE GEORGE W.
MITCHELL, DECEASED.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate November 29, 2001:
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
JOHN THOMAS KORSMO, OF NORTH DAKOTA, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF
THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 27, 2002.
JOHN THOMAS KORSMO, OF NORTH DAKOTA, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF
THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 27, 2009.
FRANZ S. LEICHTER, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF THE
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY
27, 2006.
ALLAN I. MENDELOWITZ, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF
THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 27, 2007.
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
MAJ. GEN. BRUCE A. WRIGHT
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be general
LT. GEN. DONALD G. COOK
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. ELDER GRANGER
COL. GEORGE W. WEIGHTMAN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COLONEL BYRON S. BAGBY
COLONEL LEO A. BROOKS, JR.
COLONEL SEAN J. BYRNE
COLONEL CHARLES A. CARTWRIGHT
COLONEL PHILIP D. COKER
COLONEL THOMAS R. CSRNKO
COLONEL ROBERT L. DAVIS
COLONEL JOHN DEFREITAS III
COLONEL ROBERT E. DURBIN
COLONEL GINA S. FARRISEE
COLONEL DAVID A. FASTABEND
COLONEL RICHARD P. FORMICA
COLONEL KATHLEEN M. GAINEY
COLONEL DANIEL A. HAHN
COLONEL FRANK G. HELMICK
COLONEL RHETT A. HERNANDEZ
COLONEL MARK P. HERTLING
COLONEL JAMES T. HIRAI
COLONEL PAUL S. IZZO
COLONEL JAMES L. KENNON
COLONEL MARK T. KIMMITT
COLONEL ROBERT P. LENNOX
COLONEL DOUGLAS E. LUTE
COLONEL TIMOTHY P. MCHALE
COLONEL RICHARD W. MILLS
COLONEL BENJAMIN R. MIXON
COLONEL JAMES R. MORAN
COLONEL JAMES R. MYLES
COLONEL LARRY C. NEWMAN
COLONEL CARROLL F. POLLETT
COLONEL ROBERT J. REESE
COLONEL STEPHEN V. REEVES
COLONEL RICHARD J. ROWE, JR.
COLONEL EDWARD J. SINCLAIR
COLONEL ERIC F. SMITH
COLONEL ABRAHAM J. TURNER
COLONEL VOLNEY J. WARNER
COLONEL JOHN C. WOODS
COLONEL HOWARD W. YELLEN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. LESTER MARTINEZ-LOPEZ
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING CESARIO F. FERRER, JR. AND
ENDING RAYMOND Y. HOWELL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
OCTOBER 30, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING ROBERT A. JOHNSON AND ENDING
JOHN T. WASHINGTON III, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
OCTOBER 25, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING SAMUEL CALDERON AND ENDING FRANK
E. WISMER III, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON OCTOBER 30, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATION OF CAROL E. PILAT.
ARMY NOMINATION OF ILUMINADA S. CALICDAN.
ARMY NOMINATION OF *JAMES W. WARE.
ARMY NOMINATION OF MEE S. PAEK.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING MARION S. CORNWELL AND ENDING
GARY L. WHITE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 15,
2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING CHERYL A. ADAMS AND ENDING
DEBBIE T. WINTERS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER
15, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WILLIE J. ATKINSON AND ENDING
WILLEM P. VANDEMERWE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER
15, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING DAVID S. ALLEMAN AND ENDING
WILLIAM P. YEOMANS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER
15, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING LYNN F. ABRAMS AND ENDING
BURKHARDT H. ZORN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER
15, 2001.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING CHARLES B. COLISON AND ENDING
ARLENE SPIRER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 15,
2001.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING BRADFORD W. BAKER AND ENDING
DAVID J. WICKERSHAM, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON OCTOBER
30, 2001.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
November 29, 2001
[[Page 23595]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
PRAYER FOR AMERICA
______
HON. PATRICK J. TOOMEY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a poem entitled
``Prayer For America'' written by Miss Ruth Werner, a constituent of
mine who lives in Bangor, Pennsylvania. Miss Werner was inspired to pen
this poem following the September 11th attacks. I was touched when she
gave me this poem and thought that my colleagues in the House of
Representatives, the Senate and President Bush would enjoy it as well.
Prayer for America
Dear Heavenly Father,
We pray for peace on earth.
Let it begin with us.
With you as our Father we are all made one.
We are all brothers and sisters.
Let us walk in each other in all 50 states and throughout the
world with President Bush, Vice President Cheney and all
the Leaders.
With children and adults, male and female, with families and
people who are lonely, with rich and poor, with people
who have homes and the homeless;
With all kinds of people with different careers and with the
unemployed;
You love all your children of the world whether red, yellow,
black or white.
We are all precious in your sight because you love everyone
with an unconditional love; always ready to forgive.
Today God let this be our prayer because we know that United
We Stand Divided We Fall.
Let us stand for peace for America, a most beautiful land.
And let us keep this as one nation under you with liberty and
justice for all.
It makes us proud to be an American to be among the red,
white and blue as we are just passing through, but most
importantly we are honored to be Christians who believe
in you and will live with you and our loved ones in our
heavenly home forever.
God we know you will bless the USA today and always.
In your name we pray, AMEN
I commend Miss Werner for her heartfelt words and for her dedication
to God and country.
____________________
COMMEMORATING WORLD AIDS DAY 2001
______
HON. CARRIE P. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, the nation and the
World will observe World AIDS Day 2001.
World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus the world's attention
on this global pandemic. It is a day to remember those living with AIDS
and those who have died from the disease.
Like our recent tragedy, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has challenged many to
have courage and hope in spite of grief, anger, and despair. More than
60 million people worldwide have been infected with HIV since the start
of the epidemic 20 years ago, and current statistics point to an even
greater spread of the disease than anticipated.
HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa.
Worldwide, it is the fourth biggest killer. According to a United
Nations report, by the end of this year there will be an estimated 40
million people living with HIV worldwide.
In the United States, research has shown that the number of AIDS
cases among some populations has decreased. Unfortunately, we have not
seem similar declines in new HIV cases among people of color or our
Nation's youth. Today, at least half of all new HIV infections in our
country are among people under age 25. Young Americans between the ages
of 13 and 25 are contracting HIV at the rate of two per hour.
World AIDS Day has special significance in my community of South
Florida, which has more HIV/AIDS cases than 44 states.
As we observe World AIDS Day 2001, we must reaffirm our commitment to
work together to protect all our citizens from the threat of HIV. By
promoting, education, research and care, we can reach millions of
individuals who face life-changing decisions that can affect their
health and the future of our Nation and the world, and help those who
are already affected by this disease.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF A SIMPLE RESOLUTION TO ENCOURAGE THE PRESIDENT TO USE
HIS POWER TO RELEASE LIHEAP EMERGENCY FUNDS TO THOSE WHO LOST THEIR
JOBS AS A RESULT OF 9/11/01
______
HON. HILDA L. SOLIS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people who recently
have been laid off from work are reliving the terrorist attacks in the
economic aftermath of September 11th.
As of today, 638,000 layoffs have already been announced in our
country.
Fewer than 2 out of 5 employers who have handed out pink slips in the
third quarter of this year indicate that they anticipate calling their
laid off employees back to work.
The nation's unemployment rate soared from 4.9 percent in September
to 5.4 percent in October.
In Los Angeles County the unemployment rate is 6 percent.
In my congressional district, the City of El Monte has an
unemployment rate of 7.6 percent and South El Monte has an unemployment
rate of 9.3 percent.
All of this in time for Christmas--and the cold winter to follow.
It is our duty--and responsibility--to help those who are suffering
the ripple effects of the worst domestic attack in our country's
history.
We need to act immediately, because the federal government's
assistance is needed now.
The resolution that I bring before the House today would encourage
the President to answer this immediate need by expanding the Low Income
Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP.
The LIHEAP program is a federally funded block grant program that
helps ease the energy cost burden of low-income households.
The need for this program has been great.
Residential heating oil prices were 48 percent higher in 2000 than in
1999.
Residential natural gas prices were 44 percent higher in 2000 than in
1999.
Higher prices mean an added burden to those who are already
struggling to make ends meet.
As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are many more people who will
need this energy assistance because of our country's recent tragedies.
Unfortunately, the more people there are--the less there is to go
around.
LIHEAP has two pots of money--one which goes to States in the form of
a block grant and another that is distributed by the President for
emergency use.
This resolution will encourage the President to use this emergency
fund in our current time of uncertainty to help those who have lost
their jobs as a result of the attack on our nation.
We must act now to get our country's working families through this
horrible time.
The other body has already passed a similar resolution.
I encourage my colleagues to adopt this resolution and ask the
President to use his powers to release LIHEAP funds to those who have
lost their jobs in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and
to those that have suffered prolonged unemployment since early this
year.
This bill is a step in the right direction and could mean the
difference between a family's financial ruin and their foundation for
the future.
____________________
[[Page 23596]]
RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF EDWARD JESSER
______
HON. MARGE ROUKEMA
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Edward
``Ned'' Jesser, resident of Mahwah, New Jersey, and proud and
enthusiastic supporter of the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Jesser will be
honored today at the ``Evening with the Governors'' 2001 Good Scout
Awards of the Northern New Jersey Council Boy Scouts of America. With
more than forty years of dedicated service to the Boy Scouts of
America, he will be the recipient of the Distinguished Scouter Award.
The Boy Scouts of American pride themselves on producing fine citizens,
strong family members, and community leaders. In this respect, Ned
Jesser truly leads by example.
Today, Mr. Jesser sits on the Executive Board of the Northern New
Jersey Council of Boy Scouts. However his involvement with the scouts
began some forty years ago as the President of Bergen County Council of
Scouts. It is his firm belief that scouting truly creates good lives
and good citizens. Mr. Jesser has said that ``scouting is the only
national organization that is making a major effort to bring a better
and healthier life for our boys.'' Clearly, this man is recognized as a
leader for scouts--and a committed one at that!
As I am sure Mr. Jesser's wife Ruth can attest, Mr. Jesser is a very
active member of the Bergen County community. Mr. Jesser served as
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Summit Bank for
twenty years. In addition, he has sat on many boards in our county. To
list just a few of his involvements: President of the New Jersey
Chamber of Commerce, President of the New Jersey Bankers Association,
and Trustee of Lafayette College. As a man who is generous with his
time and his talents, Mr. Jesser has truly contributed to making
northern New Jersey a better place to live.
A fine citizen, a family man, and an involved community leader, Mr.
Jesser is not only an outstanding role model for Scouts, but also an
outstanding example of the fine residents of Bergen County. He
contributes much to both the development of young men in our region,
and to our community itself. Ned Jesser, we are lucky to have you with
us.
____________________
IN HONOR OF P.O. NIURCA QUINONES AND P.O. DARRELL CLARK
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Police Officers Niurca
Quinones and Darrell Clark in recognition of their outstanding work to
rid the streets of Bedford-Stuyvesant from the scourge of drugs.
Officer Quinones joined the New York City Police Department on April
30, 1991. Officer Clark joined the New York City Police Department on
October 15, 1990. Both officers were assigned to the 79th Precinct,
where they worked together as partners. As a unit, they have done an
outstanding job in serving the community of Bedford-Stuyvesant.
In a short period of time, these officers have successfully reduced
the presence of drugs and the number of drug-related crimes. In the
past two years alone, these officers executed 48 search warrants
leading to 97 arrests. Officers Quinones and Clark also recovered 14
guns, 300 rounds of ammunition, 436 decks of heroin, 1 large bag of
heroin, 167 vials of crack, 412 glass vials of crack, 10 oz. of crack,
three pounds of marijuana, 51 bottles of hydro, 284 bags of marijuana,
and over $9,000 in illegal funds.
Mr. Speaker, Officers Quinones and Clark are two outstanding examples
of New York's finest. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty
to help clear the Bedford-Stuyvesant community of dangerous drugs and
criminals. As such they are more than worthy of our praise. I urge my
colleagues to join me in honoring these two dedicated public servants.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO EDWARD AND DOLLY MASON
______
HON. ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to
Edward and Dolly Mason, and to honor the memory of their son, Eddie. On
March 10, 1999 Eddie Mason died of a sudden and unexpected heart
attack. The death of their son, less than three weeks before his
nineteenth birthday, was a bitter and heart wrenching tragedy for the
Masons. I know the Mason family; it has been personally painful for me
to witness their struggle to cope with such an inconsolable loss.
Eddie Mason was a vibrant young man who embraced life; one who sought
the opportunities presented each day. At the age of fifteen, he was
diagnosed with Friedreich's Ataxia, a degenerative neurological disease
that impairs muscular function throughout the body. His condition,
however, was not life-threatening. Indeed, Eddie's passion for athletic
endeavors was unquenchable. From an early age, Eddie was an avid
participant in soccer, baseball, football, and wrestling; he also
pursued karate, achieving the rank of Green Belt after eight years of
training. Yet, Eddie's excellent physical conditioning offered no
protection against the deadly symptoms of his disease.
The Masons' grief for their son will never be completely assuaged. Ed
and Dolly, however, hoped to preserve Eddie's memory at the community
church their family has attended for many years. Accordingly, twelve
months ago, the Mason family resolved to construct the tower that now
stands between the sanctuary and rectory of St. Luke's Church in
Edgemere, Maryland. I was honored to be present at the ground breaking
ceremony held on March 27, 2001, the twenty-first anniversary of
Eddie's birth. Seeing such familial devotion and community support is
something I will not soon forget.
On Sunday, October 14, at St. Luke's Church, a thirty-five-foot bell
tower, the home of ``Eddie's Bell,'' was officially blessed. In the
presence of over 350 neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens, the
Masons' tribute to their son was consecrated, and ``Eddie's Bell'' rung
for the first time.
Friends, family, neighbors, and even strangers have helped sustain
the Masons since the terrible event of March 10, 1999. Yet, the newly
created monument was not a community effort. The money and time
required for the bell tower were invested solely by Ed and Dolly Mason.
``Eddie's Bell'' was a gift from ``Mom and Dad' to the son they love so
much.
The bell tower has become a centerpiece of St. Luke's Church. Each
day the bell is rung at noon and six p.m.--its bold notes call members
to worship before each weekend mass. The bell's toll can be heard up to
two miles away, a range which includes the Mason home. I sincerely hope
that Ed and Dolly will take comfort in the notes of ``Eddie's Bell,''
knowing that all the love and devotion they feet for their son has been
given musical form.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the Mason family in Maryland's
Second Congressional District, and I ask that my colleagues join me in
offering them our deepest condolences for their loss, congratulations
on their dedication to family and community, and our very best wishes
for the future.
____________________
EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EFFORTS OF PEOPLE OF UNITED
STATES OF KOREAN ANCESTRY TO REUNITE WITH FAMILY MEMBERS IN NORTH KOREA
______
speech of
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 27, 2001
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res.
77, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress to reunite United
States citizens with their family members in North Korea.
North and South Korea have made significant progress in their
relationship, as has the United States made very important steps in its
relationship with both North and South Korea in the past two decades.
H. Con. Res. 77 is the next step.
This very important resolution recognizes the need to reunite
Americans of Korean ancestry with their family members in North Korea.
Over 500,000 Americans of Korean ancestry were separated from family
members with the division of North and South Korea. This simple measure
will bring about a long awaited family reunion, over 50 years later.
I believe it is very important for the United States to be involved
in reunification and peace efforts in Korea, and this resolution brings
us one step closer. This is a significant effort in mending relations
with North and South Korea, and their relationship with the United
States.
____________________
[[Page 23597]]
TRIBUTE TO CHRISTMAS
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, Christmas during wartime is an unsettling
conflict in vision and emotion for Americans. A peace-loving nation,
the United States has always been resolved in the face of tyranny to
crush the purveyors of terror and to vanquish the enemies of freedom;
and with firm reliance upon the protection of Divine Providence.
Celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace is a testimony to
authentic liberty, and invigorates the spirit of a nation whose motto
boldly stands ``in God we trust.''
America will prevail, because it always has, because it must, and
because it is right.
President Franklin Roosevelt asked, ``how can we pause, even for a
day, even for Christmas Day, in our urgent labor of arming a decent
humanity against the enemies which beset it?'' Today, Americans
confront the same question. The answer is, of course, the same, and so
the outcome will be.
The nation's first Christmas occurred amidst the Revolutionary War.
With the Continental Army poised to turn the momentum of the war,
General George Washington conceived a daring tactic which would unfold
on the Eve of Christmas 1776. Under cover of darkness and well after
the Hessian mercenaries had consumed their Holiday feast (and drink),
Washington led his troops across the Delaware River to defeat the
heavy, surprised, and more numerous Hessian mercenaries who held
Trenton, NJ.
A few months prior to the famous attack, Washington wrote, ``the time
is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are
to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can
call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and
destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from
which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions
will now depend, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cruel and
unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the
most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or
die.''
In 1862, entering the second year of the Civil War, President Abraham
Lincoln inspired his countrymen through the Christmas season. Before
Congress, he delivered a stirring speech: ``the dogmas of the quiet
past are inadequate to the stormy present,'' Lincoln said. ``The
occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the
occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We
must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''
Roosevelt's address following the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor
urged Americans to take inspiration from the sacred Holiday. ``Our
strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the dignity and
brotherhood of man which Christmas Day signifies--more than any other
day or any other symbol. Against enemies who preach the principles of
hate and practice them, we set our faith in human love and in God's
care for us and all men everywhere,'' he said. ``It is in that spirit,
and with particular thoughtfulness of those our sons and brothers, who
serve in our armed forces on land and sea, near and far--those who
serve for us and endure for us--that we light our Christmas candles now
across the continent from one coast to the other on this Christmas
Eve.''
From the Christmas Eve crossing of the Delaware, to the Christmases
observed in Civil War camps, the trenches of World War I, and the
forests of Belgium during WWII, Americans have always been willing to
fight to secure their nation and restore peace.
American men and women presently deployed in Afghanistan, the Middle
East, Bosnia, Korea, throughout the world and here at home, are
emblematic of the sacrifice and dedication of the proud American
soldiers who preceded them. The cause of freedom, liberty and valor
serves to summon the courage of those who stand in harm's way, but even
more does the spirit of Christmas confirm the hope and blessing that is
God's gift to America. The way to victory was shown to the world by a
child whose birthday is revered around the world. America's trust in
God will lead us to victory again.
____________________
WILLIAM WINKENWERDER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH CARE
______
HON. CHARLES H. TAYLOR
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, America's armed service
members, their families and military retirees can rest easier today
knowing that Dr. William Winkenwerder has been sworn in as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Care. A western North Carolina native,
Dr. Winkenwerder brings fittingly broad experience and an impressive
record of achievement to this important position. All Americans can be
proud that Dr. Winkenwerder has agreed to serve his nation yet once
again. The Asheville Citizen-Times' Tim Reid recently penned a profile
of Dr. Winkenwerder, which I am glad to share with my colleagues.
Winkenwerder Top Healthcare Official for Defense Department
(By Tim Reid)
Asheville.--Growing up in Asheville in a family well known
for its successful hotels, William Winkenwerder seemed
destined to enter the hospitality industry like his brother,
John. But he liked science and helping people and figured
medicine was a good way to combine those interests. Some time
during his years of medical school, residency and private
practice, Dr. Winkenwerder also discovered he was drawn to
the public policy side of medicine, designing and
administering systems to deliver quality health care as
efficiently as possible.
``Even though I very much enjoyed taking care of patients,
I developed an interest in how the system of health care
worked, or didn't work in some cases,'' he said.
After years of high-level jobs related to providing health
services, Winkenwerder is using all his experience and
expertise to help protect the health of America's armed
services, their families and military retirees. He was sworn
in recently as assistant secretary of defense for health
care--the Defense Department's top health-care official. It
is a big job, and the numbers are staggering. Winkenwerder
manages the nation's $25 billion defense health program,
whose 110,000 staffers see to the health needs of more than 8
million people around the world.
``It's an incredible responsibility. I am honored to have
the opportunity to serve in this kind of position,'' he said.
``We have wonderful people in the military. They are
extremely dedicated, hard working and bright.''
Winkenwerder assumed the job at a critical time as the
military prepares for a sustained effort against terrorism.
``We have to look at the whole range of biological agents
that could pose a threat and develop a strategy for all of
them,'' he said. ``That could include not just anthrax but
also smallpox, the plague and all the things we believe could
be used.''
Winkenwerder faces the same challenges posed to any health
care executive--assuring quality care while keeping costs at
an acceptable level. He is not responsible for the nation's
VA hospitals but does oversee the Tricare program that
functions like an insurance program, paying for care through
the public or private sector.
THE EARLY YEARS
Winkenwerder said he has a soft spot in his heart for
Asheville and visits family members here three or four times
a year. They include his father, William Winkenwerder Sr. of
Asheville, and his mother Martha Baker Loew, also of
Asheville. His brother John Winkenwerder is managing partner
of the Asheville area Hampton Inns.
``It was a great experience growing up there and working
for my father,'' he said. ``He gave me a real appreciation
for work and for serving people.''
But it was Winkenwerder's family physician, Dr. Roger
James, who sparked his early interest in medicine.
``He was a wonderful man who died recently,'' Winkenwerder
recalled. ``He was my doctor and a leader in my church. I was
just impressed with what he did for people.''
He said another role model was orthopedic surgeon Dr. Wayne
Montgomery. ``He was mayor of Asheville at the time, and I
liked that idea of combining medicine and public service.''
Winkenwerder also worked summers as an orderly at St.
Joseph's Hospital, where he got to know many physicians such
as Dr. David Cappiello, another orthopedic surgeon. After
graduation from Asheville High School, Winkenwerder went to
Davidson College on a football scholarship, enrolling in its
pre-med program. After Davidson came eight years of medical
school and residency in internal medicine at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during which Winkenwerder's
career interests began to change.
``I decided I really did want to delve into this whole area
of health care policy and health care economics and public
health,'' he said. ``I decided business school was a good way
to do that.''
Winkenwerder attended the University of Pennsylvania's
Wharton School and at the same time completed a fellowship in
public health and research at the university's hospital.
During the summer of 1986 he worked at the Department of
Health and Human Resources and got a taste for government
that has never really left him. The following year
[[Page 23598]]
Winkenwerder was asked to come back and work in the Health
Care Financing Administration, which operates the Medicare
and Medicaid programs.
``I worked there about two years, until the end of the
Reagan administration'' he said. ``I got into that whole
world of how the health care system should be structured.''
Yearning to use his skills as a doctor, Winkenwerder joined
a group practice in Atlanta. He worked there for five years,
seeing firsthand how managed care was changing the practice
of medicine. Winkenwerder then began a series of high-level
jobs in diverse aspects of the health care system. They
included stints as: regional vice president and chief medical
officer for Prudential Health Care; regional quality
assurance and associate medical director for Kaiser
Permanente; and vice president for Emory Health Care at Emory
University.
Then Winkenwerder moved to Boston to take the number two
post as vice chairman of Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Massachusetts. When his desire to advance to the top post did
not materialize, he decided to return to government service.
Winkenwerder talked to friends and colleagues in Washington
and spent several months being interviewed and scrutinized
for the job at the Department of Defense. He was nominated by
President Bush after an extensive FBI background check. The
Armed Services Committee approved Winkenwerder's nomination
Oct. 16, and he was sworn into office Oct. 30.
``My goals are pretty simple,'' he said. ``I want to
protect the health of the people who are in the service,
making sure especially that we are ready for chemical or
biological attacks.
``I want to improve Tricare, managing costs and improving
service and quality,'' he said. ``And I want to improve our
relationships with other entities like Congress, the VA
system and the Department of Health and Human Services.''
Winkenwerder's wife, Pride and 10-year-old son, Will are
staying in Boston until the end of the school year, when they
will join him in Washington. In the meantime, he is working
12-hour days in his office at the Pentagon. Winkenwerder is
excited to be in a job where he can use his years of
experience and preparation to, perhaps, make a difference.
``I would just hope that in some way, by being an effective
leader, I can help improve health care for an important group
of people who serve our nation,'' he said.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF THOMAS KEAN
______
HON. MARGE ROUKEMA
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an
exceptional leader and role model for all New Jersey, our former
governor, the Honorable Thomas H. Kean. Today, Governor Kean will be
honored at the ``Evening with the Governors'' 2001 Good Scout Awards of
the Northern New Jersey Council of Boy Scouts of America. Governor Kean
has turned his ability to both serve and lead into a career of
tremendous public service. As Governor of New Jersey, he worked hard
for New Jersey, and New Jersey thanked him, re-electing him to a second
term as he won by more than 700,000 votes. This evening, we will honor
the Governor for his dedicated work.
Governor Kean is remembered for policy, not politics. Known for his
immense knowledge of education issues and ability to connect with so
many residents of New Jersey, Governor Kean was one of our most popular
governors in state history. During his two-terms in office in the
1980s, Governor Kean was responsible for more than 30 education
reforms, landmark environmental policies, and tax cuts that created
750,000 jobs in New Jersey. Governor Kean's work truly helped New
Jersey residents and even today he is one of our most recognized
leaders in New Jersey government.
His recognition extends well outside of our state. In 1988, Governor
Kean delivered the keynote address at the Republican National
Convention and has been recognized by three presidents as ``The
Education Governor.'' He holds numerous awards from environmental and
educational organizations including more than 30 honorary degrees.
Governor Kean serves on the Board of Trustees of his two alma maters--
Princeton University and Columbia University Teachers College. He is
also chairman of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
However it is education that continues to be of great importance to
Governor Kean. Since leaving New Jersey political life in 1990,
Governor Kean has served as President of Drew University in Madison,
New Jersey, where he has led Drew to become one of the nation's
premiere small universities with a focus on teaching, technology in the
classroom, and international educational experience. Since beginning
his tenure, undergraduate applications have increased astronomically,
endowment has tripled in size, and the University has launched its
first comprehensive fund-raising campaign. Yet Governor Kean's passion
seems to still reside in the classroom, and he is often found there. As
one who shares his education background, I understand his desire to not
only work with education policies, but most importantly with the
students. I commend him for this dedication.
I thank Governor Tom Kean for all that he has done for our state of
New Jersey. He has accomplished great things and continues to do so.
His heart truly focuses on policies and people, not politics and
partisanship. In this way, he is a role model for all in this chamber.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PHYLLIS SMOCK
______
HON. ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate Ms. Phyllis Smock on her retirement from the University
System of Maryland after more than 32 years of dedicated service.
A friend of the State of Maryland, Phyllis Smock, University of
Maryland University College's director of alumni relations, will retire
on December 1, 2001. Ms. Smock has played a significant role in the
growth of University of Maryland University College.
University of Maryland University College, or UMUC, is one of 11
accredited degree-granting institutions in the University System. For
50 years, the University has fulfilled its principal mission: to serve
adult, part-time students through high-quality educational
opportunities. In 1949, of the U.S. colleges and universities invited
to provide courses to the men and women in the military stationed
overseas, only UMUC accepted.
Today, UMUC classroom sites can be found throughout Maryland, the
Washington, DC metropolitan area, and over 100 overseas locations. Last
year, over 71,000 students were enrolled in UMUC classes. About 47,000
were service members on active duty with the U.S. military, stationed
stateside and abroad in over 29 countries. UMUC is proud of its long
history of service to the military and is honored to count over 50
admirals and generals among its alumni. Moreover, UMUC is a pioneer in
distance learning; students now can ``attend class'' from anywhere in
the world via the Internet.
Ms. Smock has actively contributed to the growth and success of UMUC.
She began working for the University System in 1966 and has served in
the UMUC Overseas Programs Office where she worked as logistical
coordinator for new faculty recruited to the European and Asian
divisions. Further, she has been instrumental in the growth of the
Alumni Association from its inception more than a decade ago. Today,
the Association boasts of more than 35,000 alumni in Maryland and over
100,000 UMUC alumni worldwide.
During the past seven years, Ms. Smock has coordinated with many UMUC
alumni-volunteers and helped establish a stronger relationship with the
Maryland General Assembly. She has been a tireless advocate for UMUC,
its alumni, and their support of their alma mater--a global University
that will provide to any student, anywhere, the opportunity for
lifelong learning.
Ms. Smock deserves the thanks and praise of Marylanders and this
grateful nation which she has faithfully served for so long. I ask the
Members of the House to join me in wishing her and her husband, Ray,
all the best in the years ahead.
____________________
IN HONOR OF P.O. JEANETTE MORALES
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of P.O. Jeanette Morales and
her record of service to Brooklyn as a member of the New York City
Police Department.
Jeanette Morales was born and raised in East New York. She graduated
in 1982 and started working as a bank teller. She moved to various
positions within the bank and ultimately became Senior Customer Service
Representative. She enjoyed working with and helping people so a friend
recommended that she become an Auxiliary Police Officer.
[[Page 23599]]
Jeanette served as an Auxiliary Police Officer in the 75th Precinct
for a year and then applied to become a full-fledged New York City
Police Officer. She passed the exam and was sworn in on July 11, 1988.
After she graduated from the Police Academy she was assigned to field
training within the 88th, 84th, 77th and the 79th precincts. In
September 1989, Jeanette was assigned to the 79th Precinct. She was
assigned to rotating tours for the first few years and was assigned to
various units within the 79th Precinct. She worked in the S.N.E.U.
(Street narcotics enforcement unit) and the Anti-Crime unit. In October
1993, she was assigned to Community Affairs. She worked in this unit
for 8 years along side her partner, Detective David Allen. They worked
extremely will together until the day he passed away. After 13 years in
the 79th Precinct, Jeanette was transferred to Brooklyn North Community
Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, P.O. Jeanette Morales has served the people of Brooklyn
and New York City as a dedicated member of the New York City Police
Department. As such she is more than worthy of our praise. I urge my
colleagues to join me in honoring this truly committed public servant.
____________________
WORLD AIDS DAY
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, World AIDS Day on
December 1 provides an opportunity to refocus our attention on the HIV/
AIDS crisis that has not gone away and will not go away until a
concerted effort is made to address the pandemic and develop workable
solutions.
In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, attention has been
focused elsewhere in the world. While we must do everything we can to
combat terrorism, we cannot ignore other crises. Forty million people
worldwide are still living with HIV/AIDS; 28 million are in sub-Saharan
Africa. There are still 12 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, and
there are still 15,000 new HIV infections each day.
The statistics regarding HIV/AIDS are staggering, but we must not let
these numbers deter our resolve to work together to bring this epidemic
under control. The United States cannot ignore the fact that HIV/AIDS
poses a serious risk to international stability and creates fertile
breeding ground for social unrest. Our survival dictates that we cannot
afford to lose this battle.
____________________
ACCESS AND OPENNESS TO SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ACT
______
HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Representative
McGovern in supporting the Access and Openness to Small Business
Lending Act. This legislation would permit the collection of
demographic information on small business loans.
Specifically, it would amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to
require lending institutions to ask the gender and race of small
business loan applicants. The applicant's response would be voluntary.
I support the Access and Openness to Small Business Lending Act, since
it would provide a powerful vehicle to monitor the lending market for
discriminatory practices.
Today, there are more than 9 million women-owned businesses, up from
400,000 in 1972. Unfortunately, the main impediment to women
entrepreneurs achieving success is obtaining the necessary financing to
get their businesses off the ground.
According to Business and Professional Women/TJSA, companies owned by
women account for 38 percent of businesses in the United States and are
also the fastest growing segment of the business sector. However,
women-owned businesses receive less than four percent of the $36
billion in venture capital invested each year.
A survey by the National Foundation of Women Business Owners and
Wells Fargo & Co. indicates that most female entrepreneurs rely on
loans and their personal savings to finance their firm's growth. One
reason women are not securing funding from venture capital firms, like
many others, is that women traditionally start retail stores. The
retail industry is the one business sector in which venture capitalists
rarely invest.
To ensure a transparent loan process and confirm that banks are being
even-handed when making loan decisions for women and minorities, we
need a bill like the Access and Openness to Small Business Lending Act.
I urge my colleagues to also support this legislation.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF BRENDAN BYRNE
______
HON. MARGE ROUKEMA
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated
public servant--an exemplary leader and a friend to the people of my
State of New Jersey. Governor Brendan T. Byrne will be honored later
today at the ``Evening with the Governors'' 2001 Good Scout Awards of
the Northern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America.
This is a most special occasion for me since Governor Byrne and I
both call West Orange home. But we share more than a common hometown.
We share a love of New Jersey and a devotion to its people. Governor
Byrne has turned this dedication to New Jersey into a career of
tremendous public service. On Thursday, we will honor the Governor for
his work.
His outstanding career first began with service to our great country
in the United States Army Air Corps as the youngest squadron navigator
in his bomb group. After returning to civilian life, Governor Byrne
combined law and public service as Deputy Attorney General and Special
Prosecutor in Passaic County. Later, he was appointed as Assistant
Counsel to Governor Robert B. Meyner and subsequently named the
Governor's Executive Secretary.
At the age of 34, Byrne was appointed by Governor Meyner as Essex
County Prosecutor, becoming the youngest prosecutor in New Jersey's
largest county. He was reappointed to a second term by Governor Richard
J. Hughes. After serving as President of the New Jersey State Board of
Utility Commissioners as well as serving on the Superior Court,
Governor Byrne quickly rose to Assignment Judge for Morris, Warren and
Sussex County.
With nearly 20 years of work for the state of New Jersey, Byrne took
his service to the next level and was elected Governor of New Jersey in
1973 by the largest plurality in New Jersey history. To their
discredit, his critics ``One-term Byrne'' was reelected to a second
term in 1977.
Mr. Speaker, Governor Byrne worked hard to do what was best for our
great state. His pride in his state and understanding of its residents
were visible in all that he did. He has always understood that
principle of public service--that what matters most is helping real
people solve the real problems of real life.
Clearly, this is evidenced in Governor Byrne's career in New Jersey
and his heartfelt commitment to its residents. I commend Governor Byrne
for his service, which is sometimes difficult, but as we can all
attest, always rewarding.
While some may disagree with Governor Byrne on his policies, no one
can disagree that he has truly served the people of New Jersey.
I am honored to call this good man a friend.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE REMEMBRANCE DAY
______
HON. CURT WELDON
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, sixty-eight years ago a
horrific crime was inflicted, killing an estimated 3-5 million people
and yet this genocide is seldom heard of. I am referring to the Great
Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine conducted by Stalin's Soviet Union. We
should not, we can not allow the elimination of a people go unnoticed
or become forgotten. While some events in history are documented and
memorialized to ensure that future generations will never have to be
victim to them again, we have a duty to learn of and reveal those that
have not yet been exposed.
The Ukrainian Government has designated the last Saturday in the
month of November as Ukrainian Famine Remembrance Day. Today I join
those in mourning and assist their cause in expanding the world's
acknowledgment of what had happened.
The 1930's marked a time of ``Collectivization'' for the new Soviet
Empire. Any symbolism or feelings of Ukrainian national consciousness
or identity was hoped to be erased
[[Page 23600]]
but to do so required an ethnic cleansing of the most brutal nature.
The task took the form of a man-made famine whereas the quota for grain
procurement from Ukraine was increased by 44 percent. The
extraordinarily high quota resulted in a severe grain shortage,
effectively starving the Ukrainian people.
After collection, grain elevators were guarded by military troops and
secret police denying access to even those who had harvested the grain
in the immediate area. Those hiding grain were killed and an internal
passport system was implemented to restrict people from moving to where
there was food. The result was a demoralized and depleted Ukrainian
ethnic population. Stalin covered up this genocide so effectively that
little is known to outsiders even today. Perhaps that will end now.
Today, there is a Ukrainian state, proud but mindful of its past.
They will forever suffer the memory of being intentionally starved to
death to end their struggle for freedom. Let us, a nation that
symbolizes the very definition of freedom, learn of and remember the
struggle the Ukrainians endured to obtain it. Mr. Speaker, in the
spirit of standing up to all who threaten democracy and freedom, last
Saturday, November 24, 2001, was the Ukrainian Famine Remembrance Day.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the
designation of November 2001 as National American Indian Heritage
Month. It is critical that we recognize the history of Native Americans
and to learn more about their culture.
I thank President Bush for his promise to protect and honor tribal
society and help to stimulate economic development in reservation
communities. I join him in acknowledging the contributions made by
Native Americans in both World Wars and the conflicts in Korea,
Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. Almost half of all Native American
tribal leaders have served in the United States Armed Forces.
Only in recent decades have we made progress in dismantling the
shameful stereotypes that were invented by white Americans in the early
centuries of European immigration to this land. We owe it to the Native
American people to learn about their actual history and culture, and to
teach our children.
My fellow colleagues, it is of the utmost importance that we all take
the time to remember American Indian heritage. We must do what we can
to keep this beautiful culture alive, this culture of a people wronged
by the greed and ignorance of our forefathers. I ask you to join me in
making the following promise: Never again will our country attempt to
decimate an entire culture.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE 100TH BIRTHDAY OF JOSE ANTONIO JARVIS
______
HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN
of the virgin islands
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all the
people of my district to pay tribute to the 100th Birthday of the late
Jose Antonio Jarvis--educator, historian, author, philosopher,
journalist, poet, playwright, editor, artist, musician and public
servant. He was an intellectual giant whose life and work greatly
influenced the educational process in the U.S. Virgin Islands. His
classroom was the entire Virgin Islands and for more than forty years,
he devoted his life to discovering new and innovative approaches to
education.
Born in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands on November 22, 1901, to the
Reverend Joseph W. and Mercedes Jarvis, J. Antonio Jarvis grew up under
the guidance of his Godmother, Miss Mary Hughustein. He began his
formal education at St. Anne's Roman Catholic School in St. Thomas,
which he attended from age five to thirteen (1906-1914). Even during
these early years, his teachers discerned in him an unusually high
mental capacity, great ambition, and a keen interest in a wide range of
activities. A life-long scholar, he continued his education by private
tutors and through correspondence courses, and most importantly, by
extensive,reading on his own initiative. In 1936, the Bachelor of Arts
degree was conferred upon him by McKinley-Roosevelt University. He did
additional work at the University of Puerto Rico, Columbia University,
New York University, and the University of Chicago.
Jarvis' career as an educator began in 1923, when he became a tutor
at the St. Thomas Academy. During the period 1924-1932, he taught at
Abraham Lincoln Elementary School and was an instructor at the
Charlotte Amalie High School from 1932 to 1942. At Charlotte Amalie
High, in addition to his regular academic assignments, he served as
advisor to many student organizations and initiated a number of them
including a student council and the school newspaper, The Reflector. In
1942, he returned as principal to the former Abraham Lincoln School,
where he remained until his retirement from public life on May 31,
1963.
Between 1930 and 1960, Jarvis published a number of works. These
included ``Virgin Islands Sketches'', ``Jubilee Hall'', and other poems
(1930), ``Fruits in Passing'' (1932), ``Bamboula Dance'' (1935),
``Brief History of the Virgin Islands'' (1938), ``The Virgin Islands
and their people'' (1944), ``Virgin Islands Picture Book'' with co-
author Rufus Martin (1948), ``Bluebeard's Last Wife (1951), and ``The
King's Mandate'' (1960). In 1930, with Ariel Melchior, Sr., he co-
founded ``The Daily News of the Virgin Islands'', a daily news
publication still in circulation today.
In addition to his work in the fields of education, scholarship and
the fine arts, Jarvis was active in numerous civic activities such as
the American Red Cross, Public Utilities Commission, Selective Service
Board, St. Thomas Teachers Association and the Virgin Islands Cadets
Corps, among others.
Many honors came to Jarvis over the years for his myriad of
achievements. In 1927, 1929 and 1930 he won the Opportunity Award in
Fine Arts. In 1939 and 1940, he earned the International Business
Machines Corporation Award in Fine Arts. President Harry S. Truman
personally presented him the United States Selective Service Medal in
1946. For services rendered he was given citations from the Library of
Congress, the American Red Cross and the Professional League if Virgin
Islands in New York City. In 1970, the Abraham Lincoln School was
renamed the J. Antonio Jarvis Elementary School. Additionally, in 1978
the J. Antonio Jarvis Memorial Park was created in the heart of
Charlotte Amalie. On May 18, 1980, the park was formally dedicated, and
in it a statue of Mr. Jarvis, financed by Ariel Melchoir, Sr.
Foundation, the St. Thomas Historical Trust, and donations from school
children were unveiled. In 1983, Jarvis was inducted into the ``Virgin
Islands Education Review'' Hall of Fame.
The first biography of Jarvis, ``Man of Vision: A Biography of Jose
Antonio Jarvis'' was written in 1975 by Addelita Cancryn, herself an
imminent Virgin Islands educator.
When an individual is gifted with so many talents and has served
humanity as well as Jarvis did, it is most difficult to select the one
area in which his contributions could be said to be greatest. Perhaps
his most persuasive contribution was in the area of education in the
broadest sense. Jarvis educated and enlightened, not only his classroom
and schoolhouse performance but also through his books, poems, plays,
editorials, and other writings, as well as his paintings. In the
classroom and outside of it, Jarvis inspired many Virgin Islanders to
attain high standards of achievement. He aided many financially and in
other ways. The high success that many of these individuals achieved
attests to his influence.
Jarvis' motto was ``I try to make my sojourn here a useful
interlude.'' That extremely useful sojourn ended on July 23, 1963 when
the great man passed away deeply mourned.
Had Jarvis chosen to live in and make his contribution in a major
metropolitan country he undoubtedly would gain international attention
and renown. However, it was his choice to live in and make his
contributions to the Virgin Islands, which he loved.
The Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Honorable Charles Wesley
Turnbull, has proclaimed the week of November 18-24, 2001 as ``Jose
Antonio Jarvis Week'' and Thursday, November 22, 2001, as ``Jose
Antonio Jarvis Day'' in the Virgin Islands of the United States of
America. I join Governor Charles Turnbull in calling upon everyone in
my district, as well as those Virgin Islanders residing in the United
States of America, to reflect upon the life and contributions of this
great Virgin Islander--a true renaissance man.
____________________
[[Page 23601]]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT AMERICANS SHOULD TAKE TIME DURING
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH TO RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY NATIVE PEOPLES
______
speech of
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 27, 2001
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in supporting
House Concurrent Resolution 270. This simple, yet important, statement
supports the goals and ideals of Native American Heritage Month to
highlight the important contributions Native Americans have made to our
history and culture. This resolution also encourages the American
people to honor and recognize the accomplishments and heritage of
Native Americans, including their contributions in the areas of
agriculture, medicine, art and language.
Long before the first Europeans arrived in the upper Midwest, the
Dakota and Ojibwe nations called Minnesota home. You can still visit
many of the areas where Native Americans created their communities and
see examples of this rich history. Pipestone National Monument, a
sacred quarry in Southwest Minnesota, is still being used to mine the
soft red pipestone that was at one time used to create the ceremonial
pipes that were used in dealings between tribes and to honor the
spiritual world. The story of this stone and the pipes made from it
spans four centuries of Plains Indian life and is inseparable from the
traditions that structured their daily routine. Today, carvings are
appreciated as much as art as well as for ceremonial use.
The heritage and customs of my state, Minnesota, have been greatly
influenced by Native Americans. The name of Minnesota itself comes from
a Dakota word meaning ``waters that reflect the sky'' and many more of
Minnesota's cities and counties hold names that represent the Native
American heritage that surrounds them.
I commend the authors of this resolution for helping raise awareness
of Native American culture and heritage. As a member of the Native
American Caucus, I look forward to working with them to make sure the
noble goal of encouraging the American people to honor and recognize
Native American accomplishments happens not only during Native American
Heritage Month but also throughout the year.
____________________
ST. VERONICA'S SCHOOL TO CELEBRATE ITS 75TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, this week one of my district's many fine
parochial schools will reach an important milestone. St. Veronica
Catholic School, first opened its doors on December 6, 1906. Two small
rooms accommodated the 106 students who attended class on that day.
As the community once known as the Town of Lake expanded, so did St.
Veronica's. After surviving the lean years of the Great Depression and
World War II, a new 17-room school was dedicated by Rev. Gordon Johnson
in 1952. Today, as the school prepares to celebrate its 75th
anniversary, it boasts an enrollment of nearly 450.
The Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, who taught at St. Veronica's
from its inception until the late 1980s, instilled in their students
the importance of education, God, family and community in their daily
lives. Sister Marie Estelle Kuczynski and her faculty and staff the
school's dedication to those ideals as they prepare the children of
today to become the leaders of tomorrow.
St. Veronica's strives to afford its students the opportunity to
acquire the skills necessary to excel in our changing world. New
additions are planned for the library, learning center, and computer
lab. However, the dedication to academic, spiritual, social and moral
development remains unchanged.
And so, it is with great pleasure that I join with the faculty,
staff, students, and alumni of St. Veronica School in celebrating 75
years of quality education, and wish them godspeed in all that lies
ahead.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. LELAND HARTWELL
______
HON. JIM McDERMOTT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, It is an honor for all of us in Seattle
to have Dr. Leland Hartwell among us. We are very fortunate to have him
as the president of the renowned Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Additionally, Dr. Hartwell is a professor of genetics and
medicine at the University of Washington.
I am very proud to extend my warmest congratulations to Dr. Hartwell
on winning the Nobel Prize for Medicine. This prize is reflective of
many years of hard work and achievement, and a lifetime commitment to
saving lives. He won the most prestigious prize in medicine through
pioneering research in the genetics of yeast cells, which are much
easier to study than human cells.
When Dr. Hartwell first began studying baker's yeast cells over 30
years ago, he and other scientists were not all that confident that the
research would apply to human cells, According to Hartwell, the most
sophisticated technology they used was often a toothpick. But hard work
and determination prevailed.
Dr. Hartwell used genetics to study how cells function, to determine
which genes cause cells to divide. That understanding, in turn, is
helping researchers understand how cells mutate and perhaps how to
prevent or reverse cancerous cell changes. He discovered more than 100
genes involved in cell-cycle control, and documented the existence of
cell-cycle ``checkpoints.'' These points ensure that steps in the
process have been completed properly before it proceeds. Interestingly,
he discovered that cancer cells bypass the checkpoints.
Indeed, Dr. Hartwell's investigation into complex cellular mechanics
paved the way for others to better understand how mistakes in the
process result in cancerous cell growth, Advances in clinical therapies
build upon the knowledge gained from his research.
Without the fundamental research, advances in science and medicine
could never be achieved. I wish to thank Dr. Hartwell for his
dedication to curing disease and improving human life.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE LITTLE WHITE CHAPEL
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Little White
Chapel in Burbank, CA. The congregation will celebrate the 60th
anniversary of the Little White Chapel on December 2, 2001.
Founded on Sunday, December 28, 1941, the Little White Chapel has
been serving its congregation for 60 years now. In 1941, the Little
White Chapel was built even before it had a single member and well
before the congregation had been organized. The Greater Los Angeles
Church Federation to the Christian Church, guided by the philosophy of,
``Build it and they will come,'' held Little White Chapel Day in 1941
and with the proceeds, erected the current day church.
The first church services were held on Sunday, December 28, 1941,
where Dr. Clifford A. Cole presented the church to the people of
Burbank and opened its doors to all who would come. As the years went
by, the church was able to add Sunday school rooms, a social hall, a
kitchen, an annex for overflow crowds, and a Sanctuary.
Throughout the years, the congregation has taken an active role in
volunteering and working in the surrounding community of Burbank. The
church's congregation has initiated the Good Samaritan Fund to help
members of the community in times of distress and need. The fund has
given over 36 percent of its funds to causes beyond the local church,
especially those dealing with interfaith approaches to alleviating the
causes of racism, poverty, hunger, and homelessness.
So today, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in congratulating
the Little White Chapel and its congregation on the celebration of
their 60th anniversary and thank them for their outstanding
participation and service to our community.
____________________
DICK VAN NOSTRAND: AN ARTIST WITH A CAMERA
______
HON. JAMES A. BARCIA
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dick Van Nostrand upon
his retirement
[[Page 23602]]
after nearly 35 years as a newspaper photographer with the Bay City
Times in our shared hometown of Bay City, Michigan. I have known Dick
for many years and I, along with it seems nearly everyone in the
region, have been privileged at one time or another to be the subject
of his photographic artistry.
Dick's interest in photography began when he first picked up his
dad's 35-millimeter camera as a teen. He learned quickly. By his senior
year at the former T.L. Handy High School, Dick was a published
photographer and had won several awards for his work. After working for
a newspaper in Indiana, Dick returned to his hometown in 1967 to join
the Bay City Times as a full-time photographer. A month later, he
married Jan and they embarked on a life together in Bay City.
Over the years, Dick's photographs have graced the pages of the Bay
City Times and many other publications throughout the world. He has won
the admiration of readers and colleagues alike, garnering many awards
from his peers in journalism and in the arts. The images he shot of the
tragic Wenona Hotel fire earned him a Pulitzer Prize for Spot News
nomination in 1978 and his photos of the fire and his slides are still
used today as a training tool for firefighters.
His wife, Jan, and children, David and Amy, also deserve credit for
providing the love and support so necessary to his professional success
and in fostering the talent that manifested itself in his work.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending
Dick Van Nostrand for his years of journalistic excellence and his
unparalleled passion for story-telling through the click of his camera.
His vision and talent have served his profession and his community
well, and he will be sorely missed by us all.
____________________
JOHN P. PERDUYN
______
HON. TOM SAWYER
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, John P. Perduyn has served the Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Company for 36 years, and the Akron community nearly as long.
He began his career in 1965 as associate editor of ``Go'' and
``Triangle,'' internal publications serving the company's marketing
efforts.
Since then, John Perduyn has served the Research and Development,
Shoe Products, and the Chemical Division of Goodyear. For a time, he
worked in Goodyear's Midwest Region office in Chicago. Fortunately for
us in Akron, he returned as director of public information.
Years of dedication and commitment to the principles of sound
business and honest communication with employees and consumers won him
the position of Senior Vice President of Global Communications in 1999.
John Perduyn's career with Goodyear has coincided with an era of
unprecedented change, reorganization, and acquisitions in the tire and
rubber industry--not just in the United States, but around the world.
The globalization of markets in transnational industries has tested
many companies--but none more than those in the worldwide tire
industry. Few companies or executives in any field have met those
challenges, in all their various forms, as well as Goodyear and John
Perduyn.
Throughout his career, John Perduyn has served as a mentor for many
associates within Goodyear and beyond. He is a member of the National
Association of Manufacturers' Communication Council, the Public
Relations Society of America, the Vice Presidents Forum, and the Arthur
W. Page Society. John embodies the Page Society's credo to tell the
truth and prove it with action.
Beyond the corporate world, John Perduyn has continued contributing
his time and talents to our community. He is on the board of trustees
of the Akron Roundtable and Ohio Ballet, offering sound communications
advice and policy counsel to those non-profit organizations for many
years.
John Perduyn's wise guidance and strong leadership will be missed at
Goodyear. We in Akron can only hope that he will find even more time to
devote his energies to the community he has served so long and so well.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TERRY EVERETT
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I was reviewing tornado damaged areas in my
district on Tuesday and thus was unable to vote during the following
rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated
below.
Rollcall No. 449, H.R. 1259, Computer Security Enhancement Act--
``yes,'' and rollcall No. 450, S. Con. Res. 44, resolution expressing
the sense of the Congress regarding National Pearl Harbor Remembrance
Day--``yes.''
Additionally, due to flight delays on Wednesday, I missed the
following morning rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have
voted as indicated below.
Rollcall No. 451, on Approving the Journal--``yes,'' rollcall No.
452, H. Con. Res. 77, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding
the efforts of people of the United States of Korean ancestry to
reunite with their family members in North Korea--``yes,'' and rollcall
No. 453, H.R. 2722, Clean Diamond Trade Act--``yes.''
____________________
RAYMOND M. DOWNEY POST OFFICE BUILDING
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to
designate the Deer Park Post Office as the ``Raymond M. Downey Post
Office Building.'' New York lost many heroes on September 11th, but the
loss of Chief Downey is an especially difficult one.
During the thirty-nine years he was a New York City firefighter,
Chief Downey rescued countless people from what befell so many at the
World Trade Center. The most decorated member of the City's fire
department, he led a FDNY rescue team to Oklahoma City and directed the
recovery effort at the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He will be
sorely missed.
I ask my colleagues to support this bill and to join me in
remembering Ray Downey.
____________________
HONORING THE CENTRAL TEXAS LABOR COUNCIL ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. CHET EDWARDS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we extend our
congratulations to the Central Texas Labor Council on the occasion of
its One-Hundredth Anniversary, celebrated in Waco, Texas on October 20,
2001.
Originally chartered as the McLennan County Labor Council on October
31, 1901, the member-unions included the Leather Workers and Horse
Goods, Local 45, the Stationary Fireman's Union, the Tailors Union,
Local 96 and the Federal Labor Union 8892. Another member, the
Typographical Union, Local 188, was first chartered in 1881. In later
years, the Musicians Union local represented organists who accompanied
silent films in local movie houses.
In the 1920s, local unions held a forty-hour workweek strike, and
helped establish that as a basis for all contracts of labor. Other
early job actions were for air conditioning, worker respect and safer
workplaces.
In 1901, only unions in McLennan County were affiliated with the
Council. Over time, it expanded to include eight counties, and in 1992,
the name was changed to the Central Texas Labor Council. The
organization now includes forty unions representing 14,000 workers.
Mr. Speaker, the nature of collective bargaining and labor-management
relations have changed dramatically since the Council was born a
century ago. Today, in Central Texas and across the nation, the vital
role of labor unions and labor councils have been widely recognized for
their contribution to safer and more productive workplaces with highly-
skilled workforces, leading to more competitive enterprises, and
ultimately, to a stronger and more stable U.S. economy.
Much has changed in one hundred years. However, the Central Texas
Labor Council continues to speak, and fight when necessary, for the
rights, the interests and the dignity of working men and women.
____________________
[[Page 23603]]
THANK YOU, DR. STEVEN E. HYMAN
______
HON. MARGE ROUKEMA
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. Steven E. Hyman
for his outstanding and dedicated, work in the field of mental health
through research, advocacy, and education. Dr. Hyman, director of the
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) of the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), will be leaving to assume his new responsibilities as
provost of Harvard University on December 10. A leading scholar at the
intersection of molecular neurobiology and psychiatry, Dr. Hyman will
be gravely missed.
I personally regret Dr. Hyman's departure, because he has been very
helpful to me in my role as co-chair of the House Mental Health Working
Group. He has shown strong and decisive leadership that has gone far to
reduce the terrible stigma and discrimination that haunts those with
mental disorders. As a leading scientist, Dr. Hyman very publicly and
very often made the case that science has shown us that these disorders
of the brain are real and they are treatable. As one who has focused on
this issue for so long, I can tell you how necessary his strong and
credible voice has been.
In 1996, Harold Varmus, then-director of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), named Dr. Hyman as director of the NIMH, the federal
agency charged with generating the knowledge needed to understand,
treat, and prevent mental illness. His tenure has been marked by
intensified efforts to bring molecular biology, genetics, neuroscience,
and behavioral science all to bear, in integrated ways, on the
understanding of mental illness and mental health. Most recently, Dr.
Hyman has been a prominent voice for the NIH on the psychological
effects both of the September 11th attacks and bioterrorism.
Dr. Hyman has been a great help to us here in the House of
Representatives as we sought to understand mental illnesses and their
effect on society. However the impact of his service has reached our
constituents well. I am gratified by every person who tells me that
they are no longer ashamed or guilty because they or a family member
suffers from a mental disorder. I have had a long-time interest in the
issues surrounding mental illnesses and I have valued Dr. Hyman's
leadership and commitment to encouraging and supporting the basic
research that will enable us to develop effective new treatments--based
on an understanding of the disease process itself.
Dr. Hyman has accomplished much during his tenure at the NIMH and for
this I am grateful. His success in bringing research on mental
disorders to the forefront of public consciousness has left an
important and lasting legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in gratitude for Dr.
Steven Hyman's dedication. We wish him all the best for the future. Our
nation looks forward to his continuing contributions to our health and
well being as he honors the halls of Harvard University.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ACCOMPLISHMENT OF KNOX COUNTY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, LEO
COOPER
______
HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
officially recognize the recent accomplishment of my constituent and
friend, Knox County Commission Chairman, Leo Cooper. Commissioner
Cooper was recently reappointed as chairman of the Knox County
Commission by a unanimous vote and is beginning his third term in this
important role. Mr. Cooper's leadership and genuine desire to serve the
public are reflected in the fact that he is now the longest-serving
Chairman in the history of the Knox County Commission.
In Washington, we often overlook the critical role local governments
play in the lives of the American people. By focusing on broad
legislative initiatives, we can easily lose sight of the tremendous
work that must be done at the county and city levels.
Commissioner Cooper's reappointment as chairman will not be covered
by national news, but I believe it serves as an opportunity to
highlight, not only his efforts, but also the efforts of all Americans
who have committed themselves to serving in local elected office.
Since 1986, Commissioner Leo Cooper has served the men, women and
families of the Seventh District of Knox County as a tireless advocate
and friend. Prior to being elected to local government, Chairman
Cooper's career was dedicated to education and improving the lives of
Knox County's young adults. Whether as an elected official or a
schoolteacher and principle, Mr. Cooper has continually committed
himself to public service. The people of the seventh district recognize
this, and I am pleased that the other dedicated members of the Knox
County Commission do as well.
I add these remarks to the Record today so that every member of the
House of Representatives can Join me in thanking Mr. Leo Cooper and
every elected official in our respective districts who play such vital
roles in the well-being of our communities.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO SUSAN MENCER
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate Susan Mencer on her new appointment as Director of the
Office of Preparedness and Security for the State of Colorado. Susan
will now play a key role in the defense of the State of Colorado and
this nation from the threat of terrorism. This will be a challenging
role for Susan, but I am confident she will prove herself most capable
of leading Colorado in this time of national tragedy.
Protecting our country from terrorism is not a new role for Susan.
She began her service in 1978 as an agent for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Her initial duties at the agency led her to the Office
of Counterintelligence in New York. Serving as an agent, she was
responsible for ensuring that foreign diplomats were not involved in
spying or obtaining classified information concerning national security
while posted in the United States. Susan's success propelled her to the
FBI Headquarters in 1985, where she served in several high level roles
as head of the budget unit for the Intelligence Division and Supervisor
of Counterintelligence Operations.
In 1990, Susan came to the FBI Denver office and directed programs
involving international and domestic terrorism, foreign
counterintelligence. As a result of her dedication, Susan was named
Director of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Denver created in
response to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Enjoying retirement
since 1998, Susan was again called to duty following the Columbine
shooting incident and served on the investigation panel. Her commitment
to the safety for schools and our children led to an appointment from
Governor Bill Owens to head the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Speaker, the State of Colorado is fortunate to have Susan Mercer
lead our efforts to counter terrorism in the State of Colorado. Her
impressive resume speaks volumes for Susan's dedication and commitment
to keep this nation safe and free from terrorism. I am honored to have
Susan in this position and extend my thanks for her service to Colorado
and her commitment to this nation.
____________________
NEW YORK CITY CONGRESSIONAL SESSION GAINS MOMENTUM
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you an article
that appeared in the Hill newspaper on Wednesday, November 28, 2001.
This news story is concerning H. Con. Res. 249, a resolution that I
recently introduced, which provides for a joint session of Congress to
be held in New York City early next year. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to share this story with my colleagues.
[From the Hill, Nov. 28, 2001]
NYC Congressional Session Gains Momentum
(By Kerry Kantin)
Despite the logistic hurdles that confront the notion of
convening a session of Congress outside of Washington, D.C.,
momentum is building behind the movement to conduct a
symbolic, one-day joint session in New York City.
A resolution introduced last month has already captured the
bipartisan support of 165 House members. The House effort is
spearheaded by New York State delegation Democratic chairman
Rep. Charlie Rangel, who is from Manhattan.
Rangel, working with New York State GOP delegation dean.
Rep. Ben Gilman, has been actively corralling support from
both his Democratic and Republican colleagues.
``It would be historic. It would be a way of symbolizing
the strike we took for the nation and their appreciation for
it,'' said the
[[Page 23604]]
15-term Rangel in a phone interview last week. ``Any city or
any town or village know the Congress is with them, like
they're with New York City.''
Rangel acknowledged that there are several logistical
obstacles, including where the session would be held and
security issues, to iron out, but said that should not get in
the way of members' support.
``No one's turning us down,'' Rangel added. ``I know I can
get my signatures next week.''
Rangel and Gilman have written Dear Colleague letters,
asking their support for the measure.
``We are equally impressed by our colleagues' support of a
symbolic--but powerful--gesture to convene the Congress in
New York for one day,'' write Rangel and Gilman in a Nov. 14
letter. ``We believe that such a session in the city where
Congress first convened would be a powerful and meaningful
expression of support to New York.''
The session would also provide an opportunity for all
lawmakers to meet with New Yorkers, the letter adds.
The movement to bring Congress to the Big Apple was
catalyzed on the editorial page of the Sept. 25 New York
Daily News. The New York tabloid wrote an editorial urging a
joint session of Congress in New York City, even if it is
only for one day.
Rangel quickly picked up the cause and introduced a
resolution on Oct. 12; New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton
(D) and Charles Schumer (D), followed suit, introducing a
companion resolution Nov. 15.
``We're working actively to see that it happens,'' said
Schumer, of his and Clinton's efforts. ``It would be a shot
in the arm for New York.''
In the House, the resolution has captured the support of 53
Republicans and 112 Democrats, ranging from Empire State
liberals like Rep. Jerrold Nadler to Midwestern conservatives
like Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Don Manzullo (R-Ill.). The entire
31-member New York State delegation has signed on, as well as
several other members from the Northeast.
With the exception of retiring House Minority Whip David
Bonior (Mich), the entire Democratic leadership has pledged
its support for the resolution, but no one from the House GOP
leadership. It has, however, received the support of other
influential Republicans, including Appropriations Committee
Chairman Bill Young (Fla.) and Energy and Commerce Committee
Chairman Billy Tauzin (La.).
``Everyone has been extremely receptive,'' Rangel said.
``But when we get to the logistics, I hope they'll love me as
much in the springtime as they do in the fall.''
Other members are wary to sign on until finding out more
details.
``I saw the note from Charlie [Rangel], but Gosh, it's an
interesting concept, but I don't know if I'm for it or
against it,'' said House Republican Conference Chairman Rep.
J.C. Watts (R-Okla.).
``I do find it quite intriguing we would consider something
like that,'' he added. ``I'm sure we would look at the pros
and cons and give it a fair hearing. It seems to be a massive
undertaking to move the mechanics of Congress to another
location.''
While his primary focus is gaining as many signatures as he
can, Rangel said he is looking into about six sites. He added
that he is working with New York City Mayor-elect Michael
Bloomberg (R) and other city leaders, like Bill Ruden, the
chairman of the Association for a Better New York.
Ed Skyler, a spokesman for the Bloomberg Transition Team,
said the mayor-elect ``strongly supports'' the resolution. He
added that Bloomberg discussed the issue during his trip to
Washington earlier this month.
Those in support of the resolution say the logistics can be
hammered out at a later time.
``A lot of those things would need to be worked out,''
acknowledged Schumer, adding that lawmakers could not work
out many of the fine details themselves and would need to
leave issues, like security, up to other agencies, including
the sergeants at arms.
``This is an act of showing congressional support for New
York,'' said Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for House Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), who supports the resolution.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
______
speech of
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 28, 2001
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3338) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes:
Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2002. I wish to commend Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member
Murtha, and their staff for again crafting a bill that is appropriate
for those who risk their lives to protect our country, our freedoms,
and our way of life.
We have learned in recent months that we live in an uncertain time
and an unstable world. We in Congress must always remember that the
first priority of the Federal Government is to provide for the national
defense.
This bill delivers on that priority and demonstrates our commitment
to our Nation's defense by providing $317.5 billion in discretionary
spending, $19 billion over last year's bill. The bill ensures that our
military remains the strongest, most prepared force in the world, and
strengthens our efforts to deal with the new threats that our Nation
faces by providing $11.7 billion under the Counter-Terrorism and
Weapons of Mass Destruction Title. The bill also fulfills our
obligation to house, clothe, feed, and provide for the health care of
the members of our armed services and their families by providing a 4.6
percent pay raise and funding an increase in housing allowances.
Mr. Chairman, it is for these and many other reasons that I gladly
support H.R. 3338 today and encourage my colleagues to do the same. At
this very moment, men and women of our Armed Forces are overseas
fighting a war on terrorism and evil. While we have all stood in this
Chamber and commended them for their service, now is the time to
support this vital legislation that will ensure our troops remain safe
and successful, now and for years to come.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
______
speech of
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 28, 2001
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3338) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes:
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the tragic events of
September 11th have left a profound impact on this country. As a
representative from New York, I have witnessed firsthand the
destruction and grief endured by the survivors. I've watched our brave
rescue personnel work tirelessly to recover lost loved ones. Cleanup
crews continue to work around the clock in hope of rebuilding what was
destroyed. There is no question that New Yorkers are united in their
effort to overcome the challenges ahead of them.
As we know, in the aftermath of September 11th, Congress quickly
passed the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery
and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (P.L. 107-38).
This supplemental appropriates $40 billion and allows the Bush
Administration to spend the first $20 billion with minimal reporting
requirements. The remaining $20 billion can be spent only after the
Administration has specifically requested it and Congress has passed a
bill reported by the Appropriations Committee. New Yorkers were
promised $20 billion of these funds to help with relief efforts.
I supported this legislation because it stipulates that ``not less
than one-half of the $40,000,000,000 shall be for disaster recovery
activities and assistance related to the terrorist attacks in New York,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania . . .'' However, only $3.2 billion has been
released and the Administration has only requested an additional $6.3
billion for a total of $9.5 billion. That's less than half of what was
promised.
I am extremely concerned that New York is not receiving the full $20
billion in emergency funds promised by the President in this bill. New
York can not afford to wait for future legislation allocating the
remainder of the $20 billion in emergency funds it was promised.
Overtime pay for cleanup workers must be paid. Unemployment Insurance
funds are rapidly depleting. Continuation of COBRA must continue. These
are real concerns that will require, at a minimum, the immediate
allocation of the $20 billion in emergency funds.
Equally important, however, is the urgent need to equip our military
personnel with the resources and tools they need to prevent future acts
of terrorism. We are at war with an enemy that is not restricted to
country borders or even continents. The 7-percent increase in funding
addresses many of our military's needs and prepares this country for
the long road of eradicating all terrorists.
I have little doubt that New York will eventually receive the full
$20 billion promised by the President, but I would have preferred to
receive these funds today. The President must
[[Page 23605]]
not forget about New York, just as we have not forgotten about our
brave men and women fighting overseas to prevent another attack similar
to September 11th.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO DAVID KLAGER
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to the life and memory of David Denison Klager who recently
passed away in Creede, Colorado on November 1, 2001. David, known to
others as Dave, will always be remembered as a dedicated contributor to
the community. His passing is a great loss for a town that relied on
Dave for his kind heart, knowledge, and friendship.
As a member of the Creede community, Dave was constantly volunteering
his time and energy for beneficial projects in the area. He served on
the Board of Directors and as Treasurer for the Homeowner's
Association, President and Board of Directors for the Creede Repertory
Theater, President of the Creede Historical Society, volunteer for the
Creede Historical Museum, and member of the Arts Council. He also
served as Senior Warden to St. Augustine's Episcopal Church.
Dave was a lover of the outdoors and enjoyed the many activities that
Colorado can offer. He was an avid hiker, snowmobiler, cross-country
skier and canoer. His hobby was woodworking and his work can be seen
throughout the City of Creede in places such as St. Augustine's Church,
the ``Art Park'', and Creede Repertory Theater.
Mr. Speaker, Dave will be missed by the many whose lives he has
touched in the community. It has always been known that his greatest
passion was his love and dedication to his family. His wife Courtney,
daughters Kim, Karol, and Karen, as well as several grandchildren
survive Dave. It is with a solemn heart that we say goodbye and pay our
respects to a patriarch of the Creede community. David Denison Klager
dedicated his final years to his neighbors in the City of Creede,
Colorado, and he will be greatly missed.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
______
speech of
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 28, 2001
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3338) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3338, the
Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
In this time of national awareness of the very real threat of
terrorism, I believe it is our responsibility as lawmakers to ensure
the readiness and quality of life of our military by providing these
forces with the necessary resources, equipment and training to defend
our nation's interests and to keep the American people secure. With our
country at war, it is more important than ever to continue to support
our armed forces and provide them with the necessary resources needed
to wage this war and protect our nation and our world from terrorism.
Despite my support for this bill, I have strong reservations about
the way this bill has placed an added emphasis on programs and
provisions that do not address the most pressing needs of our nation.
For example, this measure provides $7.9 billion for an untested and
unproven missile defense program, while providing only $613 million to
improve federal, state, and local bioterrorism preparedness. By moving
forward with a costly national missile defense system, we are investing
billions of scarce federal dollars in an unproven and dangerous scheme
while placing at risk the well-being of our nation in a time of
national crisis.
In addition, this Defense Appropriations bill will cut critically
needed funding from the Department of Labor's employment and training
administration to provide additional funding relief to assist New
York's efforts to recover from the September 11th terrorist attack.
While there should be no doubting my commitment to the people of New
York and their efforts to recover and rebuild after the terrorist
attacks, I am concerned that the funding they need may come at the
expense of other programs and initiatives deserved of funding.
Specifically, funding in this bill in the employment and training
administration was to be used for the New National Emergency Grant
program, which would allocate emergency funding to the states to
provide health insurance, income support, and job search assistance and
training for displaced workers following the September 11th attack.
This includes a $24 million grant for the State of Minnesota to provide
assistance to displaced airline employees who have lost their jobs when
the government suspended domestic and international air travel. These
layoffs have had a devastating impact on these individuals and their
families and to Minnesota's economy as a whole. With the huge influx of
current layoffs, the state cannot meet the needs of these laid off
workers without this emergency grant.
While this is not a perfect bill, with our nation at war, it is a
necessary bill. It is imperative that our nation continues to maintain
a strong national defense, especially during this time of domestic and
international crisis. However, in the weeks and months ahead we must
also pledge our commitment to work as a unified Congress to provide
increases in additional security, bioterrorism preparedness, and
employee assistance measures. Furthermore, we must work to help New
York recover and rebuild from the devastating attack of September 11th,
as well as stimulating our economy and strengthening our nation's
infrastructure and safety measures.
____________________
CONGRATULATING CLEARFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA EMS
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding
achievements of the Clearfield, Pennsylvania Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) Company. On August 10, 2001, the Pennsylvania Emergency Health
Services Council chose Clearfield EMS from among 1,000 ambulance
service companies statewide to receive the Rural Ambulance Service of
the Year Award.
Clearfield EMS garnered such an award not only through exemplary
ambulance service, but also through their involvement in the community.
Free flu shots and participation at county fairs and festivals are just
a couple of the many ways that Clearfield EMS has taken the lead in
community education and involvement.
In light of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the role of the
EMS workers, firefighters, and police officers of Central Pennsylvania
is greater than ever. Clearfield EMS and their EMS counterparts
throughout the area are among the first to respond to emergencies, and
for this important service to our communities, I am grateful. These
individuals deserve all of our thanks for dedicating their lives to
helping others.
Finally, I would like to recognize the following employees of
Clearfield EMS by name:
Paramedics: Scott Briggs, Timothy Lumadue, Christopher Miller, Scott
Minich, Robert Mitchell, Michael Mowrey, Lewis Huff, Patrick Cooley
Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT): Vicky DeHaven, George DeHaven,
Traci Pentz, Melissa Miller, Lorie Bell, Stacy Huff, Frank Warholic,
David McAllister, Brian Kellogg, Frank DeHaven, Carol DeSantis, Erin
DeSantis
Administrative Staff: Terry Wigfield, Manager; Chad Abrams, Assistant
Manager; Pamela Charles, Office Manager; Dr. James DeSantis, Medical
Director
Board of Directors: Gary C. Wigfield, President; Gary L. Shugarts,
Treasurer; Pamela Spencer, Secretary; Delford Wigfield, Mathew Franson,
Thomas Glace
I congratulate Clearfield EMS on their exceptional accomplishments
and their determination to improve their already stellar service.
Clearfield EMS should serve as an example in excellence for other
ambulance services nationwide.
____________________
[[Page 23606]]
A BILL TO PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES TO BUSINESSES LOCATED IN LOWER
MANHATTAN, THE LIBERTY ZONE AND HELP REBUILD THE ECONOMY AFTER THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TERRORIST ATTACK
______
HON. AMO HOUGHTON
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand with several of my
New York colleagues in introducing a bill, which will provide much-
needed tax incentives for businesses to rebuild in lower Manhattan--
this all after the massive destruction caused by the terrorist attack
on September 11, 2001. None of us will forget the terrible losses of
that day--loss of life and the most tragic being the heartache to so
many families.
The World Trade Center towers were destroyed. Other buildings were
damaged or collapsed. The price tag to rebuild is staggering. But
rebuilding the infrastructure and economy must start. This package is
only part of the solution, but it is an important first step.
As New York Governor George Pataki said today, ``The $6.1 billion
package will offer incentives for businesses to generate jobs, spur
innovation and investment in the Liberty Zone, helping us renew,
restore and rebuild lower Manhattan''.
The bill includes five provisions which would: (1) authorize New York
State to issue up to $15 billion in tax-exempt private activity bonds
over the next 3 years to help renovate and rebuild commercial property,
residential rental property and private utility infrastructure, (2)
allow taxpayers to claim an additional 30 percent, first-year
depreciation deduction for property located in the Liberty Zone,
including buildings and building improvements, (3) provide a 5-year
life for depreciating certain leasehold improvements, (4) increase by
$35,000 to $59,000 the amount that can be expensed by small businesses
under section 179, and (5) increase the replacement period from 2 to 5
years for property that was involuntarily converted in lower Manhattan
so that taxpayers would not have to recognize gain.
I want to thank Chairman Thomas and my colleagues for their help in
working through this package. I urge your support.
____________________
MARKING THE PASSING OF MARY KAY ASH
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the
life and legacy of Mary Kay Ash. For more than four decades, Ms. Kay
has been one of Texas' most outstanding citizens and a business
pioneer. Cosmetics sales were just a small part of the legacy she left
for America. Her business made women feel better about themselves,
regarding both their appearance and the possibility for success in
business.
Ms. Kay changed the way women in business were perceived. She
pioneered direct marketing in a way that has been emulated for years.
She tapped talent that may have otherwise gone unused. All over
America, women are more empowered because of the life of Mary Kay Ash.
Mary Kay Ash founded the cosmetic company that bears her name in 1963
with $5,000 in savings, using a hide tanner's cream as her principle
product. Since then, the color pink has been synonymous with quality
cosmetic products and aggressive salespersonship. She was a phenomenal
entrepreneur and, more importantly, an incredible motivator. One
hundred fifty one women, so far, have recorded more than $1 million in
Mary Kay sales.
Last year, Mary Kay, Inc. had revenue of $1.3 billion. Today, there
are about 800,000 women and men who make up the Mary Kay global sales
force. It is an extraordinary legacy for a phenomenal lady who grew up
in a poor Houston neighborhood.
Mr. Speaker, Mary Kay Ash was one of Dallas-Fort Worth's most dynamic
icons. She died on November 22, 2001. 1 ask that the thoughts and
prayers of the Thirtieth Congressional District, and the nation, be
with her family and friends.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO DEBBIE TAMLIN
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize an outstanding individual from Ft. Collins, Colorado. Over
the years Debbie Tamlin has distinguished herself as a business
executive, a community leader, and a vital participant in our political
process. Debbie's achievements are impressive and it is my honor to
recognize several of those accomplishments today.
Debbie was raised in Colorado and received a Bachelors of Arts in
Communication Disorders from Colorado State University. In 1978, she
received her Colorado Real Estate Sales License followed by her brokers
license in 1980. Since then she has immersed herself in an outstanding
real estate career and served in numerous capacities of support for her
field. She has served as Director for the National Association of
Realtors, President of the Women's Council of Realtors, founding member
of the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, Director of Colorado
Association of Realtors, and the Director of Fort Collins Association
of Realtors.
To help serve her community and State, Debbie has given her time and
energy to the political process by providing guidance and support to
aspiring political candidates. She has been a driving force in the
Colorado Republican Party and worked on campaigns in various capacities
for county commissioners, Congressmen, Senators, and even President
George W. Bush. Debbie has also given her time to noble efforts in the
community such as founding the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and
serving as a leader in groups such as Citizens for the Protection of
Personal Property Rights, the Women's Development Council, and the
Colorado Women's Leadership Coalition.
Mr. Speaker, Debbie Tamlin's list of achievements has not been
overlooked during her career and her efforts have been repeatedly
awarded over the years. It is now my honor to congratulate Debbie on
her most recent and well-deserved award from her own community, the
Realtor of the Year award. Debbie has been a model citizen for the
community and I extend my thanks to her for her efforts. Keep up the
good work Debbie and good luck in your future endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROGER F. HONBERGER
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, December 31, 2001, will mark the passing of
an era, an era of accomplishment in the field of intergovernmental
relations. On that day, a pioneer in Washington representation for
California public policy and project development will retire from
service.
Roger F. Honberger comes from a humble upbringing of enterprising
parents from the 1930s. His mother is a Native American, born into the
Pechanga Band of California Mission Indians at the turn of the century,
and is presently the oldest living Tribal member. Roger was the first
member of his family to graduate from college, the result of extensive
sacrifice by his parents. After beginning his career in the field of
Urban Planning, he returned to graduate school, where he distinguished
himself and received degrees from both the University of London,
England and Harvard University.
In his early career, he served as a professional planner with the
County of Riverside, City of San Diego, National Capital Planning
Commission, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
His federal experience in writing legislation, budget preparation, and
program management led him to the establishment of his own government
relations consulting firm in 1970, Roger Honberger Associates, Inc. He
pioneered a new industry of dedicated people working with the Congress
and Federal Administrations on behalf of the intergovernmental needs of
state and local governments. Today, this industry serves countless
public agencies from all corners of the nation.
Thirty years ago, Roger was selected from a field of 200 applicants
by the County of San Diego to be their first Washington representative.
At that time, the San Diego County Congressional Delegation consisted
of Lionel Van Deertin, Bob Wilson, and Jimmy Utt. The only other state
or local governments that had full time Washington offices when Roger
began his work for San Diego County were the State of California, the
County of Los Angeles, and the Cities of Los Angeles and San Diego.
These were the only general-purpose governments from any other part of
our great nation
[[Page 23607]]
in those days that maintained a full time presence in Washington, D.C.
In his thirty years of representing San Diego County, Roger directly
served 27 different elected members of the County's five person Board
of Supervisors, and 8 different Chief Administrative Officers. The
number of Congressional Districts in the County grew from 3 to 5 during
the same period, and he worked closely with all 16 different Members of
Congress elected from these districts since 1970. Five different
Presidents recognized Roger for his work on public issues. He has also
been recognized as Alumnus of the Year by the California State
Polytechnic University, as well as by his High School Alunmi
Association from Perris, California. He is the only career County
representative that the National Association of Counties has officially
honored for professional accomplishments. He has had a truly remarkable
career of public service.
A broad array of regional accomplishments in the County have
benefited from Roger's efforts in Washington, D.C. These include: the
establishment of the region's first alcohol detoxification center;
development of the first solid waste recycling program; a countywide
gasoline vapor recovery program; harbor cleanup; welfare reform; a
multitude of flood control and highway projects; San Diego Trolley
project construction; Sheriffs Department funding; lagoon preservation;
drug addiction treatment; children's disease inoculation services;
foster care program support; air quality program certification; and the
prevention of off-shore oil drilling, just to name a few. The list is
long and impressive.
Five years ago, Roger invited his long-standing associate, Thomas
Walters, to become his partner, and the firm's name was changed to
Honberger and Walters, Inc. For the past three years, Tom has been the
firm's chief executive officer and owner. The firm continues to manage
San Diego County's Washington office. Their other clients include the
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, North County Transit,
San Diego Unified Port District, the Sweetwater Authority, the Counties
of Riverside and Ventura, the Monterey-Salinas Transit District, the
Calleguas Municipal Water District, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians.
Roger has long been recognized as one of the leaders in his field and
has lectured on intergovernmental relations and lobbying practice at
San Diego State University, U.S. International University, University
of Maryland, and the University of Arizona. He continues to be involved
in a variety of American Indian issues and was one of the founders of
the Harvard University Native American Alumni Association.
Many of us in the Congress have worked with Roger Honberger during
his distinguished career. We will miss his friendly disposition and his
dedicated hard work on behalf of his public clients. Above all, we will
miss his candor and honesty. His word has always been his bond,
something we have all appreciated and have grown to expect, regardless
of the circumstances. We are happy to see that his high professional
standards and style are being continue by Tom Walters without missing a
beat. For this we are grateful, and we are grateful for Roger's
sustained friendship and support over the years. We wish him the very
best as he moves on to other endeavors.
____________________
THE ACCESS AND OPENNESS IN SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ACT
______
HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to Join my good friend and
colleague Jim McGovern in introducing this legislation that will help
minority and women entrepreneurs in securing small business loans from
private lending institutions. The Access and Openness in Small Business
Lending Act will ensure that lending institutions are providing
minorities and women opportunities to obtain small business loans.
This legislation is similar to the 1990 amendment to the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) that holds financial institutions
publicly accountable for their lending practices to applicants. Like
HMDA, the Access and Openness in Small Business Lending Act will allow
applicants, for small business and non-mortgage loans, to voluntarily
and anonymously provide their race and gender information to banks and
other institutions. Lending institutions under this legislation will be
required to disclose the collected data to the public. These
institutions already maintain databases on the geographic and loan size
of applicant requests. The additional information collected on lending
practices will help identify small business owners that remain under-
served and expose additional profitable lending opportunities for
lending institutions.
Minorities and women contribute greatly to our nation's economy and
communities. Over the past decade they have expanded their ownership of
small businesses. However, minorities and women continue to have
difficulty gaining access to the resources they need to succeed in
business. If granted greater access to private funds more minority and
women small business owners could help revitalize their neighborhoods
and expand their commercial base.
Mr. Speaker, the Access and Openness in Small Business Lending Act
would greatly increase access to private credit for minority and women-
owned businesses. This legislation is a much needed step in the night
direction that allows minorities and women an opportunity to succeed as
small business entrepreneurs and contribute to their communities and
the nation. Thank you.
____________________
RECOGNITION FOR ERNEST AND JULIO GALLO
______
HON. GARY A. CONDIT
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege to rise today to
honor two giants in the world of business and agriculture--Ernest and
Julio Gallo.
Ernest, and his late brother Julio, are being inducted into the
Stanislaus County Agricultural Hall of Fame. That alone speaks volumes
about these two men in a region of the country known as the
agricultural leader of the world.
The sum of their contributions is nearly impossible to evaluate. They
easily take their place in history with great men of vision such as
Henry Ford and Sam Walton who through hard work and determination
transformed their dreams into reality.
Starting with a small family vineyard and winery, they strove for
perfection and set a path others would struggle to find. They are part
of a disappearing breed of hands-on discoverers and entrepreneurs who
blazed a trail, proving the value of hard work, dedication and
ambition.
Rarely in history does a name or a single word draw such a
connotation as Gallo. The name alone is synonymous with wine and wine
making in the same way Ford is synonymous with quality automobiles.
Mr. Speaker, volumes could be written about the contribution these
men have made and will continue to make to the Central Valley of
California from research to industry operation, production and
viticulture. All of these things are intertwined in the history of the
Gallo family enterprise.
Ernest and Julio Gallo have greatly impacted agriculture through
their decades of leadership in the wine industry. Starting with a small
family vineyard and winery, they strove for perfection, inventing the
tools they needed when none existed, setting the path for others to
follow. They built their business into the largest winery in the world.
Their shared ambition to produce and market quality wines at affordable
prices motivated them to continuously improve their operations,
extending the family business to include grape growing, wine making,
production of the bottles, warehousing, distributing, transporting and
marketing wines throughout the country, and now throughout the world.
Ernest and Julio Gallo were instrumental in transforming the economy
of grape growing, offering long-term contracts to independent farmers
by encouraging growers to upgrade the varieties of grape planted to
meet future consumer demand for quality. California grape growers were
able to then transform the California wine industry into the
international phenomenon it is today. Ernest and Julio invested heavily
in agricultural research and shared their learning with local farmers.
Through this investment and sharing, the Gallos helped improve the
quality of grapes available in the region through better farming
practices such as plant nutrition, irrigation and harvesting regimes.
The Gallos helped educate generations of vineyard managers and wine
makers by their support of curricula throughout the University of
California and California State University systems. They undertook
extensive research in wine making techniques to help build and sustain
the market by introducing new types of wines and methods of wine
production. Today this global enterprise employs thousands of people
worldwide, nearly 3,500 in and around Stanislaus County.
On a shoestring budget, Ernest and Julio created the ``flagship''
winery in the United
[[Page 23608]]
States and put California on the map for wine. Their dream has
translated into a global force for wine and wine making.
Mr. Speaker, Ernest and Julio always gave ``All their best.'' It is
with great pride that I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in
honoring two great men--Ernest and Julio Gallo--on the occasion of
their being inducted into the Stanislaus County Agricultural Hall of
Fame.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO WALTER WAYNE THOMPSON, JR.
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize Walter Wayne Thompson Jr. and thank him for his service to
this country. Walter began his service as a sailor in 1941, joining the
Navy at the age of eighteen. By the end of his service, Walter had
served on two ships involved in several famous and infamous battles in
the Pacific theater.
Walter served on the U.S.S. Hornet as a stenographer to the ship's
Captain. While serving on the ship, Wayne was present for the launching
of the famous Doolittle Raid, America's first strike at the Japanese
after Pearl Harbor. Following the raid, the Hornet engaged in the
Battle of Midway, a battle considered a turning point in the war that
stopped the Japanese fleet from controlling Hawaii.
Following Midway, the Japanese focused on the island of Guadalcanal.
Here the Hornet's crew found itself tasked with the role of defending
the island alone after Allied naval forces sustained heavy losses.
After Guadalcanal, the crew fought in the Battle of Santa Cruz in an
attempt to weaken Japanese defensive forces for an invasion of the
island.
The Battle of Santa Cruz was to be the final engagement for the
Hornet. The carrier was attacked and sunk by enemy forces and her crew
rescued by the U.S.S. Anderson. After living through the travesty,
Wayne finished his service aboard the U.S.S. Lexington, where he served
until the end of the war. Following his discharge, he returned to his
native state of Missouri and became a Baptist Minister. He served the
ministry for over forty years before retiring in Montrose, Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Walter Wayne
Thompson Jr. and thank him for his service during World War II. If not
for dedicated citizens like Wayne, we would not enjoy the many freedoms
we have today. Wayne Thompson served selflessly in a time of great
need, bringing credit to himself and to this great nation. -
____________________
WE MUST RELEASE AID TO HAITI
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. must change its current policy
towards Haiti. We, as the standard bearers cannot allow Haiti to
further sink into a financial and social mire. It has always been
America's role to feed those who are hungry and clothe those who cannot
clothe themselves.
As we loosen our belts from our Thanksgiving feast, compare the fate
of millions of Haitians to ourselves: According to the United Nations,
sixty percent of Haiti's 8.2 million people are undernourished. The
average number of calories available to Haitians per day is 1977,
nearly half of the 3754 calories a U.S. resident gets, according to the
World Health Organization.
The Associated press recently published the following account of life
in Haiti:
I'll eat anything I can get,'' said Jean, 25, as he pulls
an empty crab trap out of the polluted Port-Au-Prince Bay. On
a good day, Jean can earn about $12 but often goes home empty
handed. Pigs are raised on garbage and human waste, but their
meat is too precious to be eaten by the impoverished
residents. The pork is sold at the market for cheaper staples
like cornmeal and rice that provides more days of
nourishment.
The current policy of the U.S. is contributing to the continued
attrition of the quality of life of Haiti's people, which if left
unchanged, could lead to horrendous outcomes for the western
hemisphere's poorest people. We must address the current state of
economic devastation. We must remove our blockade of essentially all
aid to Haiti.
The U.S. must stop using its veto power at the Inter-American
Development Bank. This veto-prerogative is blocking development and
humanitarian loans which covers a broad spectrum of critical social and
economic priorities, such as health sector improvement, education
reform, potable water enhancement and road rehabilitation.
Presently, the U.S. is precluding the issuance of the following loans
from being dispersed by the Inter-American Development Bank: 21.5
million--Education, 22.5 million--Health, 55 million--Roads, and 60.9
million--Water.
The hold up of these loans is exasperating Haiti's current negative
cash flow status with the Inter-American Development Bank. Although the
Inter-American Development Bank is precluded from moving ahead with
critical social and humanitarian loans, Haiti is still required to pay
arrears payments and credit commissions on loans that it has not
received. By the end of 2001, if nothing changes, Haiti will be in a
negative cash flow position with the Inter-American Bank--paying more
into the Bank than Haiti is receiving by approximately $10 million.
Humanitarian and social indicators continue to drop dramatically. As
well as, quality of life indicators, such as health and infant
mortality, which continues to erode, devastating the humanitarian
crisis creating a potentially devastating humanitarian crisis.
The national rate of persons infected with HIV/AIDS is now 4 percent
or 300,000 persons, creating 163,000 orphans; and 30,000 new cases per
year. The infant mortality rate is 74 deaths out of every 1000 births;
the doctor to patient ratio is 1.2 persons to 10,000 physicians; only
40 percent of the population has access to potable water; and 85
percent of adults are illiterate.
On November 8, 2001 the Congressional Black Caucus, in its entirety,
sent a letter to the President requesting to speak with him regarding
this vital issue. We have not yet heard any response. Mr. President, we
need to hear from you. We need to end the suffering of millions of
innocent individuals, we need to continue to be the standard bearer in
foreign policy. We must not waiver in our ability to look beyond our
political differences and move forthrightly to help those in need.
Mr. President, we must ask, ``Is the U.S. comfortable withholding
these much needed Inter-American Bank loans from the millions of
suffering Haitians in order to punish the Government of Haiti,
especially at a time when the U.S. continues to aid other countries who
have shown themselves to be much more villainous than Haiti?''
I think not, at least, I hope not.
____________________
IN REMEMBRANCE OF CARMELITA ZAMORA
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the memory of my beloved Aunt,
Carmelita Zamora and in commemoration of the close of an important
history.
Hers was a quiet life, and yet she played the central role in the
life of her family. Her story began in Punt de Agua, New Mexico, on
June 23, 1916. Carmelita Zamora left a legacy of nine children, 24
grandchildren and 34 great-grandchildren when she died on November 26,
2001. A loving and joyful memory survives her.
They say a person is measured by the lives she touches. Through the
grace of God, Carmelita touched the hearts and lives of many. She
touched the lives of her loving children Jake, Abram, Philip, Eugene,
Lawrence, Wilferd, Edwina, Alice and Maryanne Peggy. She touched the
lives of 24 grandchildren Diana, Mary, Mario, Laura, Donna, Carol, JD,
JJ, Mark, Sophia, Dominic, Adonis, Valerie, Ricky, Jennifer, Anthony,
Christopher, Jessica, Candace, Angel, Eloisa, Penny, Ermogenes, Lisa
Marie and of 34 great-grandchildren.
Carmelita touched their lives in her very special way. Born the
oldest of five siblings, Carmelita had two brothers and two sisters.
When she was not yet a teenager, Carmelita developed the instincts of
protector, caregiver and mother. Her own mother became ill, so
Carmelita was forced to discontinue her elementary school education to
care for her young siblings.
Carmelita began a new chapter in her life on March 11, 1935, at 20
years old, when she met and married Ernesto Zamora. In 1951, Carmelita
and Ernesto would move the family to Wyoming before moving back to the
Southwest. In July of 1957, Carmelita and her family arrived in
Barstow, California where she would live for the remainder of her life.
Those remaining years would be spent filling the pages with memories.
Carmelita was talented and creative. Her children proudly remember
her ability to sew
[[Page 23609]]
clothes and never use patterns. They swear that had she been born at
another time and under easier conditions she would have been a famous
fashion designer. Many memories stem from this talent of hers.
Carmelita's son Abram fondly remembers a pair of new overalls she made
him for school. They were so fine that when Abram arrived at school,
all the other children begged for a pair of their own. Her
granddaughter Penny treasures memories of spending time with her
grandmother, talking while they washed clothes or while Carmelita sewed
blankets. Carmelita even spoke of life lessons in terms of clothing.
``It doesn't make any difference if you are poor,'' they remember her
saying. ``It doesn't matter if your clothes have patches as long as
your shoes were shined and your clothes clean. That's all that
matters.''
Her son Gene fondly recalls receiving such advice from his mother
every Monday night during their weekly conversation. Those calls got
him through his week. Whether they discussed her love for the sport of
wrestling or she was providing advice for his day-to-day trials. She
was the source of his strength all his life.
All Carmelita's legacies remember her as a very strong woman. Her
daughter Edwina said, ``She was there for me when my husband passed
away at a very young age leaving me here with four young children. I
couldn't have made it through without her love and strength.''
She was there for all of her children in times of need. Forever a
mother, she was responsible for getting many of them through very
difficult times. She was a mentor and an unyielding resource. She never
asked for anything but always wanted to give. She generously offered
her advice and left it up to her children whether or not to take it.
Her grandchildren remember her not only as a source of strength but
also a source of nourishment. Nourishment of the heart as well as the
body. Granddaughter Lisa cherishes the time she spent with Carmelita
watching soap operas or wrestling while eating cookies and drinking
sodas. Eloisa similarly remembers her grandmother always wanting to
feed them even if they were not hungry. ``She liked to feed everyone.''
This was because, as granddaughter Angel remembers, Grandma was the
backbone of the family, she guided everything. She was a firm believer
in God and always prayed to God to help the family in times of need.
She also prayed to God for his blessings and in thanks for times of
happiness.
Aunt Carmelita is irreplaceable and we will not live one day without
remembering this kind and gentle woman. This tribute to her life, to
her legacy and to her story will allow her memory to survive all of us.
And so Mr. Speaker, I submit this loving memorial to be included in
the archives of the history of this great nation. For women like
Carmelita are what make this nation great. Women like Carmelita leave a
legacy of lives filled with love to all who knew her. She is the fabric
from which our nation was created.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO KENNETH BAYLEY
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize Kenneth Bayley of Eckert, Colorado and thank him for his
contributions to this nation. Kenneth began his service in the military
in 1939 as a member of the Army Air Corps, and in 1942, Kenneth was
assigned duty to the 14th Bomb Squadron on the island of Mindanao in
the Philippines.
It was on this island that Kenneth learned of the surrender of
Corregidor by Allied forces, thus ending the Allied resistance to the
Japanese invasion of the Philippines. Believing surrender was not an
option, Kenneth, along with members of his squadron, escaped to the
mountains and joined the resistance movement. For the next year the
airmen and local resistance fighters of Filipino and Moro tribesman
origin used guerilla warfare tactics to ambush and control Japanese
troop movements throughout the island. Their resistance effectively
contained 150,000 Japanese soldiers tasked with the defense of the
island's airfield. -
Kenneth then moved on to the island of Liangan and joined a
resistance group commanded by Wendall Fertig, another American who
refused to surrender to the Japanese. As a member of the group, Kenneth
was tasked with the operation of one of Fertig's many radio stations
throughout the area. These stations' function was to send encoded
messages concerning enemy strength and troop movements to Allied
forces. Kenneth left the Philippine islands in late 1943, escaping
aboard an American submarine bound for Australia. He returned to the
United States and served in the Air Force until 1962, eventually
retiring with the rank of Captain.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Kenneth Bayley for his
service to this country. He served this country selflessly in a time of
great need. By refusing to surrender and continuing the fight in the
face of enormous opposition, Kenneth Bayley has brought great credit to
himself and his nation, and deserves this body's recognition.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
______
speech of
HON. TED STRICKLAND
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 28, 2001
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3338) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year anding September 30, 2002, and for other purposes:
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, as our Nation feels the effects of our
current recession, and Congress discusses economic stimulus package, we
must insure we do all we can for the motor which drives our economy,
the American Worker.
For much of the twentieth century, our great steel companies churned
and poured out the material used to build our nation creating the
skeletons of our battleships and skyscrapers. But since the 1990s, many
of these once great companies have fallen victim to foreign competitors
who dump cheap steel on the American market. This year domestic steel
producers have been further affected by rising energy prices and a
rising dollar exchange rate which favors foreign-based companies. More
than two dozen U.S. steel producers have gone into bankruptcy, these
include once giant companies such as Bethlehem, LTV, Republic and
Wheeling Pittsburgh. Some mills have been forced to shut down entirely.
The Strickland, Stupak, LaTourette Amendment to the Defense
Appropriations bill will help an American industry ailing from the
effects of globalization. Steel is a vital part of the economy of my
State of Ohio and our nation as a whole. It ensures that none of the
funds made available in the Defense Appropriations bill can purchase
equipment, products or systems which contain steel not manufactured in
the United States. As a Congress we must make sure the dollars we spend
to protest the security of America protect the job security and
livelihood of the American Steel worker.
____________________
FIGHTING THE SCOURGE OF TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to highlight our
nation's efforts to fight, and hopefully end, the scourge of
trafficking in women and children. Earlier today, International
Relations Committee held an important hearing on the implementation of
anti-trafficking legislation I authored, and which was signed into law
last Congress.
As the Prime Sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, H.R.
3244, I was pleased that our legislation attracted unanimous bipartisan
support in both Houses of Congress, and was signed into law just over
one year ago. We succeeded not only because this legislation is pro-
woman, pro-child, pro-human rights, pro-family values, and anti-crime,
but also because it addresses a horrendous problem that cries out for a
comprehensive solution.
Each year as many as two million innocent victims--of whom the
overwhelming majority are women and children--are brought by force and/
or fraud into the international commercial sex industry and other forms
of modern-day slavery. The Act was necessary because previous efforts
by the United States government, international organizations, and
others to stop this brutal practice had proved unsuccessful. Indeed,
all the evidence suggests that the most severe forms of trafficking in
persons are far more widespread than they were just a few years ago.
[[Page 23610]]
My legislation was designed to give our government the tools we
believed it needed to eliminate slavery, and particularly sex slavery.
The central principle behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is
that criminals who knowingly operate enterprises that profit from sex
acts involving persons who have been brought across international
boundaries for such purposes by force or fraud, or who force human
beings into slavery, should receive punishment commensurate with the
penalties for kidnapping and forcible rape. This would be not only a
just punishment, but also a powerful deterrent. And the logical
corollary of this principle is that we need to treat victims of these
terrible crimes as victims, who desperately need our help, compassion,
and protection.
As the implementation of this important legislation moves forward,
success will depend, in large part, on the development of a large
coalition of citizen organizations that are out there on the streets
helping these victims day in and day out. The problem is simply too big
for any one, or even several, governments to tackle alone.
That is why I am so pleased to learn that outside advocacy and relief
organizations are continuing to join the fight against human
trafficking. Father Stan DeBoe, with the Conference of Major Superiors
of Men, CMSM, is one such civic leader who deserves special recognition
of his efforts, and the efforts of the CMSM. the CMSM, for those who
are unfamiliar with their work, serves as the leadership of the
Catholic orders and congregation of the 20,000 vowed religious priests
and brothers of the United States. The CMSM is the voice of these
Catholic priests and brothers in the U.S., and also collaborates with
the U.S. bishops and other Catholic organizations which serve the
Church, and our society.
I have included, as part of the Record, a recent resolution jointly
adopted by the CMSM and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious,
LCWR, on August 26 during a conference in Baltimore, Maryland.
Like all laws, however, this law is only as good as its
implementation. And, frankly, I have been deeply concerned at the slow
pace of implenatinion of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. A year
after enactment of this legislation, the State Department office--which
is designed to be the nerve center of our diplomatic efforts to engage
foreign governments in the war against trafficking--has only recently
begun to get up and running. No regulations have yet been issued which
will allow victims to apply for the visas provided by the Act. And many
other important tasks remain undone.
I do not say this to complain or criticize--I know that many things
move too slowly in the first year of a new Administration, and that
since September 11 our attention and resources have been diverted
elsewhere--but to emphasize that from now on, we do not have a minute
to spare.
I should also say that I am profoundly encouraged by the fact that
the Administration has been able to recruit Dr. Laura Lederer to bring
her expertise and commitment to the State Department's anti-trafficking
effort. Dr. Lederer is generally regarded as the world's leading expert
on the pathology of human trafficking, and the Protection Project which
she headed has provided the factual and analytical basis for most of
the work that has been done so far to combat human trafficking.
Throughout the long process of consideration and enactment of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Laura was our mentor and our
comrade-in-arms. I commend Under Secretary Dobriansky, for this
important choice.
Finally, I want to emphasize the principles behind the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act. I take second place to none in my commitment to
workers' rights, but this is not a labor law and it is not an
immigration law--it is a comprehensive attack on human slavery, and
especially sex slavery. It emphatically rejects the principle that
commercial sex should be regarded as legitimate form of ``work.''
I know that a number of officials in the previous Administration
disagreed with the approach we took in this bill--and that many of
these officials are career employees who still work in the government--
but the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is the law of the land, and
we now have a President who has made clear that he agrees with us on
this fundamental question. So I hope and trust that in implementing the
law--in making grants, in staffing offices and working groups, in
seeking partners and advisors in this important effort--this
Administration will rely on people who fully support the law they are
implementing, rather than on those who never liked it and who may seek
to evade or ignore some of its most important provisions.
What we need to make this law work are ``true believers'' who will
spare no effort to mobilize the resources and the prestige of the
United States government to implement this important Act and shut down
this terrible industry, which routinely and grossly violates the most
fundamental human rights of the world's most vulnerable people.
Resolution Opposing Trafficking in Women and Children
Statement of Resolution
LCWR and CMSM stand in support of human rights by opposing
trafficking of women and children for purposes of sexual exploitation
and forced labor, and will educate others regarding the magnitude,
causes, and consequences of this abuse.
Rationale
1. At their May 2001 plenary session in Rome, the International Union
of Superiors General, leaders of more than 780 congregations of women
religious having a total membership of one million, endorsed a
resolution opposing the abuse of women and children, with particular
sensitivity to the trafficking and sexual exploitation of women. UISG
resolved that this issue be addressed from a contemplative stance as an
expression of a fully incarnated feminine spirituality in solidarity
with women all over the world.
2. An LCWR goal is to work for a just world order by using our
corporate voice and influence in solidarity with people who experience
poverty, racism, powerlessness or any other form of violence or
oppression. A CMSM goal is to provide a corporate influence in church
and society.
3. The Platform for Action of the UN Fourth World Conference on Women
held in Beijing, 1995, included the strategic objective to eliminate
trafficking in women and assist victims of violence due to prostitution
and trafficking.
4. Each year between 700,000 and 2 million women and children are
trafficked across international borders, with more than 50,000 women
trafficked into the U.S. (UISG papers)
Call for Specific Action
1. Deepen our understanding of the realities of trafficking and its
integral relationship with poverty, male dominance, and the
globalization of trade.
2. Join with UISG as they call for specific days of international
prayer, contemplation, and fasting to unite religious in prayer
throughout the world.
3. Encourage education about trafficking, prostitution, and workplace
slavery in sponsored schools, colleges, and universities and in adult
educational ministries.
4. If feasible, collaborate in applying for federal funds from the
Department of Health and Human Services in implementation of HR 3244 to
provide services to victims of trafficking.
The Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) serves the leadership
of the Catholic orders and congregations of the 20,000 vowed religious
priests and brothers of the United States, ten percent of whom are
foreign missionaries. CMSM provides a voice for these communities in
the U.S. church and society. CMSM also collaborates with the U.S.
bishops and other key groups and organizations that serve church and
society.
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) has approximately
1,000 members who are the elected leaders of their religious orders,
representing 81,000 Catholic sisters in the United States. The
Conference develops leadership, promotes collaboration within church
and society, and serves as a voice for systemic change.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO JOHN HENDERSON
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to the life and memory of John Henderson who recently
passed away in Grand Junction, Colorado on November 17, 2001. John will
always be remembered as a dedicated volunteer to the community. His
passing is a great loss for a town that has relied on John for his
strength and good nature in times of hardship and prosperity.
John was a dedicated member of the Plateau Valley High School family.
He began his service as Assistant Head Coach for the football team. He
then served as Athletic Director for the school, coordinating sports
programs, games and events. This year John was promoted to Head Coach
and just completed his first season. John loved football, not just for
the sport, but because of the individuals he coached and inspired. He
pushed the players to excel, but always ensured the enjoyment of the
game was paramount.
John will always be remembered as a kind, compassionate man who was
willing to give people a chance in life. This resonated on the
[[Page 23611]]
football field where John was always willing to give his players the
opportunity to shine. He was a successful leader on the gridiron, and
in the face of insurmountable odds encouraged his players to their
best.
Mr. Speaker, John will be missed by many in this community. It has
always been known that his greatest passion was his love and dedication
to his family. It is with a solemn heart that we pay our respects to
his family and friends, and to all those who were touched by John
during his life. John Henderson dedicated many years to this community,
and he will be greatly missed.
____________________
HAITI STATEMENT BY REP. MAXINE WATERS
______
HON. MAXINE WATERS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western
Hemisphere. Yet the U.S. government is blocking aid to Haiti in order
to expand the influence of a single Haitian political party. This
party, known as the Democratic Convergence, is supported by less than
four percent of the Haitian electorate.
Meanwhile, Haiti's population is facing a serious humanitarian
crisis. Haiti's per capita income is only $460 per year. Four percent
of the population is infected with the AIDS virus, and 163,000 children
have been orphaned by AIDS. Every year, there are 30,000 new AIDS
cases. The infant mortality rate is over seven percent. For every 1000
infants born in Haiti, five women die in childbirth. Furthermore, there
are only 1.2 doctors for every 10,000 people in this desperately poor
country.
Not only has the United States suspended development assistance to
Haiti, the United States is also blocking loans from international
financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank. U.S.
policy has effectively prevented Haiti from receiving $146 million in
loans from the Inter-American Development Bank that were already
approved by that institution's Board of Directors. These loans are
desperately needed by the people of Haiti.
It is time for the United States to end this political impasse and
restore bilateral and multilateral assistance to this impoverished
democracy.
____________________
WTO NEGOTIATIONS AND TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY
______
HON. GARY A. CONDIT
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, as Congress continues to debate the Farm
Bill, U.S. trade negotiations at the WTO Ministerial in Doha agreed
that future trade talks would seek to limit domestic farm programs,
including phasing out of forms of export subsidies and substantial
reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. The decisions in Doha
line up U.S. trade negotiators to eliminate U.S. farm programs as a
chit in exchange for better overseas market access for U.S. banks and
other service providers.
The negotiating goal of significantly reducing ``trade-distorting''
farm programs presents a real problem for Congressionally mandated farm
programs. While U.S. negotiators have agreed to work towards phasing
out all forms of export subsidies and substantially reducing trade-
distorting domestic support, the House of Representatives recently
passed H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act. H.R. 2646 provides $409.7
billion in market price support programs, loan deficiency programs and
marketing loan assistance to struggling farmers for the next 10 year-
farmers who are struggling in large part due to cheap, subsidized
foreign imports and restrictive trade laws abroad.
If this hit on U.S. agriculture policy were not damaging enough, U.S.
trade negotiators reopened our country's longstanding position against
putting U.S. anti-dumping laws on the WTO negotiating table. These
trade laws are farmers' last defense when countries dump below-cost
commodities on the U.S. market. Yet, USTR agreed to immediate
negotiations in this area, even though a long list of WTO countries
including Brazil, Japan and Australia have stated clearly that their
only purpose for seeking such talks is to weaken existing U.S. trade
law.
While the Administration has opened the door for reducing domestic
assistance to U.S. farmers and weakening anti-dumping laws, it is also
pushing for Trade Promotion Authority from Congress. If TPA is granted,
Congress loses its ability to influence the substance of agriculture
negotiations. Under TPA, Congress cannot remove or amend offensive
agricultural provisions, it can only reject the entire WTO negotiated
pact. Under these conditions, American agriculture is at risk when
negotiators are willing to compromise U.S. producers' interests in
exchange for new market access for U.S. telecommunications firms, banks
and other service providers in other nations.
While I fully appreciate the opportunities of a global marketplace
for our farmers, it is irresponsible to oversell the benefits of free
trade that is not fair. Agriculture remains in a precarious position
for further WTO discussions. Congress must not relax its vigilance over
trade deals that compromise American agriculture.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO GORDON HARBERT
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize an outstanding individual from Grand Junction, Colorado. Over
the years, Gordon Harbert has distinguished himself as a business,
community, and industry leader for Grand Junction. Gordon's dedication
is impressive and it is my honor to recognize several of his
accomplishments and good deeds.
Gordon is a third generation owner of Harbert Lumber Company located
in Grand Junction. The company has served the community since 1937 and
continues to provide quality products and service to the entire Western
Slope of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. As an industry leader, Gordon
serves on the Board of Directors of the Western Colorado Business
Development Corp, and has created a new philanthropy role for Harbert
Lumber business. In this role, the company has donated building
materials and equipment to organizations such as Camp Kiwanis and the
Salvation Army for much needed improvements and renovations.
Gordon has also distinguished himself as a leader in the community by
volunteering his time and efforts to several organizations in the area.
He created and served as Chairman of the Western Slope Golf Tournament
for over a decade, only recently stepping down to take on new
responsibilities. He is a great supporter of the Young Life's Christian
Outreach program, and served as Chairman of the local Kiwanis Club.
Gordon has also been actively involved with Mesa Developmental Services
by providing woodworking equipment to create products for the
organization to promote and sell in his store and to the community.
Mr. Speaker, Gordon Harbert's dedication led to his recognition in
1996 as Citizen of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce acknowledging
his dedication to his employees, his community, and friends. It is now
my honor to congratulate Gordon on his most recent and well-deserved
award from the industry community, Lumberman of the Year, presented by
the Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association.
Gordon has been a model citizen to the community and I extend my thanks
to him for his efforts. Keep up the hard work Gordon and good luck in
your future endeavors.