[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 1411-1546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1411]]
VOLUME 149--PART 2
SENATE--Tuesday, January 21, 2003
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be led in prayer this
morning by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, Father Daniel
Coughlin.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
All powerful God and Father of all the living, yesterday's holiday
brought to mind the wise words of Rabbi Abraham Heschal:
Martin Luther King Jr. is a voice, a vision and a way. I
call upon every Jew to hearken to his voice, to share his
vision, to follow in his way. The whole future of America
will depend on the impact and influence of Dr. King.
Today in this awesome Chamber I call upon Americans of all faiths to
join in praying for the Members of the Senate as they face the future
of America. Together let us continue to hearken to his voice, share his
vision, and follow in his way. By Your grace may Dr. King's dream for
America become a reality.
In these troublesome times, awaken in the soul of this country the
lasting political implications of religious beliefs. Encircle us with
Your light that we may be unafraid to address the racism, militarism,
and materialism etched in routine structures of our day--and so become
truly free at last. As Your free children lead us to seek first Your
kingdom and justice for all our brothers and sisters, proud to be one
Nation under God now and forever. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The President pro tempore 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.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The assistant majority leader is
recognized.
SCHEDULE
Mr. McCONNELL. This morning there will be a period for morning
business not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30 a.m., with the time
equally divided in the usual form. At 10:30, the Senate will then
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, the appropriations bill. I
understand there are several Members on the other side of the aisle who
intend to offer their amendments to the appropriations measure during
Tuesday's session.
In addition to considering further amendments to the appropriations
measure, it is the majority leader's hope that on Tuesday the Senate
will consider the nomination of Tom Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland
Security. I believe some Members have indicated their desire to speak
in regard to that nomination. A rollcall vote is anticipated.
At the hour of 5:15, the Senate will vote on S. 121, the AMBER Alert
bill. This will be the first vote of today's session. Additional votes
are expected during today.
As a reminder, Senators have until 6 p.m. today to file their first-
degree amendments to the appropriations bill.
Finally, I announce to Members that they should expect busy sessions
each day this week in the hopes of completing action on the
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a couple of questions to
the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, we have a number of people, as
on my colleague's side I am sure, who are catching planes and getting
back after the Martin Luther King holiday. Does the leader have any
idea how late he wants to stay in today?
Mr. McCONNELL. I have not spoken with him this morning, but my
assumption is we would like to make as much progress as we can toward
completing the bill. Obviously, the longer we remain on this bill, the
less opportunity we have to move ahead with the work of the year in
which we find ourselves. As the Senator knows, we are still wrapping up
last year's work.
Mr. REID. We have one Senator coming to offer an amendment at 10:30.
We have another Senator coming at 11:30 or quarter to 12. We are going
to try to move as many amendments as we can today, and hopefully the
Senators will agree on both sides that we could have votes on those
matters this evening. So we will do the best we can to keep things
moving.
If the Senator can give us some idea as to how late the Senate leader
wants to go this evening, it would be appreciated.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Nevada, I am sure that later
in the day we will be able to provide some further information on that
matter.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the
hour of 10:30 a.m., with the time to be equally divided in the usual
form.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 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.
Mr. REID. I ask that the time be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page 1412]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 minority whip.
____________________
MARTIN LUTHER KING BIRTHDAY AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night my wife and I watched the
replaying of the speech of Dr. Martin Luther King on CNN. The speech
lasted 17 minutes. No matter how many times I watch the speech, I am so
impressed with the message this man delivered. That is why I was
stunned today, in getting the Congressional News Briefing, to see what
the present President, President Bush, has done to undermine the unity
and harmony of our society.
I quote:
Bush Revives House Participation in Confederate Memorial
Ceremony. Last Memorial Day, for the second year in a row,
Bush's White House sent a floral wreath to the Confederate
Memorial. . . . Bush has quietly reinstated a tradition
dating back to Woodrow Wilson that his father had halted in
1990. . . . The current Bush White House denies any change in
policy. Time adds that one of the organizations connected to
the ceremony is the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose Chief
Aide-de-Camp is Richard T. Hines, a politically active
lobbyist from South Carolina. In that State's brutal 2000
Republican primary, Hines reportedly helped finance tens of
thousands of letters blasting Bush rival Senator John McCain
for failing to support the flying of the Confederate flag
over the state capitol.
This repayment of political debt that the President has in South
Carolina is certainly something that flies in the face of what America
is all about. It certainly flies in the face of what leaders of the
administration say they are trying to do.
Yesterday we celebrated a national holiday, the birthday of a great
American, Dr. King. This year in particular, with controversy over
remarks and votes related to issues of race having affected the Senate
itself, it is important that we reflect on the life, legacy, and
message of Dr. King and that we assess the Nation's progress in
achieving the goals he articulated. Dr. King shared with us his dream
for American society, that Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and other
minorities would have equal opportunity to achieve and to contribute.
We are closer to that place in time because of the efforts and
accomplishments of Dr. King and others who made sacrifices and
confronted enormous obstacles to make life better, not only for African
Americans but all Americans.
America has made strides in improving the status of ethnic and racial
minorities, but I am concerned that the policies that the current
administration is pursuing would set us back.
Dr. King is one of the main reasons that little girls, young ladies,
teenagers, and women in college can participate in athletics. Title IX
is civil rights legislation and a direct result of the activities of
Dr. King. Is Title IX an affirmative action program? Of course it is.
Young women should have the opportunity to participate in athletics
just as young men have had. Until we passed a Federal law, an
affirmative action law, that was not possible. Now, tens of millions of
young women participate in athletics. They have opportunities to build
their character as young men have had for hundreds of years. Now women
can participate in athletics.
I was disappointed we had to work this week because I was looking
forward to watching my granddaughter Savannah play basketball this
week. She is good. She leads her team in scoring. I have not been able
to watch her play. She is 10 years old, and in her first game she
scored 12 of the 22 points her team scored. I was looking forward to
watching her play. I am told she is really good. In just a couple of
years this little girl will be able to participate in high school
athletics, which did not happen in my generation. The only athletics my
granddaughters could participate in, if they were my age, and even
younger than I, would be cheerleadering. Now she can be a basketball
player, soccer player, and participate in track events. That is the way
it should be.
We have made great strides in improving the status of minorities, as
well as women. That is the way it should be. We must continue to move
forward to build on the foundation Dr. King helped establish.
But unfortunately the administration is blocking progress by pursuing
policies that limit opportunity. One example is this administration's
filing a brief in the Supreme Court opposing the ability of the
University of Michigan to have a diverse class of students.
The University of Michigan admissions system is not about quotas. It
is about improving the educational experience for all students. This
takes into account not only race and ethnic background but many other
factors. Athletes and others with talents the school finds desirable
are given extra points in the admission process. The administration did
not oppose Michigan and other university programs where they give
bonuses to alumni, where they give bonuses to athletics. No one opposes
that. If you are trying to develop and establish a diverse class of
students at a university, they oppose it. This is wrong. Diversity is a
good thing, and it does not happen automatically but requires
progressive policies. The administration is flat-out wrong to oppose
this.
The administration is also wrong in continuing to nominate judges
whose records reveal a pattern of insensitivity to racial issues. I
have encouraged the President, as have many others, to protect the
environment. Apparently though, the only recycling he favors is
recycling of rejected and flawed judicial nominees.
What about DC statehood? We have young men and women who live in the
District of Columbia, who are now in the Persian Gulf getting ready to
go to war--people are being called up, being called upon to put their
life on the line for their country--but they cannot vote for a Member
of Congress, they do not have their own Senators. We should have
statehood. If you are part of a sovereign nation--for example, the
Pyramid Lake Piute Tribe in Nevada, they can vote for me, against me,
but the District of Columbia does not have that opportunity. Residents
of the District of Columbia pay taxes, they serve our country, but they
do not have representation in Congress by a Member who has a right to
vote on a substantive issue. They have a Member of Congress who only
can sit in committees. If this administration feels so strongly about
affirmative action, about fairness, diversity, let them come forward
and support DC statehood.
And consider the quality of education that children receive. Most
minority students in America still attend schools that are
predominantly minority. On average, they are in large classes, have
older books, receive less challenging lessons, and their teachers have
less training. To continue to improve the quality of education for all
Americans, we should raise the standards in our schools. We need the
administration to step forward on Leave No Child Behind, and do it by
helping to fund the program mandated for schools all over America. Not
to take care of unfunded mandates is wrong; the administration should
fund those mandates.
Our Nation's efforts to recover from September 11 remind us that we
become a stronger America by working together. So we must join together
and continue fighting to make sure all Americans enjoy equal
opportunities for justice, quality education, and economic prosperity.
In 2003, it is not enough to quote Dr. Martin Luther King, or to say
the right thing, or avoid saying the wrong thing. Actions speak louder
than words, even words as powerful as Dr. King's. We remember him as an
articulate speaker. It was his actions, his nonviolent actions of
organizing, educating, motivating, and demonstrating, that achieved
results. If we are truly to honor Dr. King, and, more importantly, if
we are fully motivated to improve race relations in our great country,
if we want America to live up to its democratic ideals and all our
people to have equal opportunity, freedom, justice, prosperity, and
peace, we must
[[Page 1413]]
pass civil rights legislation and fund programs that help level the
playing field and appoint judges whose records show a commitment to
tolerance and fairness.
The record of the Democratic Party is one we can be proud of. It
shows a longstanding commitment to civil rights, to fairness. Democrats
recognize we must take additional steps to advance civil rights for all
Americans. That is why we Democrats in the Senate have a package of
civil rights, known as Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans.
Our comprehensive legislation includes measures to expand hate crimes
protections. Let the Republicans come forward and stop barring us from
passing that. We have legislation to strengthen enforcement of existing
civil rights laws. Let them move across the aisle and help.
We must support legislation giving legal representation to indigent
Americans. We must stop racial profiling. That is what our legislation
does. It addresses pay inequities between men and women, protecting
individuals against discrimination; it prohibits employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation; and our legislation
prohibits military and civilian personnel from collecting information
about U.S. citizens. We must fully fund election reforms that we passed
last year. This is an agenda that is important, it is good, and it
should pass.
We ask the Republicans to step forward and help repudiate, condemn,
and oppose something as racially motivated, obviously, as that reported
in Time magazine, the President's reinstatement of something that his
father stopped because it was wrong--laying a wreath at the Confederate
Memorial. It is wrong. We need to speak out against it because it is
wrong.
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. 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Edwards is here and has an amendment
to offer. We told the majority leader on Friday we would be here at
10:30 to offer the amendment. Senator Edwards will not offer the
amendment until we have someone who is here from the other side, but he
is going to start talking about his amendment. We hope that is OK with
everyone.
What is the business now before the Senate?
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 67
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this morning I will be offering an
amendment, together with Senator Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator
Clinton, and Senator Reid, all of whom have worked very hard on this
amendment.
This amendment is about doing a very simple thing: it is about
keeping our air clean so that kids won't have asthma attacks and so
seniors won't have heart attacks and so Americans won't lose their
lives before their time. For months the administration has talked about
massive changes in clean air protections and for months Senators on
both sides of the aisle have said to the administration: Before you go
through with these changes, would you please tell us in detail how
these changes are going to affect our families? In other words, would
you please look before you leap?
We have been asking that question for months, and for months the
administration has refused to answer. On November 22, they went ahead
with their massive changes without telling us how it was going to
affect the health of the American people.
I believe the administration does not want to share these facts
because they are afraid of what the facts will show. They are afraid
people will see what their rule changes will do. When you study these
rules, when you listen to the experts, you will see that they will make
our air dirtier. These rules will add more soot to our cities and more
smog to our national parks. At the end of the day, these rules will
allow more kids to get asthma attacks, more seniors to have heart
problems which land them in the emergency room, and more people will
lose their lives prematurely.
This amendment is a very modest response to these proposed changes.
It does not block the rules forever. It does not put them off for
years. It just says let's put these rules off for about 6 months and
use that time to determine how these changes will affect human health,
how they will affect kids with asthma, senior citizens with
cardiorespiratory problems. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing
to do. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
We are saying let's get a study from the nonpartisan, completely
respected National Academy of Sciences. That is all we are talking
about: 6-month delay to look at these changes to see, before they go
into effect, what effect they will have on the health of the American
people.
The science of pollution is completely clear. Pollution causes heart
and lung problems. It aggravates asthma. It causes the smog that ruins
the view in our Nation's parks. It causes premature deaths.
According to Abt Associates, a nonpartisan research group, just 51
powerplants are responsible for more than 5,500 deaths every year, for
over 106,000 asthma attacks, and for costs to our economy of between
$31 billion and $49 billion. That is only 51 powerplants. If you did
the same study of other industries, the numbers would go up
dramatically.
North Carolina has some of the worst pollution in the country.
According to Dr. Clay Ballantine, a physician in Asheville in western
North Carolina, just living and breathing in western North Carolina
costs 1 to 3 years off the average life of a person. The UNC School of
Public Health, found that in many of our counties 3 in 10 kids have
asthma, which is three times the national average.
Just walking in the Great Smoky Mountains is as bad for your lungs as
breathing in many big cities. When the head of the EPA, Christie Todd
Whitman, visited the Great Smokies last Fourth of July, she could
barely see 15 miles at a place where you used to be able to see 75 to
100 miles. So clean air is a huge priority. It is important for our
kids, for seniors, and for our parks.
This administration has made radical changes in the regulations under
the Clean Air Act. This is about a program called New Source Review or
NSR. The basic idea of NSR is simple. Under the Clean Air Act, if
someone builds a new factory, the new factory has to have state-of-the-
art equipment to prevent pollution, but there is a special deal for
factories that were built before 1977. Those factories don't need to
install new pollution controls unless and until their toxic emissions
go up by a significant amount. Only when that happens does the plant
have to install these new controls that others have to meet instantly.
This is what the New Source Review is all about.
There is no question--and all of us believe--that reforming NSR is a
good idea. We ought to do two things: One, we ought to cut red tape,
which is a problem; two, we ought to cut pollution.
Under Carol Browner, EPA Administrator in the Clinton administration,
positive work was done in that direction. But the debate today is not
about those kinds of reasonable and sensible reforms that are in the
best interest of
[[Page 1414]]
the American people. This debate is about this administration's
package.
There are several glaring problems with that package. First, the
administration developed these rules through a series of secret
consultations with executives from power and oil companies. It would
not have been so bad if the administration had also been talking
secretly to regular patients and kids and doctors about what effect
these changes in the rules would have on their lives and their health.
But there is no evidence they did that. Instead, the administration
focused on one side and favored that side in the changes they made in
the rules.
The second problem is this administration has never explained in any
serious way whether these changes will in fact harm human health,
whether they will cause more pollution, more asthma, or more premature
deaths. For months we have asked for a serious qualitative study, and
for months we have not received that study.
Let me go through a short timetable. On July 16, 2002, at a joint
hearing of the Environmental Committee and the Judiciary Committee,
both Senator Jeffords and I asked Jeff Holmstead, the EPA's top clean
air official, whether he could quantify the effects of this proposal on
a human level. He could not do it then, and the best I can tell, he has
not tried to do it since.
On August 1, 2002, 44 Senators signed a bipartisan letter to EPA
which asks the EPA to conduct a rigorous analysis of the air pollution
and public health impact of the proposed rule changes. Again, they
didn't do it.
On September 3, 2002, I again asked Mr. Holmstead for an analysis of
EPA's proposals. Mr. Holmstead had no new analysis. Instead, he pointed
back to an analysis that had been done 6 years earlier during the
Clinton administration--a different set of proposals, a different
analysis.
The head of the EPA, 6 years ago, Carol Browner, who testified at the
hearing, said the old study proved nothing. But when I asked Mr.
Holmstead if EPA would simply hold off on the new rules until we had a
real study on the effect that these new rules would have on the health
of the American people, he said no.
On November 22, 2002, the administration just went ahead, finalized
the rules without giving any credible evidence on what impact this
would have on human health.
So what we are saying is not complicated. We are saying: Should we
not look before we leap, before we change rules that can affect the
most basic protection for our kids and our families and our parks?
Should we not at least do an analysis of what impact it is going to
have on kids and families and our environment and our parks?
The administration's answer is no. Let's go ahead. I believe that is
their answer because they don't want to know the truth because they are
afraid of what the truth will be.
If you look at these rules, which I have and others have, it is clear
that they will hurt people. Time after time this administration has
twisted proposals made under the Clinton administration to allow more
pollution.
Here is what Ms. Browner said:
The current administration's recent announcement of final
changes to the New Source Review Program abandons the promise
of the Clean Air Act--steady air quality improvements. [These
rules] will allow the air to become dirtier.
Let me repeat that: These rules ``will allow the air to become
dirtier.'' And that means they will allow our kids and our seniors to
get sicker, to die sooner. That is what we are talking about. It is
very basic and fundamental.
Let me give two examples of what these rules will do:
First, the rules change the way pollution levels are calculated.
Under the new source review, a factory has to clean up only if it
increases its pollution level. It matters a lot how we measure the
factory's initial pollution level, what's called the ``baseline.''
Up to now, the rule has been that the baseline is the average for the
last 2 years--that is the basis on which we determine whether there has
been an increase in pollution--unless the company can prove another
period is more representative of recent emissions. But the basic rule
has been that you establish the baseline by looking at the last 2
years. That makes sense.
What this administration proposes doing makes no sense. What they are
saying is instead of using the last 2 years, we let the factory choose
any 2 years out of the last 10. So instead of looking at the last 2
years as a baseline to determine whether emissions have gone up, what
they are saying is we are going to let the factory choose any 2 years
in the previous 10 in order to determine whether emissions have gone
up.
So even if the reality is that their pollution level is quite low
right now, they get to go back a decade and say that pollution is high.
They can even take emissions from accidents and malfunctions and use
those to inflate their baseline. And because they can make pollution 10
years ago look like pollution today, they can pollute even more without
cleaning up.
You don't have to take my word for it. According to internal
documents, career staff at the EPA said that this change would
``significantly diminish the scope'' of the New Source Review. A study
by the Environmental Integrity Project found that at just two
facilities, the new rules would allow over 120 tons of the pollution
into the air. The National Association of State and Local Air
Regulators says that this change ``provides yet another opportunity for
new emissions to avoid NSR.'' So the bottom line is more pollution.
Here is a second example. The new rules contain something called a
``Clean Unit'' exemption. In theory, the exemption should give
companies an incentive to clean up by giving them benefits if they
install state-of-the-art technology. It is a perfectly good idea. But
this administration has provided an exemption as long as the company
installed new equipment anytime during the last 10 years. In other
words, if a company did something good in 1994, they get a free pass to
increase pollution in 2003, 9 years later.
Again, this makes no sense. Again, it will increase pollution. Again,
here is what the State and local air commissioners said. This rule
``would substantially weaken the environmental protections offered by
the NSR program.''
Now, when it comes to the effects of these rules, it is true that the
State administrators could be wrong. The career officials at EPA could
be wrong. I could be wrong. We could all be wrong. The rules could be
OK.
But even if we are all wrong--and I do not believe we are--shouldn't
we get the whole story and get a real answer to the question before
putting our kids and our seniors at risk?
Six months is not a long time to wait in order to get the whole
story. It is far better to wait 6 months than to say to this
administration, go ahead, roll the dice. It is OK. We are willing to
put the lives of our children and seniors at risk, and we are willing
to let this rule go into effect even though we do not know what effect
it is going to have on the health of our seniors and children.
Let me talk for a minute about the broad opposition to these rules.
This administration likes to talk about State flexibility, but these
regulations take flexibility away from the States and forces some
States to lower their protections.
Again, this is the view of the State experts:
The revised requirements go beyond even what industry
requested. . . . Because the reforms are mandatory, they will
impede, or even preclude, the ability of States and
localities all across the country to protect the air.
Although our associations believe NSR can be improved. . .
. We firmly believe the controversial reforms EPA is putting
in place . . . will result in unchecked emission increases
that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health.
That is the States. Now listen to the doctors. Over a thousand
doctors from all across the country have urged this administration not
to go ahead with these final rules. These doctors see the effects of
air pollution every day in their practices and in the emergency rooms,
and they warned that ``it is irresponsible for the EPA to move forward
in finalizing new regulations that
[[Page 1415]]
could have a negative impact on human health.''
This is not a partisan issue. The State air quality folks are not
partisans. The local air quality folks are not partisans. And then
there's Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group to which 12
past or present former Republican Members of Congress are connected.
Republicans for Environmental Protection recently wrote a letter
supporting my amendment.
They wrote that ``a reasonable delay (of the rules) is necessary in
order to allow independent researchers to investigate how the New
Source Review revisions would affect emissions and the resulting
impacts on public health.'' So Republicans support this amendment as
well.
We will hear people say that protecting the air is too expensive. But
at the 51 power plants I mentioned earlier, premature deaths and asthma
attacks cost our country over $30 billion each year. The costs of
cleaning the air are a small fraction of that amount. So clean air not
only saves lives; it also saves money.
Finally, I want to be very clear about what this amendment does and
does not do. This amendment delays by 6 months the effective date for
the final rules on the New Source Review that this administration has
already announced. This amendment does not touch the proposed rules
regarding so-called ``routine maintenance.''
Now, speaking for myself, Senator Lieberman and Senator Jeffords, all
of whom have worked very hard on this amendment, we understand the
importance of new rulemaking on the definition of ``routine
maintenance.'' We understand that reform of this definition is underway
to allow for greater certainty for the electric industry. It is a good
idea. We are not doing anything in this amendment that affects in any
way the proposed rulemaking on ``routine maintenance.'' In fact, we
believe it is appropriate to take public comment in the rulemaking in
order to develop a rule that promotes energy efficiency, without--and I
emphasize ``without''--allowing the air to become dirtier. A bipartisan
group in this chamber has expressed support for EPA proceeding with a
rulemaking that ``protects human health and the environment while
providing regulatory certainty for the electric utility industry and
other industries.'' We respect their concerns on this issue.
This amendment is about final rules. It is a very modest amendment.
It would delay these rules by about 6 months while we get an honest,
nonpartisan study of what these rules will do to our kids' health and
the environment. It will protect our kids from asthma, our seniors from
heart problems, our parks from smog. This amendment will make sure we
look before we leap. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in
the Record following this statement:
Letter from 44 Senators, dated August 1, requesting an analysis of
the new rules;
Letter from Physicians for Social Responsibility, dated September 27,
opposing the rule changes;
Letter from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officers, dated January 16 of this year, requesting a delay in the rule
changes; and
Letter from the Republicans for Environmental Protection, dated
January 17, 2003, requesting a delay in the rule changes.
There being no objection, the following letters were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christine Whitman,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Whitman: The Clean Air Act is a vital
took for protecting the Nation's health and environment,
including our National Parks. With mounting medical evidence
that air pollution causes asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary
disease, and premature death--particularly among children and
the elderly--we need to strengthen clean air protections
whenever possible.
Given our strong commitment to protecting Americans'
health, we believe that the changes you announced on June 13,
2002 to the Clean Air Act's ``New Source Review'' are
extremely troubling. On their face, many of these changes to
NSR--for example, giving factories greater leeway to choose
how their pollution is measured--appear likely to increase
pollution levels. Unsurprisingly, the states' air pollution
control administrators have expressed concerns that the new
regulations will make it more difficult for the states to
attain national clean air standards. Yet as Assistant
Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead admitted at a recent hearing,
EPA now plans to make these changes without having conducted
a full analysis of their impact on air quality and public
health, and without providing a full opportunity for public
notice and comment on the changes EPA is now proposing.
While EPA should be free to pursue thoughtful changes to
New Source Review that reduce regulatory burdens while
strengthening public health protection, we see no reason to
believe that the proposed changes adequately protect air
quality. In fact, because the specific changes proposed have
not been subject to careful study and full public comment, we
have serious concerns that the changes could allow more air
pollution--causing more asthma, more heart and lung problems,
and more premature deaths.
We therefore ask that, before finalizing any of these
changes, EPA conduct a rigorous analysis of the air pollution
and public health impacts of the proposed rule changes and
give the public full opportunity to comment on these changes.
As we are sure you agree, EPA should not finalize a rule that
allows increased air pollution or undercuts the health of any
of America's children or seniors. In the meantime, until the
law is changed, we ask your continued commitment to enforce
the Clean Air Act as it is written.
Sincerely,
John Edwards, Jim Jeffords, Joseph Lieberman, Tom
Daschle, Susan Collins, Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd,
Charles Schumer, Daniel K. Inouye, Joe Biden, John F.
Kerry, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin, Russell D. Feingold,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jack Reed, Robert
G. Torricelli, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy,
Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, Daniel K. Akaka.
Fritz Hollings, Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Maria
Cantwell, Jean Carnahan, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Dayton,
Barbara Mikulski, Paul S. Sarbanes, Bob Graham, Herb
Kohl, Jon Corzine, Max Cleland, Jeff Bingaman, Carl
Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lincoln Chafee, Tim Johnson,
Olympia Snowe, Tom Carper.
____
Physicians for
Social Responsibility',
Washington, DC, September 27, 2002.
Mr. John Graham,
Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Graham: As concerned doctors, nurses, and public
health professionals, we view the health mission of the Clean
Air Act as one of EPA's most important initiatives. We are
therefore writing to express our concern about EPA's proposed
changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program. This program
regulates emissions from new and modified power plants, pulp
and paper mills, refineries and other industrial plants.
For more than a decade, NSR has proved to be an effective
took in bringing polluting industrial facilities into
compliance with the law and cleaning up the air that we
breathe. The EPA has recently proposed changes to the NSR
program that will likely cause the amount of pollution in our
air to increase. EPA plans to move forward with these changes
to NSR without first determining how they will impact health
or the environment. Three separate Senate Committees as well
as public health and environmental advocacy groups have
requested these studies to no avail. Without evidence that
the proposed changes will actually improve air quality,
thereby doing no harm, it is irresponsible for the EPA to
move forward in finalizing new regulations that could have a
negative impact on human health.
Pollution from power plants and other plants regulated
under NSR touches the lives of millions of Americans across
the nation. This pollution is harmful to human health and
sends thousands of individuals to hospital emergency rooms
each month. Study after study shows a link between exposure
to air pollution and health conditions such as respiratory
diseases, asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, cancer,
and even death.
No changes to NSR should occur without the public being
provided with a comprehensive analysis demonstrating that the
proposed changes to NSR will improve air quality and human
health. In addition the public, especially the public health
community, must have the opportunity to comment on the
analysis and the resulting changes to NSR before any changes
are finalized. We urge you to put the health of Americans
first
[[Page 1416]]
by upholding NSR provisions that are protective of public
health.
Sincerely,
Hans Tschersich, Kodiak, AK.
Helena Zimmerman, Juneau, AK.
Claude Baldwin, Jr., Hunstville, AL.
Anna-Laura Cook, Northport, AL.
David Reynolds, Birmingham, AL.
Bettina Bickel, Glendale, AZ.
Kenley Donaldson, Casa Grande, AZ.
Sara Gibson, Flagstaff, AZ.
William Martin, Tucson, AZ.
Ardyth Norem, Rio Verde, AZ.
Eric Ossowski, Scottsdale, AZ.
Jen Schaffer, Flagstaff, AZ.
Kamal Abu-Shamsieh, Pasadena, CA.
Sara Acree, Alhambra, CA.
David Adelson, Venice, CA.
Jacob Adelstone, Van Nuys, CA.
Felix Aguilar, Long Beach, CA.
Fereshteh Ajdari, Culver City, CA.
Wayne and Sonia Aller, Granada Hills, CA.
Rodolfo Alvarez, Santa Monica, CA.
Frances Amella, San Francisco, CA.
Selene Anema, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Ruben Aronin, Los Angeles, CA.
Misha Askren, Los Angeles, CA.
Annie Azzariti, Santa Monica, CA.
K. Bandell, Norwalk, CA.
Morris Barnert, Palos Verdes Estates, CA.
Barbara Beatty, Berkeley, CA.
____
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators, Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Governor Whitman: As you are aware, the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO) have serious concerns with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) recently promulgated final rule
affecting changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program (67
Federal Register 80186), and with the adverse impact these
changes would likely have on the ability of states and
localities to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air. These
concerns are further compounded by the fact that, for a
number of states across the country, the revised NSR program
is scheduled to take effect on March 3, 2003. Accordingly, we
write to you today, on behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, to
request that EPA extend by one year the effective date of the
final NSR rule revisions. We make this urgent request for
several important reasons.
The regulatory changes to the NSR program are not only
lengthy and far reaching, but also highly complex and
controversial. States that implement the NSR program through
their State Implementation Plan are allowed three years in
which to revise their plans for the new program. However, in
13 states across the nation, EPA has delegated authority for
the federal rules to state and local permitting authorities;
in these ``delegated'' states, the revised NSR program, which
was published by EPA on December 31, 2002, must be
implemented by March 3, 2003. State and local air pollution
control agencies have been working vigorously to study the
new rule; however, gaining full command of the many
intricacies of the regulation, as well as a complete
understanding of the impacts and implications, will take time
and, we firmly believe, cannot be accomplished in the next 45
days.
Further, although the text of the rule revisions has been
published in the Federal Register, EPA has not yet developed
or made available to state and local agencies the complex
text of the federal rule, as revised by the recent changes.
Moreover, EPA has not yet provided, or even scheduled,
training opportunities for states and localities, nor has the
agency developed any guidance on key aspects of the revised
rule. In fact, it is our understanding that EPA regional
office staff--with whom states and localities must work to
revise and update delegation agreements--has not yet received
training on the new rules from EPA headquarters.
STAPPA and ALAPCO understand that EPA would like to make
the final rule available to industry as soon as possible. We
are deeply concerned, however, that a rush to implement the
new rule will result in serious consequences that will
disbenefit state and local implementing agencies, EPA, the
regulated community and citizens alike.
The March 3, 2003 effective date simply does not allow
sufficient time for delegated state and local agencies to
prepare for and execute effective implementation of the new
NSR rule. Accordingly, STAPPA and ALAPCO urge that you take
immediate action to extend the effective date of this new
program by one year, in order to allow time for EPA
development of guidance and training and for the necessary
state and local efforts involved in updating delegation. If
you have any questions, please contact either of us or Bill
Becker, Executive Director of STAPPA and ALAPCO, at (202)
624-7864.
Sincerely,
Lloyd L. Eagan,
STAPPA President.
Ellen Garvey,
ALAPCO President.
____
January 17, 2003.
Dear Senator: REP America, the national grassroots
organization of Republicans for environmental protection,
respectfully requests your vote in favor of Senator Edwards'
amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill, which would
delay implementation of New Source Review rule revisions and
require the administration to conduct a National Academy of
Sciences study of the rule revisions' health impacts.
We believe a reasonable delay is necessary in order to
allow independent researchers to investigate how the New
Source Review revisions would affect emissions and the
resulting impacts on public health. We are greatly concerned
that the administration is rushing to change the rules before
the public and their elected representatives have had a
chance to fully understand the impacts.
More than 170 million Americans live in areas with
unhealthy air quality. Ozone pollution is a serious public
health problem. The interests of children, senior citizens,
and others who are particularly sensitive to air pollution
deserve greater consideration before rule changes are
implemented that could drive up unhealthy emissions.
Please vote for the Edwards amendment so that the federal
government can make better informed decisions on a critical
public health issue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Martha A. Marks,
President.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards], for himself,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Reid,
proposes an amendment numbered 67.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a study of the final rule relating to prevention
of significant deterioration and nonattainment new source review to
determine the effects of the final rule on air pollution and human
health)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . NEW SOURCE REVIEW FINAL RULE.
(a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to determine, not later than September 1, 2003, whether and
to what extent the final rule relating to prevention of
significant deterioration and nonattainment new source
review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31, 2002),
would allow or could result in--
(1) any increase in air pollution (in the aggregate or at
any specific site); or
(2) any adverse effect on human health.
(b) Delayed Effective Date.--The final rule described in
subsection (a) shall not take effect before September 15,
2003.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
restore a little sanity to our Nation's clean air policy. For the past
2 years, I have joined my colleagues on the Environment and Public
Works Committee in requesting an analysis of the health impacts of the
administration's New Source Review rules. We have asked through
letters, through committee questions, through oral questions at
hearings. Yet our requests fell on deaf ears, or shall I say on dead
air, and the EPA finalized the rules without conducting any careful
analysis.
That is why today I join Senator Edwards in offering this amendment--
one that I call the ``look before you leap'' amendment. All we do in
this amendment is delay the effective date of the final rules for less
than 7 months, during which time we commission a NAS study to evaluate
the effects of the rules on air emissions and human health. In just 7
months, depending on the outcome of those objective, scientific
studies, we could prevent serious potential damage to our environment
and to public health.
What the Bush administration is proposing is not, as some in the
administration might suggest, a nip-and-tuck. It's not a few technical
rule changes. It is a significant change in our clean air policy. The
administration is introducing new, more permissive rules for measuring
whether a facility meets clean air requirements. In Congressional
testimony, the EPA admitted that fully 50 percent of the facilities
that are now subject to the Clean Air Act's technology requirements
would fall out of those requirements under the rule changes.
[[Page 1417]]
When I hear that, I cannot believe there will be no health impacts.
If literally half the sources are no longer subject to these provisions
of the government's main clean air law, how can the air get anything
but dirtier? Then I look at recent studies commissioned by the
Rockefeller Family Fund and prepared by Abt Associates--the EPA's own
consultant--that show emissions will increase as a result of the new
regulations.
Based on the bulk of the evidence, it is counterintuitive and I think
illogical for the EPA to claim--over and over again--that their new
rules will do no damage to the environment. Then again, the EPA never
offers any proof of this claim, so perhaps we are expected to accept in
on faith.
This amendment will give us the answer. We no longer will have to
argue back and forth--the study being commissioned by the National
Academies will give us the facts. And we don't have to wait long. Less
than 7 months, and then we can go forward with the rules knowing what
their impacts will be. If the study shows significant environmental
harm, and the majority of this body still wants them to be adopted,
then so be it. But at least we made an informed choice.
Anyone in this Senate who has bought a house has toured the house
before putting their money down. They've gotten an appraisal. They've
conducted an inspection. Well, we're on the brink of buying a new set
of rules here that we will have to live with for many, many years. I
don't think we want to close our eyes, close our ears, cross our
fingers and hope for the best. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is
remiss.
This amendment also brings a benefit for the states. Just last week,
STAPPA-ALAPCO--the organization of state and local air regulators--
wrote to Administrator Whitman asking for a 1-year delay in the rules.
They had already written to complain about the air impacts of the
rules, but this letter was different--it aimed at the administrative
knots in which the states are being placed by the new regulations.
You see, these rules are not optional for States--they are being
shoved down their throats. And for the 12 States and the District of
Columbia that implement the New Source Review program on their own,
they will have to incorporate the rule changes into their programs by
March 3. So my colleagues are clear, let me name them: Washington,
California, Nevada, South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and the
District of Columbia. As the rules were only published on December 31,
that only gives these states and the district 3 months to evaluate and
implement a tremendously complicated area of law. Neither has EPA
provided the training and guidance that all States will need to
implement the rule. That is why the States wrote to EPA last week and
stated that: ``The March 3 effective date simply does not allow
sufficient time for delegated state and local agencies to prepare for
and executive effective implementation of the new NSR rule.''
By passing our amendment, we will be giving the state and local
agencies the time that they desperately need. Call it breathing room--
for our environment and for our State governments.
This is a controversial topic, and I know my colleagues have been
pulled in many different directions on this vote. But we are not asking
for anything here but smart, well-informed policymaking. Once a rule
like this is put in place, it is hard to reverse; indeed, according to
EPA, the whole point of this rule is to provide industry with long-term
certainty. We asked EPA to look before they leapt, and they refused,
ignoring this institution's right to oversee their rulemaking at the
same time.
We should understand the clean air impacts of these rule changes
before they become the law of the land. We need to stop and take a
breath before we change the law, so that we know that all Americans can
breathe safely, easily, and freely in the future.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Edwards
amendment and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that amendment.
Senators should know that I support making improvements to the New
Source Review, NSR, program. I want NSR to fulfill its promise of
developing ever better pollution control technology and cleaner air.
We can and should make it easier for owners of pollution sources to
get answers from permitting authorities about whether or not NSR
applies to their facility. They could benefit from an updated, more
consistent and timely process. That's not really in question.
Unfortunately, every reliable sign indicates that EPA's recent final
rules are not really improvements to the NSR process at all. Instead,
in the name of ``flexibility'' these new rules appear designed to
increase air pollution. At a minimum, they will certainly allow it.
EPA claims that there will be an environmental benefit from these
rules. However, they have done no credible work to show that that is in
fact true. And believe me, we have asked repeatedly and unsuccessfully
for the administration's honest assessment of the impact of these rules
since May 2001.
For example, the agency promised to deliver to the Environment and
Public Works Committee a document log relating to these rules by
October 24, 2002.
We hoped to find emissions information in those files, but the agency
failed to keep the promise and failed to provide Congress its due.
We're still waiting for the log.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart of the Committee's
communications on NSR be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. JEFFORDS. This administration's record in responding to
legitimate oversight by Congress has been dismal on this matter. Though
the agency will not respond honestly, independent analyses done by Abt
Associates for the Environmental Integrity Project demonstrates that
these new rules are likely to lead to significant increases in
pollution at various types of facilities. These case studies can be
found at www.refund.org/eit/docs/abill-mobil.pdf and abtin-nucor2.pdf.
The association of States' air administrators have expressed concerns
about these rules and asked that their effective date be deferred until
March 2004. Nine Attorneys General, from Vermont and other States, have
filed suit against the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act and other
statutes through these rules.
These rules allow sources to inflate their emissions baselines, or to
be designated as so-called ``clean units'' for a decade or more. That
way, even modifications that increase emissions will not trigger NSR
and the use of better, more effective pollution controls.
As Assistant Administrator Jeff Holmstead has confirmed to Congress
in testimony, these new revisions to major NSR applicability criteria
would exclude an estimated 50 percent of sources that might otherwise
be subject to major NSR.
An internal EPA memo from June 2001 estimated that the average annual
health benefits in terms of avoided mortality from just one small part
of the NSR program are, at a minimum, about $400 million annually and
up to $3.8 billion.
Now, if we tell 50 percent of those sources that they don't have to
worry about triggering NSR, then those health benefits are going to fly
out the window along with more pollution. That means more people dying
or increased lung disease and sickness.
This is just one small part of the NSR program. EPA steadfastly
refuses to analyze the larger, nonattainment NSR program for its
benefits.
The administration has conveniently ignored Executive Order 12866 on
regulatory review. These revisions are obviously significant under that
Order because of its hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in
annual health benefits. So, before it goes forward, there must be a
thorough and reliable consideration of its benefits and its costs.
That's why I'm supporting this amendment. I'm not a big fan of making
environmental policy through the
[[Page 1418]]
appropriations process, but these rules appear egregious to me.
It's time that we had the National Academy of Sciences review the
situation, since the agency and the administration do not respond to
Congress or the public. I hope that the Academy can give us a quick and
impartial opinion on the impacts of these rules on public health and
the environment. To give them time to do that, the amendment defers the
effective date of the rules for about six months.
Mr. President, this administration has a disturbing anti-environment
agenda. These NSR changes are just the tip of the iceberg. This group
wants to deregulate without considering the public health and
environmental effects. That's wrong.
There is no good reason to increase air pollution. Science tells us
that time and time again. We have the technology to constantly improve
our emission performance. This administration wants to take the whole
country backward instead of forward.
I urge Senators to support the amendment.
[[Page 1419]]
[[Page 1420]]
[[Page 1421]]
[[Page 1422]]
[[Page 1423]]
[[Page 1424]]
[[Page 1425]]
[[Page 1426]]
[[Page 1427]]
[[Page 1428]]
[[Page 1429]]
[[Page 1430]]
[[Page 1431]]
[[Page 1432]]
[[Page 1433]]
[[Page 1434]]
[[Page 1435]]
[[Page 1436]]
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. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, we have before us, although not under lively
debate, an amendment by the Senator from North Carolina with reference
to the New Source Review air program. This is a very important program
that we have debated extensively in the Environment and Public Works
Committee. There have been many hearings on this issue and, frankly,
the issue has been resolved. But unfortunately, it has become an
example of the polarized, confrontational, contentious nature of the
environmental debate. I wish it were not this way.
I believe the administration's New Source Review reforms are good for
the environment, good for energy security, and good for the economy.
I will not go into all the details here because I know there are many
other Senators wishing to speak. So I will await further discussions
when they have had their say.
I think it is important--I want to lay down a marker--for my
colleagues to understand that the EPA's New Source Review reforms--what
we call the NSR reforms--will improve air quality and benefit the
environment. EPA has already done the environmental analysis. It shows
that four of the five provisions in the final rule will reduce air
pollution. That is correct. I said ``will reduce air pollution.'' The
other provision will have no significant effect on air quality.
NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-
of-the-art pollution control technology. Anybody who has been around
Washington very long knows the law of unintended consequences. We do
things we think are going to help, and they turn out to be a hindrance.
The New Source Review, as it has worked, has been a hindrance because
companies cannot make routine improvements and upgrades to their
facilities to make them operate more efficiently, take less energy,
burn less fuel, emit less pollution or polluting substances, anywhere
from volatile organic compounds to the other emissions from
powerplants. They do that because the New Source Review says that
anytime you want to do anything significant on a major plant, you have
to go through the whole process. It takes a very long time, and you are
required to make very significant upgrades beyond what the available
dollars in the company would sustain.
The incremental continuing improvements, day by day or actually month
by month or even year by year, cannot be made because of NSR. If you
change it the way the EPA Administrator has proposed, NSR will no
longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-of-the-art
pollution control technology.
The NSR reforms that EPA has proposed will actually cut emissions of
tens of thousands of tons per year of volatile organic compounds. NSR
reforms will reduce ground level ozone and smog. The NSR reforms will
also cut hazardous air pollutants and ozone-depleting substances. Our
families will suffer fewer cases of premature mortality, asthma, and
other respiratory diseases.
I would say further that EPA's NSR reforms are good for the Nation's
energy security. Why? Simply because they will allow facilities to
install modern technologies which use energy more efficiently. We all
ought to be able to agree on that. Using energy efficiently conserves
energy and reduces the polluting byproducts of energy production. The
facilities will be able to reduce their energy consumption, reduce
their dependence on foreign energy sources, and reduce our Nation's
dependence on foreign energy supplies.
What is wrong with that? In our current troubled times, we should not
stand in the way of any proposal which reduces our dependence on
foreign and Middle Eastern oil. I would also say that the EPA NSR
reforms are good for the economy. Companies would now be able to make
rapid changes to meet their changing business climates without getting
bogged down in time-consuming Government redtape.
The reforms will continue to protect the environment while giving
companies the flexibility they need to get new products to the market
quickly. We have all of the elements that should go into a forward-
looking environmental program. We have made great progress, but we have
also developed glitches in our system, and anybody who has thought
about the system knows that we need to make it more efficient. We need
to rationalize it. We need to give it flexibility so environmental
improvements can be made with the least hassle.
I am talking about environmental improvements. That is what this NSR
proposal does. It allows not only energy conservation, improved
economic performance, but environmental progress as well. What is wrong
with that?
I have yet to hear what is the objection to providing better
environmental performance in a way that is flexible, that encourages
companies to move forward. This is such a good idea that the last
administration supported it. Yes, Mr. President, you heard me right.
The last administration supported it. This was one of their proposals.
The reforms EPA finalized this winter were actually proposed in 1996
during the Clinton administration by EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I
thought it was a good idea then; I think it is a good idea now. The
only change is there is a new administration, with a different
President.
I hope this is not the reason behind some of my colleagues seeking to
raise the issue and challenge it. If it was a good idea in the Clinton
administration, does it become a bad idea in the Bush administration? I
don't think so.
I think we are on the right track with what the Clinton
administration started. The NSR reforms are good for the environment,
they are good for energy security, and they are good for the economy.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Edwards amendment. I look
forward--if there is further debate--to responding so that we can deal
with this amendment in a timely manner.
I yield the floor and, seeing none of my colleagues wishing to speak,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous
consent that the pending Edwards amendment be temporarily set aside to
recur at the hour of 1:30 today, with the majority leader or his
designee recognized when the Senate resumes consideration of the
amendment; further, I ask that Senator Dodd now be recognized in order
to offer an amendment related to IDEA, and that no second-degree
amendments be in order to the amendment until Senator Gregg or his
designee is recognized.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, with the
Senator's permission--and I know he has 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. BOND. 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. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we
are headed in the right direction. I wanted to state to my friend that
Senator Dodd is offering his amendment. He is going to speak for a
while. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock. We hope we will get
permission then to set aside the Dodd amendment so we can consider the
Dayton amendment, which is on corporate expatriation. He should not
take too long.
[[Page 1437]]
I hope the majority will give us consideration to set aside the Dodd
amendment then because, if we are going to work through all of these
amendments, we are going to have to have cooperation on both sides. I
have no objection to the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the minority whip for his
explanation. I can assure the Senator that on this side we want to
accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. We are here in a
week when many Senators had other things to do and we need to move
forward. It is critically important that we get these appropriations
bills passed because we will be getting close to halfway through the
year before these bills can be implemented. I know wherever we can make
accommodations, we will do so, and the Senator from Nevada has been
very gracious in working with us. I know the Senator from Kentucky will
work with him.
With that, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Amendment No. 71
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy,
Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Dayton, Corzine, and Kerry, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an
amendment numbered 71.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional funding for part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act)
On page 1052, line 25, strike ``budget).'' and insert the
following: ``budget).
TITLE __--FUNDING EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
SEC. __. HELPING CHILDREN SUCCEED BY FUNDING THE INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA).
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) All children deserve a quality education.
(2) In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (334 F. Supp. 1247)(E. Dist. Pa.
1971), and Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of
Columbia (348 F. Supp. 866)(Dist. D.C. 1972), the courts
found that children with disabilities are entitled to an
equal opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment of
the Constitution.
(3) In 1975, Congress passed what is now known as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (referred to in
this section as ``IDEA'') (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to help
States provide all children with disabilities a free,
appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment. At full funding, Congress contributes 40 percent
of the average per pupil expenditure for each child with a
disability served.
(4) Before 1975, only \1/5\ of the children with
disabilities received a formal education. At that time, many
States had laws that specifically excluded many children with
disabilities, including children who were blind, deaf, or
emotionally disturbed, from receiving such an education.
(5) IDEA currently serves an estimated 200,000 infants and
toddlers, 600,000 preschoolers, and 5,400,000 children 6 to
21 years of age.
(6) IDEA enables children with disabilities to be educated
in their communities, and thus, has assisted in dramatically
reducing the number of children with disabilities who must
live in State institutions away from their families.
(7) The number of children with disabilities who complete
high school has grown significantly since the enactment of
IDEA.
(8) The number of children with disabilities who enroll in
college as freshmen has more than tripled since the enactment
of IDEA.
(9) The overall effectiveness of IDEA depends upon well
trained special education and general education teachers,
related services personnel, and other school personnel.
Congress recognizes concerns about the nationwide shortage of
personnel serving students with disabilities and the need for
improvement in the qualifications of such personnel.
(10) IDEA has raised the Nation's awareness about the
abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities.
(11) Improvements to IDEA in the 1997 amendments increased
the academic achievement of children with disabilities and
helped them to lead productive, independent lives.
(12) Changes made in 1997 also addressed the needs of those
children whose behavior impedes learning by implementing
behavioral assessments and intervention strategies to ensure
that they receive appropriate supports in order to receive a
quality education.
(13) IDEA requires a full partnership between parents of
children with disabilities and education professionals in the
design and implementation of the educational services
provided to children with disabilities.
(14) While the Federal Government has more than doubled
funding for part B of IDEA since 1995, the Federal Government
has never provided more than 17 percent of the maximum State
grant allocation for educating children with disabilities.
(15) By fully funding IDEA, Congress will strengthen the
ability of States and localities to implement the
requirements of IDEA.
SEC. __. FUNDING FOR PART B OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, in addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act for part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, other than section 619 of such
part, the following sums are appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000 for carrying
out such part, other than section 619 of such part, to remain
available through September 30, 2004.
(b) Across-the-Board Rescission.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, funds provided under subsection (a)
shall not result in a further across-the-board rescission
under section 601 of Division N.''.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this
amendment will add $1.5 billion to the appropriations omnibus bill for
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as
IDEA. This is a matter with which all of my colleagues are very
familiar. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions over the
years. A brief history about the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act may be in order.
It has been almost 30 years--28 years--since Congress passed this
legislation in 1975. The promise made in 1975 was that we would provide
the States with 40 percent of the funding to educate children with
special education needs. We started out with a far lower commitment,
and over the years the States have assumed the lion's share of this
responsibility. But over the years, we have failed to meet the
commitment we made to the States almost 30 years ago.
As a result of efforts by this body in the previous Congress, we came
very close to achieving the full funding promise that was made many
years ago. In fact, our distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Hagel, and Senator Harkin, offered an amendment in
the previous Congress, which enjoyed unanimous support, to increase the
funding over a series of years, that would reach the full funding level
as required by the agreement reached in 1975.
Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the
other body refused to agree to the Senate unanimous vote on full
funding for special education. As a result of that opposition by the
President and by the leadership of the other body, the bipartisan
efforts of the Senate and the good work of Senator Hagel, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and many of us who have worked on this issue
over the years failed. In fact, I recall some 15 years ago when I was a
member of the Budget Committee and offered in the committee the
language which required full funding of special education needs. My
friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was on that
committee that year. I remember because he cast a vote with me in the
Budget Committee, but we failed on a tie vote in the Budget Committee
to get the increased funding.
Over the years, we have had good bipartisan support to do everything
we could to fully fund IDEA, and every year, for one reason or another,
Congress finds a way to avoid its responsibility.
I do not lay that on the shoulders of the Senate because recently we
have met the promise we made. My colleagues here understand and know
well
[[Page 1438]]
how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this
country feel about this issue. This is one of their major issues. When
we ask them what are the important areas in which we can assist them,
inevitably over the years they have listed special education as one of
the most important areas in which we can assist them by meeting our
obligations we made some 30 years ago.
When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
in 1975, it promised to help States meet their constitutional
obligation to provide children with disabilities a free appropriate
education by paying for 40 percent of those costs.
The States came to us in 1975 and said: We need your help on this
issue. As I said, some 30 years ago, we said we would step in and help,
just as we have done with title I for children who have different kinds
of needs. Those needs are economic because of the levels of poverty
across the country. We said this also is an area where we think the
Federal Government ought to step up and provide help to the States.
The cost of special education--and again, I am preaching to the choir
when I talk to my colleagues about this issue because they know these
issues as well as, if not better than, I do. Talk to any mayor, county
executive, Governor, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative,
and they will tell you that the cost of special education is very high.
In fact, in some small towns--I know in my State and I am confident in
the State of the Presiding Officer and the States of my good friends
from Vermont or Rhode Island--two or three children with special
education needs can so distort a local budget with the tremendous
increase in cost that it becomes almost prohibitive for those smaller
communities to meet the obligations. That is why we have heard so many
loud voices over so many years calling on us to step up and meet our
obligation.
We made a promise. In 1975, we said: As representatives of the
Federal Government, we will come up with 40 percent of the cost of this
program. That is our obligation. We will do that. Here we are almost 30
years later, and we have reached a 15-percent level. We are still short
by some 25 percent of the costs of special education.
We have made great strides in going from zero to 15 percent,
particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, but we are still way short.
The amendment I offer this afternoon provides for an additional $1.5
billion in this omnibus appropriations bill for an additional 1 year.
This is not a full-funding amendment. I am not asking in this amendment
for full funding over the next several years. Since this bill only
deals with 1 fiscal year, I am merely trying to add these additional
dollars which will get us closer to the obligations.
Two years ago, a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this body
introduced S. 466 to direct the appropriations of funds, to fully fund
IDEA by 2007. That bill was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel
amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment passed by the
Senate on a unanimous vote would have increased Federal support for
special education by $2.5 billion per year until we reach full funding.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned a few moments ago, because of strong
opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican
House leadership, the provision adopted unanimously by this body was
not included in the final No Child Left Behind Act. It made an oxymoron
of the title of that bill, No Child Left Behind, when, in fact, we
excluded the kids with special education needs from the legislation. So
it was No Child Left Behind unless you have special education needs and
disabilities.
Today's amendment will enable us once again as a bipartisan Senate to
take the first step that we recommitted ourselves to in 2001 by
increasing the funding for special education by $2.5 billion for fiscal
year 2002 to 2003. We are calling upon our colleagues to do just that.
In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions
of dollars to fund special education programs, our school districts--as
is true in almost every other State in the country--are struggling to
meet the needs of their students with disabilities.
The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising
dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education
costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education
costs. Our schools need our help, and this amendment is an opportunity,
as we begin this 108th Congress, to do just that.
Of course, no one in my State--or any other State, for that matter,
in our great Nation--questions the value of making sure the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, which is both a landmark education law
and a landmark civil rights law, be fully implemented. The only
question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer lies in
this amendment.
This amendment will demonstrate that we intend to match our
commitment to universal access to education with a commitment to do
everything we can to help our States and schools provide that access.
This amendment, further, will help not only our children in schools,
but it will also help entire communities by easing their tax burden.
Our failure to fully fund IDEA does not make the issue go away. When
we do not meet our obligation, then a mayor or county executive at the
local level has no alternative; they have to, under their
constitutions, meet these responsibilities. So when we duck our
responsibility, we only increase the burdens locally. They can slash
their budgets locally in other vitally needed areas or they can
increase taxes.
As all of us know, there are not many options left at the local
level. At the local level, that is where the rubber hits the road,
where people need and require that certain obligations be met.
Unfortunately, when we do not step to the plate and fulfill our
promises on the national level, then we only increase tremendously the
burden on our Governors, mayors, and county executives all across this
great country.
Homeowners and businesspeople end up paying higher taxes or watch
services they depend upon be slashed, not only in my own State, but all
around this country, because so much of education is paid for through
local property taxes.
Again, I do not need to recite to my colleagues the tremendous
burdens that are being felt by local and State budgets all across this
country. The estimates are now that deficits running at the State level
may hover around $100 billion this year and only get worse next year
and the year after. In my State alone, it is about half a billion this
year. My Governor tells me it is going to be about $1.3 billion next
year. I do not know what it is in the State of Alabama, but I presume
it might be like what Connecticut is. I think California is around $34
billion.
I heard some of my colleagues say the other day, in Michigan it is $4
billion or $5 billion. I think someone said in Minnesota it was like $4
billion or $5 billion.
We have these mounting deficits at the State and local level. There
is a need in special education. There was a promise made some 30 years
ago by the Federal Government. What I am asking for in this amendment
on the omnibus bill is that we take out the $1.5 billion, if we could,
and see if we cannot step in and provide some real relief for our
States and localities in their hour of need and the need of families
who have a child with special needs.
The President recently proposed another plan to cut taxes by hundreds
of billions of dollars for some of the wealthiest Americans. I
represent one of the most affluent States in the country. I probably
have a higher percentage of my population who would benefit very
directly as a result of the President's tax proposals. Without
equivocation or hesitation, the overwhelming majority of the people in
my State, including the most affluent, honestly believe the best use of
resources is things such as special education. While they, as everyone
else, would love to have a tax cut--there is nothing new about that--
when asked to balance the priorities and needs of a nation, they
understand providing tax
[[Page 1439]]
relief for people in the top 1, 2 or 3 percent of income earners in the
country at a moment such as this is not a wise or prudent use of the
resources of this Nation when there are so many other demands that must
be met.
I understand the Federal Government faces the same budget challenges
in today's slumping economy as do our States and towns, but we cannot
accept the argument that because our economy is faltering we cannot
provide our children and their families with critical educational
resources and otherwise help average Americans. We would and should not
accept that argument if our homeland security or national defense were
at stake, and we certainly cannot afford to do it here, either.
Investment in education is no less important now than it was when our
economy was more healthy. It is essential to our long-term national
economic security. So I ask my colleagues to seize this opportunity and
choose to help our schools but, more importantly, our families and
young children who need these resources in order to maximize their
potential.
I do not know of anyone, regardless of to which party they belong,
Conservative, Liberal or moderate, whatever label one wants to put on
themselves politically, that when they look in the eyes of a child who
has special needs, can say, I am sorry right now but we cannot provide
the resources to their town, county, local, or our State government
because we have these other priorities that are making too many demands
on us. That is not my America.
My America says, when there is a child with disabilities in need we
step to the plate and provide them the kind of help they ought to have
so they have a chance to become independent and maximize their
potential to see to it that they can be productive citizens and add to
the great strength and wealth of our Nation.
I can go down the list of the various States and what they will lose
or gain. At the end of my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record a letter written on January 16, 2003, to the
majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator
Daschle, in which they specifically go down and list the importance of
this amendment and the funding I am asking for, the $1.5 billion, as
one of their top priorities. In fact, they list it as the top priority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DODD. There are a whole list of organizations that support full
funding for IDEA. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in
the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. DODD. I am not asking for full funding with this amendment. I am
asking for the $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. I am
confident every one of these organizations would support this
amendment, even though it is not full funding, but rather the
additional amounts this year when we consider the pressures on our
States.
Lastly, in looking at the differences in our States--the top State on
the list is that of the Presiding Officer--the difference right away
where there is a gap between what I am offering and the omnibus bill,
it is a little less than $30 million in the State of Alabama, and this
amendment would make up the difference. Going down further, in my own
State of Connecticut, the difference would be about $18 million. In the
State of Vermont, the difference would be about $3 million. In the
State of Rhode Island, the difference would be about $5 million in this
amendment. What a difference it would make.
I saw my colleague from Missouri in the Chamber recently. In the
State of Missouri, the difference would be about $30 million.
I have all 50 States listed and the difference that this $1.5 billion
could make. That may not sound like much when a State is facing
billions of dollars in deficits, but the fact that we might step up to
the plate in Nevada--I apologize to my friend of Nevada, who is sitting
right in front of me, but I did not see him--it is about $10 million in
his State.
I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at
the end of my statement. It is printed on both sides of one sheet of
paper. Members can then have an idea of what the benefit of this small
amendment could mean to them and their States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. DODD. There are other Members who want to be heard on this issue.
As we begin this debate in this Congress, this is one area on which we
ought to find common ground. We will have our differences on other
issues but every one of our States, Governors, mayors, and families
with children with disabilities are asking us to step up and do what we
can for them. As we start out in the year 2003, this modest amendment
could make such a difference to people across this country and is
something we ought to be able to join forces together on and adopt.
Exhibit 1
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the
nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for
several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus
appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we
appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway
program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish
economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is
not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition,
Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the
bill to implement the new election reform law. We also
appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant
and related programs through September 30, 2003. It is
critical that states have reliability of funds in order to
continue operating their welfare reform programs while
Congress considers TANF reauthorization.
We would also like to express our support for the following
amendments:
Dodd Amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's
amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants
for special education. We are committed to continuously
improving the academic performance of all students, including
students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support
this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward
enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory
expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40
percent federal requirement.
Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the
necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a
national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray.
Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to
guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in
service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter
the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past
year.
Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge
your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to
protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have
reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of
the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until
2004.
Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring
current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant
program for state and local law enforcement activities.
Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2
billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the
President's original request of providing $3.5 billion
coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the
President have responded by acting on a far-reaching
reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too
the President recognized the critical role of states--the
first line of defense and the first line of coordination of
response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new
resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and
capabilities of states and the immediate need for resources
for national defense. Therefore, we encourage you to add an
additional $1.5 billion in first responder grant funds to the
$2 billion, so that we meet the President's recognition of
the need to be prepared to respond to and recover from any
terrorist attacks.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Governor Paul E.
[[Page 1440]]
Patton,
Chairman.
Governor Dirk Kempthorne,
Vice Chairman.
____
Exhibit 2
Organizations in Support of Full Funding of IDEA
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Association of School Administrators.
American Council of the Blind.
American Federation of School Administrators.
American Federation of Teachers.
American Society of Deaf Children.
American Speech-Language Hearing Association.
The ARC of the United States.
Association of Educational Services Agencies.
Committee for Educational Funding.
Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and
Programs for the Deaf, Inc.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Council for Exceptional Children.
Council of the Great City Schools.
Easter Seals.
Helen Keller National Center.
Higher Education Consortium for Special Education.
IDEA Funding Coalition.
Learning Disabilities Association.
International Reading Association.
National Alliance of Black School Educators.
National Association of Developmental Disabilities
Councils.
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
National Association of Federal Education Programs
Administrators.
National Association of Federally Impacted Schools.
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Association of State Boards of Education.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, Inc.
National Association of State Legislators.
National Center for Learning Disabilities.
National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness.
National Conference of State Legislators.
National Education Association.
National Governors Association.
National Indian Education Association.
National Parent Network on Disabilities.
National Parent Teacher's Association.
National Rural Education Association.
National School Boards Association.
National Science Teachers Association.
New York City Board of Education.
School Work Association of America.
School Social Work Association of America.
____
Exhibit 3
ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS FOR IDEA GRANTS TO STATES BASED ON FY02
APPROPRIATIONS, FY03 REQUEST ($1 BILLION INCREASE OVER FY02), AND $2.5
BILLION INCREASE OVER FY02
[Estimates are rounded to the nearest $000; totals may not sum due to
rounding; amounts are for policy analysis purposes only; dollars in
thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DODD
amendment:
Omnibus: FY2003
FY2002 FY2002 estimates
State preliminary estimates based on FY
allocations based on 2002
President's appropriation
request + $2.5
billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ $119,994 $135,572 $160,598
Alaska......................... 22,200 25,481 29,904
Arizona........................ 111,046 127,461 149,586
Arkansas....................... 71,962 82,600 96,938
California..................... 781,663 897,214 1,052,954
Colorado....................... 94,049 107,952 126,690
Connecticut.................... 89,246 99,915 117,543
Delaware....................... 20,346 23,354 27,407
District of Columbia........... 10,230 11,742 13,780
Florida........................ 405,996 457,128 539,273
Georgia........................ 195,217 224,075 262,971
Hawaii......................... 25,660 29,453 34,566
Idaho.......................... 34,534 39,639 46,520
Illinois....................... 336,545 379,984 449,770
Indiana........................ 170,909 192,168 226,322
Iowa........................... 82,527 92,393 108,694
Kansas......................... 70,916 80,242 95,225
Kentucky....................... 104,534 117,890 139,346
Louisiana...................... 119,377 137,024 160,809
Maine.......................... 36,989 41,411 48,717
Maryland....................... 131,489 148,070 174,709
Massachusetts.................. 191,891 214,831 252,734
Michigan....................... 260,223 295,771 350,539
Minnesota...................... 128,322 143,662 169,425
Mississippi.................... 77,199 87,876 103,993
Missouri....................... 153,554 171,910 202,241
Montana........................ 23,560 27,042 31,736
Nebraska....................... 50,476 56,510 66,480
Nevada......................... 41,761 47,934 56,255
New Hampshire.................. 32,080 35,915 42,252
New Jersey..................... 244,341 273,550 321,814
New Mexico..................... 61,595 68,958 81,125
New York....................... 509,444 573,817 677,232
North Carolina................. 202,782 229,818 273,162
North Dakota................... 16,521 18,963 22,254
Ohio........................... 288,468 330,031 388,587
Oklahoma....................... 98,503 112,024 132,690
Oregon......................... 86,419 98,061 116,413
Pennsylvania................... 281,606 319,827 379,343
Puerto Rico.................... 67,880 77,914 91,439
Rhode Island................... 29,561 33,095 38,934
South Carolina................. 115,464 129,822 152,889
South Dakota................... 19,680 22,590 26,511
Tennessee...................... 154,805 175,401 208,004
Texas.......................... 608,103 697,998 819,157
Utah........................... 68,595 78,736 92,403
Vermont........................ 15,929 18,284 21,458
Virginia....................... 181,316 204,243 241,077
Washington..................... 142,623 162,181 192,123
West Virginia.................. 51,338 57,475 67,615
Wisconsin...................... 140,643 159,051 188,623
Wyoming........................ 16,711 19,181 22,511
----------------------------------------
Subtotal for States........ 7,396,822 8,393,339 9,893,341
Set Asides for Outlying Areas, 131,711 135,194 135,192
BIA, and Evaluation...........
----------------------------------------
Total Appr/Request......... 7,528,533 8,528,533 10,028,533
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CRS analysis based on data from ED Budget Service.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. In addition to other
limitations, much of the data which will be used to calculate final
grants are not yet available. These estimates are provided solely to
assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas
and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended
to predict specific amounts which states (LEAs, etc.) will receive.
Mr. DODD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to
this important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Connecticut, his speech said it
all. In addition to the speech he gave today, he has been a vocal
advocate for change for many years. He is to be complimented and
applauded for his work.
I hope this amendment passes. Every amendment we have offered on this
side has been very important. We have not done very well with the
amendments because they have been straight party-line votes. In this
instance, I hope the children Senator Dodd has talked about would be
taken into consideration.
As indicated, it would be so important to the State of Nevada. It is
a modest increase but it would certainly take care of a lot of problems
that the school districts have in Nevada.
Again, I congratulate my friend from Connecticut and hope very much
this amendment will pass.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, like the Senator from Connecticut, I was
here in 1975. This was an unusual year for Republicans. This was the
Watergate year, and I was one of the very few who was enabled by the
political process to represent the State of Vermont at that time.
Because there were so few Republicans at that time, the day I walked on
the floor, I ended up being the ranking member on the Select Education
Committee which handled this issue in the House. Thus I have a personal
understanding of the need and a personal responsibility. Ted Kennedy
was on that conference committee with the Senate, Bob Stafford was
another one, and John Brademas was the wonderful leader of the
Democrats at that time. We struggled over how much money would be
needed. We came up with a solution and then agreed the Federal
Government ought to come up with 45 percent of the burden that was
placed upon the States.
I stand today somewhat sad in the sense we still have not reached
that promise or anywhere near it. We are about half of that now. I look
at severe cuts that have occurred and the lack of money for the States
and see they are imperiled at this point to be able to give not only a
good education, as required in the constitutional mandate, to young
people with special needs but also of all children because of the dire
circumstances we have.
I first thank my good friend, Senator Dodd, for bringing this
important amendment to the floor. This amendment is about making sure
that all children have an opportunity to learn, and I want to urge my
colleagues to support this very critical amendment.
We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the
opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate
resources. The level of funding for education in this omnibus
appropriations bill is unconsicionable.
When I first arrived in Congress in 1975, one of the first
legislative initiatives I worked on was the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, now
[[Page 1441]]
known as IDEA. We wrote the legislation to ensure that children with
disabilities receive the special education and related services they
need and deserve. This is expensive.
We also recognized, however, that educating children with
disabilities would be very costly, and therefore promised that the
Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the excess cost of educating
children with disabilities.
At that time, nearly half of all disabled children, approximately 2
million children, were not receiving a public education. They were not
even in school. Another 2 million children were placed in segregated,
inadequate classrooms. It was brutal.
Today, IDEA serves approximately 6 million disabled children. IDEA
has been very successful in providing the basic constitutional right of
an education to our children with disabilities: dropout rates have
decreased, graduation rates have increased, and the percentage of
college freshmen with a disability has almost tripled.
IDEA has helped individuals with disabilities become independent,
wage-earning, tax-paying contributors to this Nation.
The problem, however, is that we have not kept our promise of helping
the States pay for the costs of educating children with disabilities.
Although Congress has increased IDEA funding in recent years, it has
woefully failed to meet its obligation to fully fund IDEA. Until we do
that, we will not have done what we promised.
Rather than contributing the 40 percent as promised, currently, we
only pay about 17 percent.
I would like to recognize Senators Harkin and Hagel, and, of course
Senator Dodd, for their unyielding commitment to our children and to
our schools, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to
fully fund IDEA.
The underlying appropriations bill only increases IDEA funding by $1
billion. At that rate, we're on course to fully fund IDEA in the year
2035. I know that the children of Vermont, and the children across this
country, cannot wait another 32 years.
And yet, as we continue to underfund IDEA, the costs associated with
educating children with disabilities continue to rise and absorb
increasingly larger portions of school districts' budgets.
For example, in my State of Vermont, the special education costs have
increased by 150 percent over the past 10 years, and the Federal
underfunding leads to the State and local districts to spend
approximately $20 million more from local sources than if Federal
funding were provided at the maximum level. I know that these problems
are not unique to Vermont; but rather, they are shared by States and
school districts across the country.
And now State governments are battling the worst fiscal conditions
since World War II. According to the National Governors Association,
budget shortfalls will be as high as $50 billion this year and $60 to
$70 billion next year. Accordingly, State education budgets throughout
the country are facing severe cuts, and schools must take drastic
measures just to make ends meet, no less meet the burdensome mandates
of the No Child Left Behind law.
This amendment represents a significant step forward providing some
relief to our schools, and I emphasize the word ``some.'' We must
recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the
opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate
resources. We must provide our schools with those desperately needed
resources and perhaps then we can ensure that, indeed, not one of our
children is left behind. The President has made that promise, but I see
nothing in the budget or anywhere else that indicates an attempt to
bear that cost our States have shouldered for so long. This amendment
brings us that little bit closer to our obligation to America's
children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment and ask for immediate consideration of amendment No.
27, which is at the desk.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I regret I have to object
to this until we can clarify where we stand vis-a-vis this amendment.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I yield.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding you will offer an amendment in a
different form than the Dodd amendment, and there would be two side-by-
side amendments; is that right?
Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
Mr. REID. We are working on that. I spoke to Senator Dodd and he
feels we would have 30 minutes equally divided prior to the vote.
Mr. GREGG. That would be reasonable. Assuming all debate on the
amendment of Senator Dodd--that there is no further amendment, with
debate going forward until that time.
Mr. DODD. If the minority whip will yield, my intention was to make a
few additional comments, but I have spoken on the amendment. I would
like some idea of when we might do this. I know the Senator from Rhode
Island has an amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest, if the Democrat assistant leader is so
inclined, we now have a vote at 5:15. Why not begin at what time before
that?
Mr. REID. The two leaders have to work out what the sequence of votes
is going to be. We have the Dodd amendment which has been laid down. We
have the Edwards amendment which is pending. We have Senator Reed of
Rhode Island offering an amendment on LIHEAP, cosponsored with Senator
Collins. We have Senator Dayton coming in a few minutes to offer one on
corporate expatriation. They have to figure out the sequencing of
votes. We are trying to do as we have been told--to offer as many
amendments as possible. I suggest this can be worked out between the
Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut, but we would like to get
to this.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Reed require?
Mr. REED. Around 10 or 15 minutes. No longer.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest after Senator Reed completes the presentation of
his amendment, we go back to the Dodd amendment. Hopefully, I can lay
down my amendment and spend up to an hour, equally divided, on it at
that point and proceed to the next item of business.
Mr. REID. If my friend will withhold, my only point is that we have
been trying to do as your leader wants us to do and line up a bunch of
amendments. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock, and I have
announced that previously. He is not going to take too long. But I am
happy to go along with what the Senator suggested. We will get the Reed
amendment laid down and come back to the Dodd amendment.
Mr. DODD. That is fine. We have a couple of other Members, I have
just been informed, who would like to speak on the special education
amendment. They are not here yet because of the conditions outside. In
order to accommodate our colleague from Rhode Island, who is here--and
Senator Dayton from Minnesota is on his way--we could work up a
proposal and come back later in the afternoon when the other Members
are here and finish up the debate on that and allow these other
amendments to be debated, since those Senators are here.
Mr. GREGG. I would like to get back to getting the floor at a
reasonable point of time. I suggest at 2 o'clock I be recognized to
offer my amendment.
Mr. REID. I think the Senator's original suggestion is the better of
the two. I ask unanimous consent the Dodd amendment be set aside and
Senator Reed be recognized to offer his amendment, speak up to 15
minutes, and then we will return to the Dodd amendment and try to work
out something.
Mr. REED. Reserving my right to object, Senator Collins of Maine,
also a cosponsor, wants to speak on this amendment.
Mr. REID. There will be ample time later for her to do that.
Mr. REED. So her rights will be protected.
Mr. REID. Yes.
[[Page 1442]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 27
(Purpose: To provide additional amounts for low-income home energy
assistance)
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to increase
funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, to $2 billion for this fiscal year. I am offering this
amendment with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Susan
Collins. Senator Collins wanted to be here to offer the amendment with
me, but she is traveling from Maine in very difficult weather
circumstances today, and when she arrives this afternoon she will take
the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment.
I also thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton, Senator Snowe, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, Senator
Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, Sena-
tor Clinton, Senator Dodd, Sena-
tor Kerry, Senator Levin, Sena-
tor Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Sena-
tor Durbin, who are all cosponsors of this amendment.
At this juncture I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee,
Schumer, Harkin, Fitzgerald, Murray, Bingaman, and Lautenberg be added
as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. As you can see, this amendment enjoys widespread and
bipartisan support. I think it is clear, particularly given the weather
today, that support is not unmerited.
Let me begin by offering a weather report, if you will. It is today,
in Washington, around 30 degrees. But if you are outside, it feels much
colder. The low will be somewhere around 14 degrees.
As you go along the country: Albany, NY, today, 17 degrees the high;
Baltimore, 29 degrees; Chicago, 18 degrees; Cleveland, 15 degrees; Des
Moines, IA, 12 degrees; Detroit, MI, 18 degrees; Milwaukee, 14 degrees;
Omaha, 12 degrees; and my State, Rhode Island, they list the high as
23, but this morning when I left at 5 a.m. it was 5 degrees, but with
the wind chill factor it was below zero.
This amendment is important because there are Americans who are
suffering because of the cold. But it is not just about cold weather in
certain parts of the country at this time of the year; the LIHEAP
program is also important since it covers those hot stretches in the
summertime when energy bills in the Southwest and the Southeast are
astronomical and impact adversely low-income Americans.
We need this program throughout the year. We particularly need it
today to protect people from the cold, but, as I said, those
individuals who live in Alabama or Arkansas or Texas or southern
California need LIHEAP in the summertime and it should be there for
them, as it should be for those people who struggle today with the cold
weather in the Northeast and Midwest.
In fact, yesterday the coldest place in America was Embarras, MN,
minus 26 degrees. It is one thing to be in Embarras, but it is also
something else to be freezing in Embarras. So I think we have to do
something to ensure that we can protect low-income Americans from the
cold that is affecting them today.
Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the LIHEAP program. They knew
that people struggling with all sorts of expenses--raising a family,
providing food to put on the table--they needed help in these cold
months in the Northeast and those hot spells in the Southeast, to
provide for assistance so they could afford the energy they needed.
During his campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LIHEAP to
help these low-income families meet their needs for heat in the winter
and cooling in the summer. If he stood by his promise, the President
would demand the $2 billion for which we are asking; rather, he has
proposed cutting that money. This year, despite rising energy prices,
colder weather, and increased unemployment, the President's budget has
proposed to cut LIHEAP by $300 million. This cut would deny assistance
to literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. The appropriations
bill that we are considering today does restore part of this funding. I
commend and thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and Specter and Harkin and
their staffs for their hard work to maintain this funding, but we want
to restore an additional $300 million to bring it up to the $2 billion
level that will just be, in terms of purchasing power, equal to last
year. We want to do that and I hope we can do that today through this
amendment process.
As I said, we could add this $300 million, but we are not requesting
new funding. This amendment simply requires the administration to give
the States the $300 million the Congress provided in the fiscal year
2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress provided $300 million in
LIHEAP funding 2 years ago to help these families meet their needs when
energy costs increase, when there are significant disconnections of
utilities because if you can't pay the gas bill or electric bill,
eventually you will be disconnected and you will be without any type of
energy.
All of these efforts in terms of funding LIHEAP have been urged on
the present administration by the Governors. They understand because
they are right there in the trenches, if you will, dealing with the
issue of people literally freezing today and sweltering in the
summertime.
Cutting heating assistance for seniors and low-income Americans is
not the way to go, particularly when it is juxtaposed against proposed
significant tax cuts. If we can't at least provide people with a warm
shelter in the winter and a cool shelter in the summer when thinking
about large-scale tax cuts, to me, seems somewhat inappropriate.
LIHEAP, even with our amendment, will be seriously underfunded.
Providing this $2 billion in regular funding to the program will just
equal the purchasing power of last year. What it does not recognize is
that energy prices are soaring. Today, on the front page of the
Providence Journal, there is an article about the cold wave that is
sweeping our region of the country, but also the fact that in order to
keep up with the demand for oil, which is our principal fuel, because
the demand is so huge, our Governor had to suspend regulations to allow
delivery drivers to work through periods of time when they are normally
required to rest. What is also happening is the prices are jumping up
because of uncertainty in Venezuela and uncertainty in the gulf.
This combination of increased prices, cold temperatures, and also an
economy that sees more and more people unemployed, is the perfect
storm, if you will, when it comes to requiring assistance for heating
throughout the Northeast in particular.
There is something else that happens when people are challenged for
energy, when they do without. They take their own improvisational means
to keep warm. They turn the electric stove on and open up the oven.
They go out and buy portable heaters. It is more than coincidence that
the number of house fires shows a sharp increase in the months of cold
weather in the Northeast because people are improvising. So this is
another danger that must be recognized.
This amendment simply allows people to stay warm in the winter and to
escape scorching heat in the summertime. It is something that is basic.
It is something I believe we should support extensively. I am pleased
and proud that so many of my colleagues have joined Senator Collins and
me on a bipartisan basis. I hope this is one amendment we can quickly
adopt and include in this omnibus appropriations bill. I hope, also, we
can at least signal to those people who are looking for some modest
assistance in these cold days that we have heard their calls, we are
responding to our political leaders at the State level, the Governors,
and we are giving them the resources to at least keep people from
freezing in a very difficult time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator calling up his amendment?
Mr. REED. I asked in my initial statement that we call up amendment
No. 27. I ask now it be called up.
[[Page 1443]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. REED) for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Harkin, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Rockefeller,
proposes an amendment numbered 27.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional amounts for low-income home energy
assistance)
At the end of the general provisions relating to the
Department of Health and Human Services, add the following:
Sec. __. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public
Law 107-020) is amended, in the matter under the heading
``low income home energy assistance'' under the heading
``Administration for Children and Families'' under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES'', in
chapter 7 of title II, by striking ``amount for'' and all
that follows, and inserting the following: ``amount for
making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000.''.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support this
bipartisan amendment to provide additional funds for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). At a time when home heating
prices are increasing dramatically and temperatures in my home state of
Vermont are plunging, we can ill afford cuts in the LIHEAP program.
I have fought for years to make sure that no Vermonter has to choose
between heating and other of life's necessities such as putting food on
the table or prescription drugs. I am very mindful of the financial
strains that low-income Vermonters feel when the weather gets cold.
We must continue to make sure that funding for LIHEAP is a priority
of this administration and of the Congress. I am hopeful that LIHEAP
will continue to provide a safety net to families and the elderly who
are buffeted by high fuel prices, loss of benefits, and sickness.
I am going to close this short statement with this week's forecast
from the National Weather Service for Chittenden County. In very stark
terms, more than any speech, it demonstrates the need for LIHEAP in
Vermont.
Tonight. Mostly clear and bitterly cold. Low 10 to 15 below zero.
Northwest wind 10 to 20 mph early tonight. Diminishing to 10 mph late.
Wind chills 20 to 25 below zero.
Wednesday. Mostly sunny and continued very cold. High around zero.
Northwest wind 10 to 15 mph.
Wednesday night. Increasing clouds. Low 10 below to 20 below.
Thursday. Becoming cloudy with light snow likely in the afternoon.
High 5 to 15 above. Chance of snow 60 percent.
Thursday night. Mostly cloudy with a chance of snow showers. Low 5
below to 5 above. Chance of snow 30 percent.
Friday. Partly cloudy. High 10 to 15.
Saturday. Partly cloudy. Low 5 below to 5 above and high in the
teens.
Sunday. Cloudy with a chance of snow. Low 5 below to 5 above and high
in the lower 20s.
Monday. A chance of snow showers. Otherwise partly cloudy. Low zero
to 10 above and high in the lower 20s.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor to provide an additional $300
million in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--or LIHEAP--funds
for the current fiscal year.
With unemployment rising, temperatures dropping, and energy prices
projected to soar, New Yorkers and others around the country need
access to energy assistance more than ever. Colder than normal
temperatures in October, November, December, and January have boosted
overall heating demands above previous expectations. In fact,
conditions this winter are projected to be as much as 18 percent colder
than last winter, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
People in my state know what cold means. Ask anyone who has been to
Buffalo where it feels like zero degrees Fahrenheit today; Rochester
where it feels like 6 degrees; Syracuse where it feels like 5 degrees;
Binghamton where it feels like minus 2 degrees; Plattsburgh where it
feels like minus 7 degrees; Albany where it feels like minus 2 degrees;
or any town in New York State in the winter months. It's cold.
Today, the National Weather Service has issued a hazardous weather
outlook for western and north central New York. Very cold air will
dominate the region overnight, with temperatures again falling into the
single digits from the Finger Lakes west, and below zero to the east.
According to the Weather Service, these temperatures will combine with
winds to produce bitterly cold wind chills below minus 15 degrees in
most areas, and below minus 20 degrees in the North Country.
So far this year, it has snowed just about every day in Oswego
County. Twice this month, lake-effect storms dumped several feet of
snow on the county. In the city of Oswego, snow fell at a rate of 6
inches per hour for about 4 hours last Wednesday.
So it's no surprise that applications for LIHEAP assistance in New
York State are up from last year--by at least 9,000 households.
That is why instead of proposing to cut this vital program by $300
million as the Bush Administration has done, we are here today offering
an amendment to increase the funding for LIHEAP provided in this bill
by $300 million. The $300 million cut proposed by the Bush
administration would have forced the State of New York to ``freeze
out'' an estimated 80,000 families who previously benefited from the
vital LIHEAP program.
Under this amendment, New York and other states will be able to help
tens of thousands more families with home heating assistance, rather
than leaving families--literally--out in the cold. The change in
seasons needs to be accompanied by a change of heart--and that is why
we are here today offering this amendment.
An additional $60 million in LIHEAP funding that was released to New
York State earlier this month received a warm welcome--particularly
from the thousands of New York families that are now able to heat their
hoes without having to forgo other, basic household expenses--like
buying groceries. And this additional $300 million will receive an
equally warm welcome.
I want to commend our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations
Committee who voted last year not to cut the LIHEAP program as was
proposed by the administration, but rather to keep it at its previous
level of $1.7 billion. Thankfully, the bill we are considering today
contains approximately $1.6 billion in LIHEAP funding for the current
fiscal year. But that is still not enough.
Many of my colleagues and I have asked the administration to release
the hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency funds that are still
available in order to help low-income families and the elderly in New
York and around the country pay their heating bills. With our economy
in crisis, this is no time to be heaping additional financial burdens
on our low income residents and forcing them to choose between paying
for food and paying their energy bill.
That is why we are offering this amendment today, to convert $300
million in already-appropriated emergency LIHEAP funds to regular
program funds, so that these funds can be spent now to help families in
need. Because for low-income families and the elderly in New York State
and around the country who are having to choose between food and
heating their homes, between prescription drugs and heating their
homes--this is an emergency, not question about it.
So I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to
provide an additional $300 million in regular program funding for the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleagues'
amendment increasing LIHEAP funding. In Wisconsin the Low Income
[[Page 1444]]
Home Energy Assistance Program is not a luxury but a necessity. Many
people around my State depend on this funding to heat their home and
protect their families, especially in this economy. Already this
heating season the State of Wisconsin has almost 4,000 more people
being served by LIHEAP than last year at this time. This 13 percent
increase is a sign of the high energy prices and worsening economy
putting the squeeze on families. The price of the program has
skyrocketed as well, almost $8 million more than last year at this time
for a 36 percent increase in cost. The small increase from last year
proposed in the underlying bill will not be sufficient to meet the
needs of my constituents. Without the additional $300 million called
for in this amendment, Wisconsin will run out of funding in early May,
almost a month earlier than in years past.
Constituents are calling and writing my office concerned about
running out of LIHEAP assistance. They are unemployed and facing steep
bills for energy as well as rent and health care and they are worried
they won't be able to make ends meet. The average benefit in my state
is $369, an amount that would be almost impossible for a family on
unemployment to pay. Heating a house through the Wisconsin winter is
more expensive and takes more energy than cooling a house through a
summer down south. We have to recognize that challenge and help these
people.
The $1.7 billion in the bill still leaves 8,803 people in my state
without benefits. Almost 9,000 people who are eligible for LIHEAP will
go without because there is not enough money. There are thousands in my
state who need this money but do not apply because they don't know
about the program or don't realize they are eligible. The money today
is only the tip of the iceberg. This extra $300 million will help reach
these folks who are not being helped, and will help them pay their
bills until the heating season is over.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support
of Senator Reed's amendment, which would ensure that the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is funded at an amount close to
the level authorized by the Senate for the current fiscal year.
As he traveled through colder climate areas in the Northeast and
Midwest in 2000, President Bush campaigned on a promise to fully fund
this vital program, which assists senior citizens and low-income
households with their basic home heating costs. Regrettably, the
President decided to retreat from this commitment, proposing $1.4
billion for LIHEAP in his fiscal year 2003 budget--a $300 million cut
from the previous year's funding level for the program.
Meanwhile, plunging temperatures and rising heating costs are putting
some of the most vulnerable Americans at risk this winter. Indeed, only
a fraction of those eligible to receive LIHEAP assistance will actually
benefit from the program at current funding levels. Furthermore,
heating bills are significantly higher than they were at this point
last year. According to the Energy Information Administration, which
released its monthly short-term outlook on January 8th, the price of
natural gas has risen 34 percent compared to last winter's costs.
Heating oil prices have increased a remarkable 43 percent.
Senator Reed's amendment would increase LIHEAP funding for the
current fiscal year to a level close to the Senate-authorized amount of
$2 billion by transferring the funds already appropriated by Congress
in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001--but not spent
by the President--to the omnibus appropriations bill now pending before
the Senate. This important amendment will ensure that the
administration does not deny these funds to the scores of households
who desperately need this assistance to simply keep warm this winter.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Reed amendment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this
amendment to provide much-needed assistance to our Nation's low-income
families. The amendment before us today would use $300 million in
contingency funds included in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental
appropriations bill to provide additional money for states struggling
to keep pace with demand for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program.
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, provides
critical aid to many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, as
many as 5 million households received LIHEAP assistance during fiscal
year 2001--the last year for which such data is available.
Since then, of course, the need for this program has grown almost
exponentially. In many places--particularly in the western part of our
country--the downturn in our nation's economy has conspired with
soaring retail energy costs to create record-breaking demand for LIHEAP
dollars.
I want to explain to my colleagues precisely why this amendment is so
important to so many families in my state. On a number of previous
occasions--during debate on the Senate energy bill, at various
junctures during the Western energy crisis and the ensuing
investigations of Enron and others--I have spoken on this floor about
the Bush administration's failure to step in and stem the economic
bleeding in my state resulting from skyrocketing electricity prices.
But not only did this administration sit idly by as Enron and others
conspired to wreak havoc on the economy of the West, this
administration has also ignored repeated pleas to release the LIHEAP
money that would aid those very citizens who have suffered the most
from its inaction.
As my colleagues may recall, during the height of the western energy
crisis--which we now know resulted at least in part from the
manipulations of Enron and potentially other energy companies--
wholesale electricity prices spiked to as much as 1,000 percent above
normal.
While prices on the wholesale markets have now stabilized, one
daunting reality we face in Washington state is that, despite a series
of rate increases that had reached almost 50 percent in some areas by
September 2001, the worst of this crisis is not yet over. The
Bonneville Power Administration, which markets about 70 percent of the
power consumed in Washington, subsequently put in place a rate increase
of more than 40 percent in October 2001.
My State and region continue to struggle to pay power costs incurred
during the crisis, at least in part due to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's failure to act and void exorbitantly priced
contracts signed with the likes of Enron. And just this week I learned
that, as a result, the Northwest faces the prospect of yet another
round of double-digit rate increases later this year.
Already, Washington State has suffered from the second or third
highest unemployment rate in the nation for almost a year. Already,
utility disconnection rates have quadrupled in some areas of my State.
Already I receive letters from constituents who have to make the
choice between buying prescription drugs and paying their electricity
bills. So my colleagues can imagine just what kind of threat further
electricity rate increases pose to the prospect of an economic
recovery.
I could recount in much more detail this administration's flagrant
disregard for the statutory requirement that consumers be charged
``just and reasonable'' electricity rates. But today, I want to focus
on the fact it continues to ignore the plight of citizens who have
borne the brunt of the economic crisis the administration itself had a
hand in creating.
During fiscal year 2002, the Bush administration had at its disposal
a total of $600 million in LIHEAP contingency funds. Congress
appropriated a total of $300 million of these funds as part of that
year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill; the remaining funds were
appropriated as part of the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental bill, which
included $300 million in LIHEAP funds that remain available until
expended.
Due to the dire economic circumstances in which many of my
[[Page 1445]]
state's working families find themselves, I have repeatedly asked this
administration to release a portion of those funds to Washington State.
In October 30, 2001, in testimony before the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Assistant Health and Human
Service Secretary Wade Horn stated that LIHEAP fulfills a ``dual
responsibility to provide ongoing assistance where it is most needed
and to respond to emergency situations such as extreme weather
conditions, supply disruptions or price spikes.'' At the same time, he
indicated that there were no plans to release emergency funds due to a
drop in fuel prices as well as forecasts of a relatively mild winter.
In response, I was joined by my colleague Senator Murray as well as
six other members of the Washington delegation in sending a December
10, 2001 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson,
pointing out that some 73 percent of Washington's low-income households
are heated by electricity--rather than natural gas or oil, as in other
parts of the country--and that retail rates continued to rise rapidly.
I would also point out that since 1980--when LIHEAP was first
authorized--electricity prices have climbed 180 percent on a national
basis, while oil, natural gas and propane prices have been relatively
more stable. In light of all this, we requested an immediate release of
the then-$300 million in emergency LIHEAP money. No money was released.
On March 8, 2002, after Congress had added another $300 million to
the LIHEAP contingency fund and Assistant Secretary Horn had, in his
response to our first letter, suggested that should there be an
emergency, the administration would release the necessary aid, I wrote
again to suggest we had reached that point.
Washington State's utility shutoff moratorium was set to expire, and
5 inches of snow had just fallen in the eastern part of my State. Still
no funds were released.
On April 12, 2002, I wrote yet another letter--this time to OMB
Director Mitch Daniels. After a phone call, he requested more
information on Washington State's particular situation. My office
provided this information in an April 17, 2002 letter. Still no funds
were released.
On May 28, 2002, I joined with a number of my Senate colleagues from
across the country in sending a letter to President Bush, arguing that
many States had already exhausted their annual LIHEAP allocation. Still
no funds were released.
Finally, on August 9, the administration released $100 million of the
total $300 million available in fiscal year 2002 LIHEAP contingency
funds. Unfortunately, Washington State was not on the list to receive
any of this additional money.
What this amendment proposes to do is take the $300 million in
contingency LIHEAP funds Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and
distribute it to this Nation's many families in need.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the
December 22, 2002 New York Times, entitled ``The Legacy of Power Cost
Manipulation,'' which describes the situation in Snohomish County, WA.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Legacy of Power Cost Manipulation
(By Timothy Egan)
Everett, Wash. Two years ago this month, a record was set
at the height of the West Coast energy crunch: an hour of
electric power was sold for $3,250--more than a hundred times
what the same small block had cost a year earlier.
Now, power supplies are abundant and wholesale prices have
plummeted. But the fallout from what state officials say was
the largest manipulation of the energy market in modern times
has continued to hit West Coast communities hard. Here in
Snohomish County, which has the highest energy rates in the
state, more than 14,000 customers have had their electricity
shut off for lack of payment this year--a 44 percent increase
over 2001. They have seen electric rate increases of 50
percent, as the Snohomish County Public Utility District
struggles to pay for long-term power contracts it signed with
companies like Enron at the height of the price run-up.
Aided by charities, most customers have had their power
returned within a day of being shut off, but others are
forced to make choices about which necessities they can live
without.
It's a pretty tough thing trying to explain to your 5-year-
old kid why the lights won't come on anymore,'' said Crystal
Faye of Everett. ``I didn't pay much attention to all that
stuff about California and Enron, but it's certainly come
home to hurt us now.''
Ms. Faye and her husband, Rick, who are unemployed, have
had their power shut off twice this year.
Brianne Dorsey, a single mother, said she removed the
baseboard heater in her home here and has had to rely on a
small wood stove for heat, because she is $1,000 behind in
paying her electric bills.
Faced with such tales tied to rate increases along the West
Coast, states are trying to get back some of what they lost
during 18 months when energy prices seemed to have no
ceiling.
The decision this month by a federal regulatory judge that
California utilities had been overcharged by $1.8 billion
bolstered the case of Northwest utilities seeking refunds,
officials of those utilities said. It also angered California
officials, who say they will continue to press for a total of
nearly $9 billion in refunds. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is expected to decide on Northwest refunds in the
spring.
No matter what the federal government decides, officials
say their best hope for compensation is from a number of
criminal investigations being pursued by Nevada and the three
West Coast states--Washington, Oregon and California. They
liken their cause to state lawsuits against tobacco
companies, which started as long shots but resulted in
enormous settlements.
Aided by a guilty plea in October from a former trader for
Enron, and by newly discovered internal documents describing
how companies manipulated the energy market in 2000 and 2001,
the West coast states are hoping to get settlement money from
more than a dozen energy trading companies.
The companies say they acted legally in taking advantage of
a unique market condition, but state officials say the
companies created a fake energy crisis.
At the height of the rise in energy costs in early 2001,
the Bush administration said the West Coast's troubles were a
precursor of what would happen if the nation did not build
1,900 power plants over the next 20 years.
But state officials in the hardest-hit areas say the crisis
was never about energy shortages so much as it was about an
epic transfer of wealth. They want payback--in some cases for
immediate relief to consumers who cannot pay their bills this
winter.
Last month, the Williams Company, in Tulsa, Okla., agreed
to a $417 million settlement with Washington, Oregon and
California. While admitting no wrongdoing, Williams agreed to
pay refunds and other restitution to the three states; in
return, the states dropped an antitrust investigation.
Among large energy companies, the states are seeking
refunds from the Mirant Corporation, Reliant Resources Inc.,
Dynegy Inc., Duke Energy and Enron.
``All of us on the West Coast have been hard hit by these
rate increases, but the poor in this county have just been
hammered,'' said Bill Beuscher, who runs the energy
assistance program in Snohomish County. Mr. Beuscher said
that in the first two weeks the winter energy assistance
program was open this year, requests for financial aid were
up 55 percent from the same period last year.
The power trading companies named in criminal
investigations and refund cases did not want to comment
publicly while the cases were pending. But several of the
companies that are fighting refunds have said in their public
filings that the utilities, particularly in the Northwest,
are trying to renege on legitimate long-term contracts. They
said they did not act in collusion and explained that the
highest prices were a result of severe market shifts brought
in part by the Northwest drought.
In some cases, the power trading companies said, the
utilities resisted buying shorter contracts, which would have
cost them less. They also said that some Northwest utilities
took advantage of the price spikes and sold power into the
market themselves, only to come up short later. The companies
said they expected to be vindicated when the government
finishes its refund cases next spring.
Mr. Beuscher said he would like to see money from the
Williams settlement be used to help people who cannot afford
the rate increases. Consumers in Oregon and California have
made similar pleas. But officials in all three states say
that until there are larger settlements with the energy
companies, consumers are unlikely to see relief.
``We hope that the Williams case serves as a template,''
said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the California attorney
general's office, ``because California was monumentally
ripped off by these energy traders.''
About seven million consumers in California, who were
initially shielded from having to pay for runaway energy
costs during the worst part of the state's deregulation
debacle, are paying rate increases averaging 30 percent more
than the pre-deregulation prices of 1996. The state has the
highest energy rates in the nation, consumer advocates
[[Page 1446]]
say, although the structure of the rate increase allows poor
people and low energy users to escape the recent increases.
``I don't hold out a lot of hope that we will ever get
significant refunds,'' said Doug Heller of the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a nonprofit group based in Los
Angeles. The group calculates that California power customers
overpaid a total of $70 billion.
At the height of the energy troubles, the trading companies
boasted of record profits in their quarterly reports. But
many of those companies are now near bankruptcy as they cope
with a downturn that has caused the energy trading sector to
lose 80 percent of its value, according to Wall Street
analysts.
``It's like the highwayman robbed us and then spent all the
money on booze,'' Mr. Heller said.
The companies themselves blame the states. In one case that
was heard this month, William A. Wise, chief executive of the
El Paso Corporation, which is based in Houston, denied
manipulating the market and blames the officials who set up
California's deregulated energy market for causing the price
run-ups with ``one bad policy after another.''
Under a New Deal-era law, power companies can be forced to
pay refunds if they have charged an ``unreasonable and
unjust'' amount for electricity. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, which West Coast governors say did
very little to restrain power traders during the height of
the run-ups, will determine the exact refund amount, if any.
In the meantime, electric rates throughout the Pacific
Northwest, once among the cheapest in the nation, have
climbed as much as 50 percent.
California's problems stem from its chaotic attempt at
energy deregulation, approved in 1996 and put in effect in
1998. The Northwest, with its tradition of publicly owned
utilities, was drawn into the California crisis by a
convergence of dry weather and freewheeling trading of its
own.
Usually, the Northwest avoids price fluctuations by
providing a steady stream of hydroelectric power, aided by
abundant winter rainfall. But in late 2000, a drought in the
Northwest forced utilities to buy power on the open market.
Some utilities had also tried to sell power into the
California market but were pinched by the drought.
At the same time, major energy traders were withholding
blocks of power to create the appearance of further
shortages, according to Enron memorandums discovered this
year.
Refunds were once thought to be unlikely. But then came the
memorandums--many of them detailing schemes to manipulate the
market under names like Death Star--and the agreement in
October by Timothy N. Belden, a former senior trader for
Enron, to plead guilty to conspiring with others to
manipulate the West Coast energy market.
Prosecutors say Mr. Belden is cooperating with
investigations of the power trading companies.
``What really started the ball rolling were the smoking-gun
memos, and then the guilty plea has helped as well,'' said
Kevin Neely, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of
Justice.
There is also continued bitterness among West Coast
officials toward the Bush administration for waiting until
June 2001 before putting price controls on the market, which
immediately ended the large price spikes and rolling
blackouts and brought stability.
Since then, power use has fallen and prices on the short-
term market are about where they were before the energy run-
up of 2000 and 2001.
``It was a fallacy to blame this crisis on a lack of new
power plants,'' said Steven Klein, superintendent of Tacoma,
Wash.'s public utility, Tacoma Power. ``But it's a shame what
came of this. It put a dent in a lot of family budgets, and
forced some businesses to close.''
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in part the article says:
Here in Snohomish County, which has the highest energy
rates in the state, more than 14,000 customers have had their
electricity shut off for lack of payment this year--a 44
percent increase over 2001. They have seen electric rate
increases of 50 percent, as the Snohomish County Public
Utility District struggles to pay for long-term power
contracts it signed with companies like Enron at the height
of the price run-up . . .
``It's a pretty tough thing trying to explain to your 5-
year old kid why the lights won't come on anymore,'' said
Crystal Faye of Everett. ``I didn't pay much attention to all
that stuff about California and Enron, but it's certainly
come home to hurt us now.''
Ms. Faye and her husband, Rick, who are unemployed, have
had their power shut off twice this year.
Brianne Dorsey, a single mother, said she removed the
baseboard heater in home and has had to rely on a small wood
stove for heat, because she is $1,000 behind in paying her
electric bills . . .
Mr. President, this article details but two examples of the plight of
far too many Washington state citizens--where an estimated 295,000
households were eligible for LIHEAP even before the Western energy
crisis and economic downturn collided to exact such a devastating toll.
In 2002, while the Bush administration sat idly by, some 80 percent of
Washington State's eligible households received no LIHEAP assistance
whatsoever.
Of the 20 percent that did, 74 percent had children in the home, 14
percent of these households included disabled Americans, and 10 percent
included the elderly.
The amendment before us today sends a clear message: while the Bush
administration has turned a blind eye to the very real economic pain
being felt by our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--in my State, a
pain exacerbated by a very real energy emergency with its roots in the
western electricity crisis--this Congress must not turn its back. This
amendment would ensure that an additional 11,000 households in
Washington State, and many more through the Nation, would receive much-
needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on. I ask
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Rockefeller be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. (Ensign) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are in a position to enter
into a unanimous consent agreement relative to the Dodd amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending Dodd amendment be
temporarily set aside and that I be recognized in order to offer a
first-degree amendment relating to the same subject matter; provided
that there be 60 minutes of total debate to be equally divided between
Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd or their designees; provided, further,
that following the use or yielding back of time, the amendments be
temporarily set aside, with no amendments in order to either amendment
prior to the vote; finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate votes in relation to these amendments, the first vote in order
be in relation to the Gregg amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we know the
Senator is acting in good faith. We don't have a copy of this
amendment. We have a pretty good idea of what it is. We are confident
that we have a general understanding of the amendment. We believe this
would be appropriate.
We hope, when this debate is completed, that Senator Dayton will have
an opportunity to offer his amendment. He is scheduled to be here at 1
o'clock. Senator Inhofe is also here. But let us take one step at a
time. Therefore, we have no objection. Let me also say that debate on
this may not all be completed this afternoon. Senator Dodd would
reserve whatever time is left of his 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 78
(Purpose: To provide additional funding for special education programs)
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Dodd has offered an amendment which
increases special education funding by $1.5 billion. As an individual
who has spent a tremendous amount of time, after being elected to this
Senate, trying to bring special education funding in line with what the
obligation of the Federal Government is supposed to be pursuant to the
1976 bill, I like the idea of increasing special education funding and,
in fact, have driven the effort here in the Senate for many years to
try to do exactly that, increase special education funding.
[[Page 1447]]
When special education was originally proposed, as has been
mentioned, the understanding was that the Federal Government would pay
about 40 percent of the cost. Unfortunately, when I was first elected
to Congress, the Federal Government was only paying about 6 percent of
the cost of special education. But I think it is important to review
the history to determine where we are and how we have gotten there
relative to increases in special education funding because the
increases have been rather dramatic over the last few years. In fact,
as a result of the commitment of the Republican Senate, when we had
control of the Senate back in the 1990s--and now with President Bush--
we are seeing the most significant increases in special education
funding in the history of the program. Special education funding, as a
function of the Federal Government, has increased faster than any other
funding element within the Federal Government on a percentage basis.
So let's review the history.
When the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1996, we made S. 1
the first bill introduced by the new Republican Senate. S. 1 called for
significant increases in special education funding. As a result, we
have dramatically increased special education funding every year. That
is as a result of the Congress's effort, and now the President's
effort, to the point where we are up to, this year, $7.5 billion in
2002. It will be $8.5 billion in 2003. It will be $9.5 billion in 2004
if we follow the President's proposals.
This is an important factor because this funding commitment was made
by the Republican Congress, not by the prior administration. During
President Clinton's term in office, his proposed special education
budget increases were essentially nonexistent.
In the year 1997, he proposed a $280 million increase. In the year
1998, he proposed a $139 million increase. In the year 1999, he
proposed a zero increase in special education funding. In the year
2000, he proposed a zero increase in special education funding. But
during this exact period, special education funding went up, as I
mentioned, rather dramatically. Why? Because the Republican Members of
the Senate insisted upon it. We put it in our budget resolutions. We
passed it out of our budget resolutions. And as a result, we
dramatically increased funding in the special education accounts. There
has been a 224-percent increase in special education funding since
1996.
Then President Bush came into office. And to show the difference in
priorities from one administration to another administration, to show
the importance----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send his amendment to the
desk?
Mr. GREGG. I am going to send it up in a little while, Mr. President.
To show the difference in its importance in the two different
administrations and the impact it has on the special education
community in America, when President Bush came into office he did not
suggest a zero increase, as President Clinton had in 1999. In the year
2000, he suggested a $1 billion increase. That $1 billion increase was
in his first budget. He followed it up with another $1 billion increase
in his second budget. So now he was up $2 billion. And then, in the
year 2003, he has added another $1 billion increase. So he is now up $3
billion in 3 years, which is a 30-percent increase in just 3 years--
just in 3 years--over the funding baseline of special education.
So the commitment from this administration has been there and at a
level which is historic and has had a dramatic impact in the funding
needs of the special education children of America.
The practical implication is that the Federal Government's role has
now gone from about a 6-percent commitment to special education to
around 20 percent. It is a huge increase, a dramatic increase, and it
is on a rising path to full funding if we can get the cost of special
education under control, which brings me to the second point.
We are now in the process of trying to reauthorize the special
education bill within the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee. There are a lot of issues involving special education that
do not involve funding; issues such as discipline, in which the Senator
from Alabama has been involved; issues such as excessive regulation;
issues such as too many consultants, too many lawyers taking money out
of the system instead of having it go to the kids.
The fact is that the system has become convoluted, officious, and
bureaucratic. It needs to be adjusted, and it needs to be improved so
we are getting the money back to the children who need the assistance
as special needs children.
So reauthorization is very important in this whole context of what we
do. It is really difficult to continue to put money into the program at
these huge increased rates without doing reauthorization. Why is that?
Because it is like the goalposts keep moving every year.
We have seen, unfortunately, in some areas excessive coding, where
kids who should not end up with the stigma of special needs end up
being stigmatized as special needs children simply because the school
system wants to get more money out of the special education accounts.
That is not right and not appropriate, and it undermines the ability to
help the kids who really need the assistance.
So we need to reauthorize this bill to get some controls back in
place over how many children really are special needs children and make
sure those kids who really are special needs children get the
assistance they need, which brings us back to this amendment.
This amendment is well intentioned. I am in favor, as I have said
before on this floor, of doing proper prioritization, of saying: What
is it the Federal Government should be doing today? In what areas
should the Federal Government be putting its resources?
The No. 1 area, obviously, is fighting terrorism, protecting the
homeland, of making an aggressive effort in this area. Certainly the
Senator from Maryland, who is seeking the floor, has been a leader in
this effort. But the fact is, after we get into dealing with terrorism,
the next area that I think is most important is education. I think the
Federal commitment to education is critical. That is why I was a strong
supporter, last week, of an amendment which came to the floor which
said we are going to put $5 billion more into education, No Child Left
Behind proposals, title I, but in doing that we have to be willing to
prioritize. We have to be willing to recognize that this country--our
Federal Government--is now spending more than it is taking in. We have
to be willing to set a ceiling as to how much we can afford to spend
and then live within that ceiling.
But within that ceiling we need to make priorities back and forth
between what are the right programs, what programs should get more
money, what programs should get less money. We did that last week when
we adopted the amendment which said we are going to increase title I
funding, funding for the education of low-income kids, by $5 billion
but, in exchange for that, we are going to make an across-the-board
cut.
The Senator from Connecticut has come forward with this amendment to
jump, by another $1.5 billion, the funding that is already going into
special education. I am supportive of that, but, in the context of
allocating resources fairly, of saying, if we are going to make that
type of decision, that is a priority, and we have to reduce somewhere
else.
So what I am offering today, and what I will send to the desk, at the
request of the Presiding Officer, is an amendment which says, let's put
in the $1.5 billion in special education, but also have a cut across
the board so we stay within this $750 billion number, which is the
amount of money which we have all agreed to pretty much is a reasonable
number to spend as the Federal Government in the year 2003.
This $750 billion was not pulled out of a hat. It was aggressively
negotiated between both sides of the aisle and the White House. Prior
to the Republicans taking back the Senate, it was actually agreed to as
the number we would
[[Page 1448]]
reach in a bipartisan way. Now it seems to be eroding with some of the
amendments that are being brought forward. But as a practical matter,
it is the right number for us, as a Congress, to say: This is what we
can afford to spend in the year 2003. But that does not mean that
within that $750 billion we cannot make different priorities on the
floor of the Senate. I happen to think one of those priorities should
be special education.
Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be
reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 78.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place add the following:
``SEC. __. FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT.
In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act for support of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the following sum is appropriated out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for this
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000, which
is to remain available through September 30, 2004; Provided,
That, unless there is a separate and specific offset for any
amounts that are appropriated under Title III of Division G
for support of special education in excess of $9,691,424,000
for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the
percentage amount of any across-the-board rescission provided
under section 601 of Division N of this Act shall be
increased by the percentage amount necessary to rescind an
amount of funds equal to the total amounts appropriated in
excess of $9,691,424,000 for special education in Title III
of Division G.''
Mr. GREGG. This amendment is very simple. It says, let's set the
priorities of special education. Let's add, on top of the $1 billion
the President is putting in this year, which is on top of $1 billion he
put in last year, which was on top of $1 billion he put in the year
before, another $1.5 billion, but let's be responsible about it. Let's
take the money out of the other accounts, which represents a four-
tenths of 1 percent cut across the board on everybody, a very small
number, very doable, and let's do a responsible amendment here on
special education and take the increase of $1.5 billion and, in
exchange for getting that increase in special education, make the
across-the-board cut.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the
Senator from Maryland needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the Dodd amendment
which I believe is a first step to full funding for IDEA in 6 years.
The President has requested a billion dollar increase for IDEA. That
might sound like a lot, but at that rate, it will take 32 years to get
full funding for IDEA.
The administration is proposing tax breaks for zillionaires, and I
believe that is a misplaced priority. We don't need tax breaks for
those who do not need help while we are delaying help for those who
need it the most--the children with special needs, their parents, and
the teachers of the school system that wants to support them and make
sure they have the right educational program.
It is so disappointing that the Federal Government is not looking out
for the day-to-day needs of the American people. The Dodd amendment
increases IDEA by $1.5 billion. That is a total of $10 billion, $2.5
billion more than last year. Under the Dodd program, if we followed
that approach, we could fully fund IDEA in 6 years. What a great way to
get to the first decade of this new century.
The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of
educating children with disabilities, yet it has never paid more than
16 percent. That means local school districts have to make up the
difference, often by cutting educational programs or raising taxes.
Either one of those are unacceptable options. Full funding for special
education will give local governments the resources they need to
improve education for all children.
Everywhere I go in my home State, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it
regardless of the community, from the rural communities, whether it is
the mountain counties or the Eastern Shore, whether it is the suburban
counties which at first blush seem very prosperous and certainly my own
Baltimore city, from Democrats and Republicans, from fiscal
conservatives to social activists, they all talk about how the Federal
Government is not living up to its promise about special education. In
Maryland, on average, we get only 10 percent. Schools are suffering and
parents are worried.
If you talk to parents, they are under a lot of stress, sometimes
working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find daycare for
their kids or elder care for their parents. The Federal Government
should not add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. If
you have a special needs child with a chronic condition, whether it is
asthma or autism or Down's syndrome or juvenile diabetes, you have
significant stress in your family.
One of the ways to alleviate that stress is to make sure they have an
educational program they can count on and a local school system that
will be able to work to meet those needs. Parents have real questions
in their minds. Will they have adequate teachers? Will they have up-to-
date textbooks or technology? Will they be learning what they really
need to know? Parents of disabled children face a tough burden already.
Caring for a disabled child at any age can be exhausting. Just think
about what they have to do to pay for their prescription drugs, if you
are a juvenile diabetic. The federal government should not make it any
harder, particularly when the laws are already on the book to guarantee
their child an adequate education.
The bottom line is, the Federal Government is shortchanging parents,
children, and local school districts. By providing $1.5 billion more
than what is already in the legislation, we can fully fund this by
2009, freeing up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers,
textbooks, technology that would help schools improve education for all
children.
This will help children with disabilities and their families by
providing enough money. More money means parents have to worry less.
Full funding of IDEA is essential. We don't like being the Federal
nanny. We don't like being the Federal schoolmarm. This is not about a
new program with a new bureaucracy and new regs and new mandates. This
is about living up to our promise, the promise to the children, the
promise to their parents, and the promise to the local community that
we will meet our responsibility if we give an obligation to a school
district.
I think the Dodd amendment is a terrific idea, and I want to support
it.
The Senator from New Hampshire also says we need to take a look at
special education--no two ways about it. In my home State, there is a
disproportionate number of African-American young men and Latino young
men being placed into special education. Is it the right place or is it
the wrong assessment? I don't know. But what I do know is there are
challenges to the legislation that we need to address, new thinking for
a new century, particularly with new technology breakthroughs.
If you are a mom or a dad, you are exhausted from meeting your family
needs, and the least we can do is help bear the financial cost while
they are coming out with what is the best plan and sharing the
emotional responsibility, the family responsibility. It is time we have
some Federal responsibility.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
[[Page 1449]]
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for some years now I have been active in
the debate over the Individuals with Disabilities Act. It is a program
that has provided tremendous benefit to thousands of families. Children
get extraordinary care with the most severe disabilities in our public
schools. At one hearing in the Education Committee, the superintendent
from a school system in Vermont stated that 20 percent of his budget
goes to IDEA.
We have a serious problem with discipline. I have offered amendments
and this Senate has passed amendments to deal with that discipline, the
weaknesses in the IDEA act allowing a child whose misbehavior is
unconnected in any way to the disability that they may have to be
treated quite differently from the other kids in the schools, making
teachers and principals extremely upset and frustrated, knowing they
have a dual standard of behavior in their school systems.
I suggest to anybody that they talk to principals and teachers and
superintendents who run school systems. They will tell you this act
needs to be reformed.
It is, in fact, a Federal mandate. It is a requirement on State
systems mandated by the Federal Government. It is time for us to do our
share of fixing the funding of it. I don't disagree with that. We need
to get that 40 percent, as Senator Dodd indicated, paid. We need to
honor that commitment when they started this Federal regulation. But we
also need to reform the law. It has resulted in extraordinary lawsuits,
bizarre results in the classroom and a trend of teachers leaving the
system. A poll in Washington State indicated that 50 percent of special
education teachers expected not to be in the profession in 5 years.
We don't get reform here very often. We need to couch the huge
increase that is due to this program as part of a reform of IDEA. It is
up for reauthorization this year. We are talking about it, working on
it. I hope we can bring some real reform to the program. But we agree
as a Congress on a $750 billion budget limit. We agreed on that, and it
is easier to cast those political votes--one more vote in favor of one
more spending program outside the budget agreement that we had--just
spend, spend, spend. Then we wonder why we didn't stick to our agreed
limit, why we have deficits.
The education budget went up significantly this year--about 10
percent. It has been going up significantly in the last 3 years. We are
spending a large amount of money, and more each year, on education at a
level probably three or four times the inflation rate. So, to the
contrary, we are spending money on education.
I think Senator Gregg's amendment is precisely correct. His amendment
says let's put the money in the area of education the Federal
Government dominates, the area that in effect the Federal Government
has taken over--the regulations that direct schoolteachers and
principals and superintendents and board members to run their schools
in certain ways. Dealing with disabilities is a Federal regulation. We
ought to at least meet the 40-percent promise we made in 1975. So I
think the perfect solution to this, as Senator Gregg said, is let's
take the overall education budget, which has large increases throughout
that system--let's take that $1.5 billion from those other programs
that have received increases, shift it to the IDEA program, and give
them a bigger boost than we have. I really believe that is the right
thing to do.
Mr. President, is my time up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have visited 30 or more schools in my
State in the last 3 years. I have talked to teachers and principals on
a regular basis, and they express their frustration to me on this
subject. As Senator Mikulski indicated, she is hearing that and other
Senators around the country have said the same thing to me. One
experienced special education teacher told me: Jeff, the problem is, we
are here working on rules and regulations, lawsuits, and that sort of
thing, and we have completely forgotten what is in the best interest of
the child. We need to reform this act. We need to get more money for it
and improve what we are doing so that we help children more than based
on the money we now have.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains under the amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 minutes, 45 seconds.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 10 minutes. Will the Senator
notify me when that is up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to express some thoughts. I thank my
colleagues for, once again, reconfirming support for the special
education program. That is heartening. As the Senator from Maryland
pointed out, of course, if we follow the plan of the present occupant
of the White House, we will be talking about three decades more--we
will have to wait a longer time than we have waited to complete the 40-
percent requirement that we have already endured.
So if you are a mayor or a county executive or a Governor, you can
take real heart in the fact that for about the next three decades we
will be at this debate on getting full funding--if we rely on the
administration's plans.
I will remind my colleagues once again that this body and the
previous Congress voted unanimously for a full funding program over the
next 6 years for special education. It was the administration--the
present administration--and the leadership of the other body--the
Republican leadership--that killed the proposal the Senate unanimously
supported. That is where we are. Those are the facts as we find them
today. We can go back and revisit history if you want, but the fact is
that the Governors and mayors out there may find a history lesson
interesting, but they want to know what we are going to do. What is
this administration going to do? What has this administration done?
What is the Republican leadership in the Senate and House going to have
to do if we are going to meet the obligations we talk about?
So what we have here--as the Senator from New Hampshire suggests he
will support--is the $1.5 billion. He is going to do so by adding
further to the across-the-board cuts in domestic spending--adding to
the impact of the already 2.9 percent across-the-board cuts. I will
share with my colleagues what this means.
Now, $1.5 billion is not a huge amount as a percentage--whatever it
is, four-tenths of 1 percent. Add that, if you will, to the 2.9. The
WIC Program will be cut by $137 million as a result of the 2.9-percent
cut. The Food Safety Inspection Service will be cut by $22 million. The
Food and Drug Administration will be cut by $40 million under these
proposals. State-Justice-Commerce will be cut by $113 million in
spending.
Go down to Head Start. This analysis shows what the 2.9-percent cut
means in energy and water issues--there it is, a $239 million cut;
environmental management, $203 million. There is a whole list of
programs, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Mississippi River
Tributaries Program. If you look at Head Start, $63 million will be
cut. Air traffic control--that ought to be good news for those who
worry about domestic terrorism; transportation security, Coast Guard
will be cut by $72 million. The VA-HUD--veterans take note--has $903
million in cuts; VA medical care, $692 million in cuts. So go ahead and
add four-tenths of 1 percent to the already 2.9.
I don't hear anybody talking about a slight cut in the $670 billion
tax cut in all we are proposing here. Then my colleagues say we will
take your $1.5 billion, but we are going to give a ``haircut'' to every
other domestic spending program except the tax cut, which goes to the
top 1 or 2 percent of income earners. I represent a State that has
probably a greater percentage of those income earners than almost any
other State in the country. I can say with certainty that my
constituents--those included, by the way--who would be the
beneficiaries of this tax cut would tell you that at this particular
juncture that kind of a tax cut, given the fiscal needs of this
country, is unwise.
[[Page 1450]]
When my colleagues say we are going to make everybody pay a price, we
are going to make that haircut of 2.9 percent, including the budget
cuts I have suggested, and add this to it, just make sure you
understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about a tax
cut which taxes revenues over the table--I am not suggesting there
isn't room for a tax cut. But how about including that in the proposal?
Why is that particular area always left out and all we talk about are
the domestic programs that affect families so strongly?
I guarantee you, by the way, as you start looking at Head Start, the
WIC Program, food safety programs, while you are providing $1.5 billion
in special education needs and simultaneously cutting back on these
other programs, it is not uncommon for the same family and the same
child to be the recipient on one hand of the 1.5, and simultaneously
getting food in the WIC Program, food safety programs, and the Head
Start programs.
Again, I don't know how you can sit here and look at a child who has
autism or is suffering from juvenile diabetes, Down's Syndrome, or
other special education needs and say: I am sorry we cannot touch the
tax cuts, but you are going to have to take this cut in other areas.
When my colleagues offer their side-by-side amendment and suggest yet
further cuts, I think that is cruel. I think it is unnecessary. I think
there are ways of doing this without going after some of these very
issues that are so critically important to the well-being of our
Nation. They have a lot to do with the economic security of our country
as well.
We need to have a balanced approach. So, Mr. President, we will have
a debate further along in this year on full funding again. I only hope
the administration changes its view from the last Congress. I will
reiterate what I said earlier. Governors and mayors list this as their
top priority. Mr. Governor or Mr. Mayor, when the first amendment is
voted on and we are telling you, by the way, we are going to help you
out in special education, hold your breath because we are
simultaneously reaching into your other pocket and causing you to raise
taxes or cut other vital spending needs you may have because we are
reaching in to rob you of the necessary resources you need as well to
run your States and your communities. It is a cruel hoax, in a way, we
are laying out before people.
I am not opposed to looking at reform efforts. We had a fine effort
in 1997--some of my colleagues have forgotten this already--to look at
the special education programs. Again, with the reauthorization, I
presume we will look at them again. I certainly welcome that. Anytime
we have a program such as IDEA, close examination of how well it is
working, whether or not the intended beneficiaries are receiving the
resources they need, is something we ought to do. It is the only
responsible thing to do.
Let's not simultaneously suggest that we are going to have to wait
for examination before we provide the resources to the States and
communities. They do not have a chance of waiting. They have to provide
for these children under existing law. Congress mandated it 28 years
ago, and we have only gotten to 15, 16 percent of that 40-percent
commitment.
The $1.5 billion in this amendment gets us a little closer to the 40-
percent commitment. It raises and provides the resources to these
communities for the fiscal year we are in already. We will come back
again later in this Congress to see if we can get full funding set up
in a way which we did a year and a half ago.
When the vote occurs on this amendment, there are two options: One,
to provide the $1.5 billion while going after domestic spending
programs, along the lines I mentioned already or, second, we can say we
can do it and find the means of doing it, and one of the means is to
reduce by a small amount the tax cut the President intends to provide
for people in the country. The point being that most of the recipients
of this tax cut are people who have incomes in excess of $250,000.
Tell that to a family with an autistic child. Tell that to a family
with a child who has Down's Syndrome or serious learning disabilities:
Sorry, we would like to provide that kind of help you need, but, you
see, we have an obligation to provide a tax break to someone making
$300,000, $400,000 a year. We cannot just quite meet the obligation to
you. I know we made a promise to do it. We said 28 years ago we would
do it. We are up to 15 percent of that obligation. By the way, if you
wait another 33 years, we will complete that obligation, 60 years after
we made the promise. Then we will get you your resources because we
cannot afford to give you the help you need without cutting everything
else in the domestic area. Of course, we cannot touch the tax cut for
the most affluent Americans.
I do not know of anyone outside the people in this town who believe
in the logic of that argument. Nonetheless, watch and see what happens
when we vote on this amendment. That is exactly what will happen. Go
home and explain why we have to cut into these other areas to serve
needy kids in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 10 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 1 additional minute. I repeat
what I said earlier, this is not the America of which people think. We
are blessed with great resources. We ought to have the common sense to
find a balance, to see to it we meet our obligations when we make them;
that we try to help those who are least able to help themselves and
their families.
I underscore the point the Senator from Maryland made a few moments
ago. Families of children with special needs face incredible pressures,
especially those making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000,
$60,000. There are incredible pressures within that family. Why is it
we cannot find the resources to help our States, our Governors, our
county executives to do more to help these children?
Reforming the process, I am all for that. But the only way we can
help is to go after the WIC Program, the Head Start Program, food
safety programs, and the like? That I do not understand, and I defy my
colleagues to ask an average American to explain it as well. They do
not understand it when they hear that argument or we are going to wait
another 33 years to meet the obligations under this program.
I feel passionately about this issue; I care deeply about this issue
because it is the role that Government ought to play. When I look at
families in my State and across the country--and I know the pressures
they are feeling and what a small amount it is to offer some relief--
just some relief--to the families feeling this heat and pressure, the
anxiety it causes--I do not understand that we cannot step up and meet
the obligation because we cannot touch a tax cut that goes to the most
affluent citizens of this country. I do not understand that situation.
I hope my colleagues do not either. When the vote occurs tomorrow, I
hope we will support the amendment that provides assistance but does
not do so off the backs of people who can least afford it in the
country.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority. I
ask unanimous consent that the consent request with respect to the
Edwards amendment be modified to the Senate resuming consideration of
the amendment at 2:15 p.m., with the previous provision still
applicable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has reserved
his time, as has the Senator from New Hampshire. I am going to suggest
the absence of a quorum and, shortly thereafter, call it off with hopes
we can move to the Dayton amendment and set aside the pending
amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada does not control the
time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that
Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd have remaining be preserved and the
quorum
[[Page 1451]]
call, which I will make immediately, not be charged to their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming is here and wishes to
speak on the Edwards amendment. Under the order we just entered, that
is not to recur until 2:15 p.m. If the Senator wishes to speak, we can
take him out of order, if Senator Dayton is willing to wait 10 minutes
while the Senator from Wyoming speaks.
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside; that Senator Dayton be recognized to
offer an amendment on corporate expatriation; and that following his
recognition, Senator Thomas be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on
the Edwards amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he will simply seek
recognition and send his amendment to the desk, then Senator Thomas
will be recognized to speak for 10 minutes.
Amendment No. 80
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 80.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an
amendment numbered 80.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
296) to provide that waivers of certain prohibitions on contracts with
corporate expatriates shall apply only if the waiver is essential to
the national security, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC __. CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Senator Paul Wellstone Corporate Patriotism Act of 2003''.
(b) Limitation on Waivers.--Section 835 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Waivers.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to any specific contract if the President certifies
to Congress that the waiver is essential to the national
security.''.
(c) Expanded Coverage of Entities.--Section 835(a) of such
Act is amended by inserting ``nor any directly or indirectly
held subsidiary of such entity'' after ``subsection (b)''.
(d) Section 835(b)(1) of such act is amended by inserting
``before, on, or'' after ``completes.''
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Amendment No. 67
Mr. THOMAS. I rise to talk for a few minutes about an amendment that
is pending. It has to do with the New Source Review rider. It is an
amendment which would, in effect, negate or postpone a proposed change
in rules that have been proposed by the administration that I think are
very important to our efforts collectively to increase the more
effective production of electricity and energy, and to do it in a way
that contributes to clean air. I believe this New Source Review
proposal does that.
The Senator from North Carolina has an amendment which would prevent
the final rules from taking place. He indicates that, in his view, it
would prevent backsliding from the administration. He also indicates he
considers it an insider's industry benefit.
I suggest that neither of these allegations is valid. In fact, what
is happening is a change that will remove the obstacles to
environmentally beneficial projects, clarify the New Source Review
requirements, encourage emissions reductions, promote pollution
prevention, provide incentives for energy efficiency improvements, and
help assure worker and plant safety. Those are the things that are
involved.
To some extent, I think this amendment has a little bit to do with
2004 in that it is seen as the President's gift to polluters. Of
course, that is not the case.
The proposed rider is premature and ignores the public involvement
already inherent in this New Source Review reform process. In December
of 2002, the EPA issued a final rule that includes actions previously
proposed by and substantially similar to those put forward by the
Clinton administration. These actions are supported by a bipartisan
consensus after extensive public involvement over more than 10 years. A
separate proposed rule on issues related to routine maintenance,
repair, and replacement will undergo a full public review and EPA
analysis before it can take effect. Thus, it is clearly premature at
this time to stop this open rulemaking process by rider before the
process even begins.
A proposed rider is bad energy and environmental policy. The
complexity of the current New Source Review program and its related
burdens create significant disincentives to new investment in energy-
efficient and environmentally friendly technologies that are being
proposed.
The NSR reforms should allow facilities where actual emissions remain
within permitted levels to make operating adjustments and explore
alternative fuel and resource choices that will help them meet energy
and product needs in the most efficient, cost-effective,
environmentally sound manner possible.
A proposed rider will negatively impact more than 22,000 industrial
facilities across the country. The New Source Review program affects
utilities, refineries, and manufacturers around the country that form
the backbone of our Nation's economy. In the current economic climate,
we need sensible reforms that streamline regulatory programs while
providing fundamental environmental protection that allows companies to
improve energy efficiency, environmental performance, and economic
competitiveness.
A proposed rider would impede a State's ability to implement
effective clean air programs. The National Governors Association, the
National Conference of State Legislators, Environmental Council of the
States, and several State attorneys general have called for NSR reforms
that enhance the environment and increase energy security.
The keys to improving air quality and energy security are innovation
and investment. The final and proposed NSR rules will help promote
safer, cleaner, and more efficient factories, refineries, and
powerplants.
Many groups have supported the idea of making these kinds of changes.
Interestingly enough, the National Black Chamber of Commerce has
indicated in a letter the proposed revisions to the Clean Air Act's New
Source Review previously provided a meaningful compromise to economic
growth and the assurance of clean air and continued public health
protection.
Such an amendment that is now before us, they continue, impedes
progress in reforming a well-intended program that has, over the years,
unintended consequences.
Another group which is a cooperative in Montana, with membership of
over 325,000, says: We know many environmental groups oppose NSR
reform, but NSR reform will actually move forward quicker in adopting
more modern and efficient environmental technologies and procedures.
These are some of the testimonies that say we ought to continue with
the proposal that has been made to allow refiners to be able to make
improvements on existing facilities that will improve the environment
and will continue to provide for efficient energy production.
I urge that the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina
not be received by the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
[[Page 1452]]
Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 15 minutes to
make my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 80
Mr. DAYTON. President Bush's announced tax proposal expressed concern
over the double taxation of corporate profits. I wish he would express
an equal concern about the nontaxation of corporate profits.
It is estimated that currently less than half of corporate profits
are taxed in this country. There are various tax and accounting
gimmicks that have permitted very profitable companies to not only have
no tax liabilities but even receive multimillion-dollar refunds from
the American taxpayers.
Take CSX, for example, which until recently has been headed by the
President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow. In the
last 4 years, CSX reported U.S. profits of $934 billion, and they paid
zero in U.S. corporate taxes. In fact, they received rebates of $164
billion.
I will repeat that. They made $934 billion in U.S. profits, paid no
taxes, and received a $164 billion refund. That is certainly not double
taxation. That is not even single taxation. That is no taxation, and it
is a bigger winner on Wall Street to inflate corporate profits at the
expense of the rest of American taxpayers. It is one of the reasons
corporate income tax has been a declining share of Federal tax revenues
in the last 40 years. In 1960, corporations paid 23 percent of all
Federal tax revenues. Last year, that dropped to 9.5 percent, less than
half of the share that corporations paid 40 years ago.
It used to be the ethic that business, being an integral part of the
communities in which they operated, drawing their lifeblood from the
American people and from the democratic and capitalist structures which
hallmark this country, had an obligation to give something back. Not
any longer.
An Ernst & Young partner recently noted:
A lot of companies feel that the improvement on earnings is
powerful enough that maybe the patriotism issue should take a
back seat.
One of the most outrageous and obscene tax avoidance schemes is many
United States companies are setting up sham corporate headquarters
offshore in places such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. These tax-
free havens permit the total avoidance of U.S. taxes on foreign
operations and, in some cases, on domestic operations as well.
In the nonpartisan journal, Tax Notes, a recent calculation was made
that from 1983 to 1999 the profits that the largest 10,000 U.S.
corporations claimed to have earned in these tax havens increased by
over 7 times. Today, that means well over $100 billion in corporate
profits are shifted each year from the United States to these tax-free
havens--no taxes paid on them and, as I have said before, sometimes
even refunds. It is bad enough those companies can evade U.S. taxes but
some even continue to secure very large and lucrative contracts with
the Federal Government, even in the areas of national defense and
homeland security. Evidently these corporations--the executives who run
them, the boards that oversee them--see nothing wrong with profiting
off of the U.S. Government and then avoiding paying taxes on even those
profits in order to support our Government.
That is why last summer my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, had
amended the 2002 Defense appropriations bill to bar such corporate tax
dodgers from being awarded Government defense contracts. Then he
successfully had amended the homeland security bill to bar those
companies from getting contracts with the new Department of Homeland
Security. Both of those amendments passed the Senate seemingly
unanimously on voice votes.
However, after the November election, and after Paul Wellstone's
tragic death, the final version of the homeland security bill gutted
the Wellstone amendment. Senator Wellstone's amendment, which he
crafted with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from
Nevada, Mr. Reid, provided a narrow exception to this prohibition. That
was if the President of the United States certified to Congress that it
would be necessary for our national security.
When the bill came back this provision was gutted and the
substitution made known to those who had to vote on it that day. They
stuck in language that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security
to grant waivers for national security or economic benefits. Just about
any kind of economic benefit whatever could be waived and argued by the
Secretary: preventing loss of Government, preventing the Government
from incurring any additional costs, anything and everything that you
could contrive, you could avoid if you could pay a high-priced
Washington lobbyist $1,000 an hour or more, euphemistically called
government relations. No doubt those waivers would be granted and the
legacy of my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, would be obliterated by
waves of waivers, which is why we need more Paul Wellstones in
Washington.
To honor Senator Wellstone's memory, I proposed this amendment, which
I called the Senator Paul Wellstone corporate patriotism amendment. It
reinstates the Wellstone language to the Homeland Security Act. It
says, once again, corporations that renounce their American citizenship
and have moved offshore to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government
will not get business contracts from the Government, at least not for
homeland security projects.
My language makes it as forceful and explicit as possible. It states
that the President may waive subsection (A) of the prohibition if the
President certifies the waiver is essential to national security.
Frankly, I cannot see any reason there should be waivers granted in
this section. That is the least we can do for the memory of Paul
Wellstone. That is the least we can do for our country.
Frankly, most U.S. corporations, as most American citizens, are law
abiding, patriotic, responsible, and willing to do their job, including
pay taxes, to keep this country strong. No one likes paying taxes.
Americans have been antitaxation since colonial days, since the Boston
Tea Party, since the rallying cry, ``taxation without representation is
tyranny.''
But taxes are necessary for our country's survival. We have increased
our military spending by 23 percent in the last 2 years, with
bipartisan support regarding the President's request, and we have new
efforts underway in homeland security costing an additional $37
million. Some Members last week thought we should be spending even more
in that area. We have Operation Enduring Freedom still underway in
Afghanistan and a military buildup now for possible war against Iraq.
That has to be paid for with our tax dollars. It does not include
highways and airports, sewer water systems, public education, student
aid, health care, nursing homes. This always depends, again, on
Americans paying taxes. It ought to depend on everyone paying their
fair share of taxes--individuals and corporations.
When someone avoids paying their fair share, then everyone else has
to pay a higher share. When one corporation making profits can shift
its profits overseas and avoid paying taxes, everyone else has to pick
up that part.
I wish we could establish again in this country the ethic that tax
avoidance is unpatriotic. It is un-American, especially at a time such
as this with national mobilization, especially in this country since
September 11 of 2001, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable
future. If the executives and board members of these expatriated
companies can so shamelessly abandon their U.S. corporate citizenship,
maybe they should forfeit their citizenship as well. I intend to
introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would require just
that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This tax
cheating will destroy the great golden goose of America. We send our
young men and women overseas to risk their lives or even give their
lives for our country, while men--mostly men and a few women--send
their corporations overseas to evade taxes. What a disgrace. What a
shame that the greatness
[[Page 1453]]
of this country is being undermined by placing profits and corporate
and individual greed over the best interests of the United States of
America.
This amendment meant a lot to my friend and colleague, Senator
Wellstone. He was surprised but delighted that the Senate, on two
occasions, passed this amendment by a voice vote. Had Paul lived, I
would have enjoyed watching the fur fly that day in November when this
bill came back to the Senate with this provision gutted. But Paul is
not here, so it is incumbent upon all of us to take that stand for him
and with him. If it was good enough last year to be passed by the
Senate, I cannot imagine why anyone who supported it then would change
their mind now. In fact, there is even more reason than before to stand
behind America, stand behind the belief that we all contribute our
share, do our share, and no one avoids their share. That is what makes
us successful.
Mr. REID. I would like to ask the Senator a question. I personally
appreciate the Senator stepping forward. It should come from the State
of Minnesota. Senator Wellstone believed in this strongly.
I remember the Senator advocating this. When I think of our friend
Paul and his untimely death in the terrible airplane crash, I feel
badly. I feel good about your moving forward with this amendment that
Paul and I worked on together in the Senate. It is a modest amendment.
The Senator recognizes, does he not, that this amendment does not
apply to nonhomeland security or defense contracts? Maybe we will do
something about these companies later. I don't believe they should be
able to have a contract with Health and Human Services, with the
Department of the Interior, or any of the Federal agencies. However, we
have limited this amendment to homeland security and defense. Does the
Senator acknowledge that?
Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is correct. The Senator was instrumental in
working with Senator Wellstone on the floor and myself to craft this
amendment. It is narrowly focused.
Mr. REID. The Senator would also acknowledge, would he not, that this
is not a permanent ban. All they have to do is say let me do what I
should have done in the first place, just pay American taxes.
Mr. DAYTON. Come home.
Mr. REID. There are all kinds of reincorporations that take place
every day in corporate America. They could simply reincorporate in
Delaware or Nevada or Minnesota or any place they felt appropriate and
they would be right back, being able to get all the contracts they
want.
Mr. DAYTON. They would be right back, as the Senator said, where they
were before, headquartered in the United States of America, paying
taxes on their U.S. profits rather than creating a sham. These are not
real entities; these are fictions just for the sake of tax evasion.
Mr. REID. My third inquiry to the Senator from Minnesota: I know some
of our friends who are lobbyists, as you have indicated, public
relations representatives--I think, with a straight face they really
would have trouble advocating for this. Would the Senator acknowledge
that?
Mr. DAYTON. I would, also.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator's attention.
Mr. President, tax loopholes allow dozens of U.S. corporations to
move their headquarters, but they move them on paper only, to tax haven
countries to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. It was just a
short time ago that Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment to bar
the Department of Homeland Security from awarding Government contracts
to these corporate tax runaways. The Senate adopted that amendment
unanimously. But in the homeland security bill that passed the last
little bit that we were here last year, they cut this amendment.
It is a sad reality that these corporate expatriations are
technically legal under current law. But legal or not, there is no
reason U.S. Government contracts should be awarded to these tax
runaways. These are lucrative Government contracts and we should not
reward these companies for doing what they have done.
Senator Wellstone and I believed these corporations, if they want
Federal contracts so badly, they should simply come home, come back to
the United States and be eligible to bid on homeland security
contracts. If they didn't want to do that, then they should go lobby,
for example, the Government of Canada or Bermuda or the Cayman Islands
for contracts there.
Some of these companies have indicated: We have been in business in
America for a long time. They should stay in business in America. These
corporations are shams. We have companies that file paperwork, set up
not one but sometimes more than one corporation. One company has three
British employees in a little office in Hamilton, Bermuda, but by
having these three individuals in Hamilton, Bermuda, they can avoid
paying up to $40 million every year in U.S. income taxes.
This bill would forbid foreign corporations involved in these
transactions from holding Government contracts with the Defense
Department and Department of Homeland Security. It would not restrict
major corporations operating in the United States from winning millions
of dollars from the Government in contracts.
I am not going to pinpoint companies. I have read on the Senate floor
just a few months ago the names of these companies that are doing these
things. This amendment will finally correct the record and accomplish
what Senator Wellstone worked for last year. It should have been a
priority in the legislation to guarantee the Department of Homeland
Security booked its business with corporations that do their share of
bearing the burdens of protecting this country. What they have done is
they are bearing the burden to protect their own companies, not their
own country. The homeland security law is more concerned with window
dressing on this issue because what is in the homeland security bill
still allows these companies to have huge Government contracts,
homeland security contracts.
One contract I have here, $144,844,000 is what they are getting, even
though they have incorporated in Bermuda.
Another company, not as large as the first, but almost $5 million. We
have another company, $6 million; $17 million; another company, $249
million; another company, $2 million; $248 million--it is on and on
with these what I would think would be embarrassing to them. Apparently
it is not embarrassing enough that they pay corporate taxes in the
United States like other companies.
I again extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota for this
amendment and I hope the many people who are in favor of this
legislation will speak in favor of the legislation and we can have a
resounding vote like we did when it passed unanimously last year. This
would be one way to honor the dignity of Paul Wellstone.
Mr. DAYTON. If I may inquire of my friend, the Senator from Nevada,
regarding the last statement, can the Senator think of anything that
would be a better tribute to Senator Wellstone's memory than passing
this amendment and insisting the Senate conferees uphold it and the
President sign it into law?
Mr. REID. I would answer my friend by saying Senator Wellstone, as we
know, stood for the small guy. He was concerned about those people who
did not have the large lobbying contracts. I think the Senator from
Minnesota is absolutely right. The senior Senator from Minnesota is
right in that this amendment would help a lot of the small people--
small in stature, big in character, like Paul Wellstone--the people
Paul Wellstone would try to protect. That is because people who are not
paying these taxes prevent us from providing more money for LIHEAP, for
which he advocated all the time. It would allow us to provide more
money for education, which he talked about, and he could do that
because he was a college professor. It would allow more money for the
global AIDS epidemic that he talked about.
This money that these corporations are not paying is more money that
[[Page 1454]]
other taxpayers have to come up with. We have expenses that have to be
met. We have programs that have to be funded. This amendment would
force some of these unpatriotic companies into being more patriotic.
They would be more patriotic because they would be forced to be more
patriotic. If they want to have Government contracts with the Homeland
Security Department and Homeland Defense Department, they would have to
be patriotic.
So I answer the question with a resounding yes. This would mean a lot
to Paul Wellstone, that his legacy is not forgotten, nor the things for
which he fought.
A lot of these things he fought for alone. I can remember this issue
that he was beaten up on pretty good on the Senate floor--until he was
able to talk and explain. Like many of the things that Paul Wellstone
brought out of the dark into the light, in the light of day it all
looked better. I hope we all support this the way we did before.
This is an important amendment and I repeat, it would honor one of
the most courageous people I have ever known--physically and
intellectually--Paul Wellstone.
Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is absolutely correct about the price we pay
when these companies avoid their share of taxes. The Tax Notes journal
estimated over $100 billion in corporate profits now go untaxed because
of these offshore tax evasions. Even 20 percent, the tax rate on that,
which is below the corporate rate but after deductions and exclusions
probably is close to what tax-paying corporations pay, that would cover
the cost of the 40-percent funding for special education that Senator
Dodd was discussing with Senator Gregg a few minutes ago. There it
would be right there. We could keep that promise to Minnesota's
schoolchildren, Nevada's schoolchildren, and all the schoolchildren in
the school districts across this country. It would not require raising
anybody's taxes by a single dollar, if those who were evading them
would pay their share.
I think it is shameful. I think it is un-American, unpatriotic, and
it ought to be illegal. I particularly look forward to a discussion at
some point, as I said, about legislation I intend to introduce that
says if corporate executives and corporate boards are going to send
these corporations overseas, they should go overseas themselves. If
they think it is such an advantage to be in the Cayman Islands or
Bermuda they should go live there themselves. If they are going to
renounce their corporate citizenship, let them renounce their own
citizenship as well, and they will suffer the consequences maybe then
they will stop and think about how fortunate we are to live in this
country and how it is only by all of us doing our fair share that this
country keeps strong and secure.
Mr. REID. If I could respond to my colleague through the Chair, let
me say the defense of this previously was that these are just good
lawyers, good tax men. This is the way the law is written so why
shouldn't they take advantage of it?
What the Senator from Minnesota and I are trying to do is change the
law so that this is not this tax loophole. We know and people know that
there are lots of tax loopholes. They are hard to plug because of the
huge lobby which they have. We try to plug them. The ones that benefit
are some of the largest corporations in America--I am sorry to say--
avoiding billions of dollars in taxes. It is not fair. They reply by
saying, well, these people have good lawyers and good accountants. That
doesn't justify what they are doing. In fact, it even signifies that we
need to do this as quickly as possible to stop these people from doing
this and make it easier for the rest of the people in America who are
paying their fair share.
Mr. DAYTON. As the Senator knows, a lot of small- and medium-sized
businesses don't have the options. Certainly the average American
citizen paying taxes doesn't have the option to move to Bermuda or the
Cayman Islands and not claim any tax liability whatsoever. It is
shameful that those most profitable that can most easily afford to pay
their share are avoiding them entirely and dumping that burden on
everyone else.
As the Senator said, this would be one small step in the right
direction of returning to an ethic where those who are making profits
pay their taxes. If we all do that in a fair way, then everybody's
taxes go down. If somebody is avoiding taxes, then somebody else's
taxes go up.
I thank the Senator again for his support and assistance with this
matter. I know in this matter that Senator Paul Wellstone could not
have stood alone last year, and the Senator from Nevada was with him
shoulder to shoulder every step of the way.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are waiting now until 2:30 when Senator
Inhofe is to appear. We understand he will close with the Edwards
amendment.
We want the Record to be spread with the fact that we have done
everything we can to move this legislation along. We were ready to go
early this morning. We had to wait until the other side was ready to
move on the bill. We have done our best to plug all the timeslots that
have been in existence this morning. I want the Record to reflect that
we are doing nothing to slow this down.
I see Senator Inhofe is here now. If he is ready to speak, we could
move the 2:30 time up to whatever time is appropriate for the chairman
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield, I
thought I would get to the floor at 2:15.
Mr. REID. The Senator was scheduled for 2:30. We are ready now.
I am to be corrected. I was told by the floor staff that I was wrong
and the Senator is right. It is 2:15. We don't need to change anything.
We ask unanimous consent to return to the Edwards amendment. I think
that is the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Amendment No. 86 to Amendment No. 67
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as many of you know, in March of 2001,
Senator Breaux and I wrote the first congressional letter on the New
Source Review Program to Vice President Cheney in his capacity at that
time as chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Our
letter stated that, unless reformed ``EPA's flawed and confusing NSR
policies will continue to interfere with our Nation's ability to meet
our energy and fuel supply needs.''
At this point in my presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have
that letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, March 23, 2001.
Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
Vice President of the United States of America, The White
House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Vice President: In your capacity as the Chairman
of the National Energy Policy Development Group, we are
writing to bring to your attention our concerns that, unless
addressed, the prior administration's EPA's New Source Review
(``NSR'') enforcement policies will continue to interfere
with our nation's ability to meet our energy and fuel supply
needs. We strongly urge that the Administration take into
account these concerns in developing its national energy
plan.
As you are very much aware, the nation faces a potential
energy supply shortage of significant dimension. The
California energy crisis is receiving the greatest attention
in the media. However, major challenges exist in meeting
demands for gasoline and other fuels, especially in the
Midwest. More troubling, current projections suggest fuel
shortages and price spikes--far exceeding last year's
problem. These are due to a number of factors including:
difficulties in making summer-blend Phase II reformulated
gasoline; EPA hurdles to expanding refinery capacity; and the
overall increase in energy demand.
Unless reviewed and addressed, EPA's implementation of NSR
permitting requirements will continue to thwart the nation's
ability to maintain and expand refinery capacity to meet fuel
requirements. In 1998, EPA embarked on an overly aggressive
initiative in which it announced new interpretations of its
NSR requirements that it has applied retroactively to create
a basis for alleging that actions by electric utilities,
refineries and other industrial sources taken over the past
20 years should have been permitted under the federal NSR
program. We
[[Page 1455]]
also understand that these new interpretations conflict with
EPA's regulations, its own prior interpretations and actions,
and State permitting agency decisions.
EPA's actions have been premised heavily on its
reinterpretation of two elements of the NSR permitting
requirements. First, EPA's regulations specifically exempt
``routine maintenance, repair and replacement'' activities
from NSR permitting. EPA now claims that projects required to
be undertaken by utilities and refineries over the past 20
years to maintain plants and a reliable supply of electricity
and fuels were not routine and thus should have gone through
the 18-month, costly NSR permitting process. EPA's
enforcement officials are asserting this even though, for
more than two decades, EPA staff have had full knowledge that
these maintenance, repair and replacement projects were not
being permitted.
A second ground for many of EPA's claims has to do with
whether projects resulted in significant emissions increases.
By employing a discredited method for determining whether
emissions increases would result from a project-using so
called ``potential emissions'' instead of actual emissions,
EPA is asserting that numerous projects resulted in emission
increases when in reality they had no effect on emissions or
were followed by emissions decreases.
EPA's NSR interpretations have created great uncertainty as
to whether projects long recognized to be excluded from NSR
permitting can be undertaken in the coming months to assure
adequate and reliable energy supplies. Electric utilities and
refineries have expected that they could undertake
maintenance activities, modest plant expansions, and
efficiency improvements without going through lengthy and
extraordinarily costly NSR permitting, as long as the project
involved either routine maintenance or no significant
increase in actual emissions.
Now, in light of the new interpretations, utilities and
refineries find themselves in a position where they cannot
undertake these very desirable and important projects. This
is not an acceptable result when the nation is faced with
severe strains on existing facilities. Against this backdrop,
we strongly urge that the National Energy Policy Development
Group:
Give investigation of EPA's implementation of its NSR
requirements a high priority;
Suspend EPA's activities until such time as there has been
a thorough review of both the policy and its implications;
Clarify whether the implications of EPA's new NSR
interpretations and its enforcement initiative are being
reviewed by the White House Office of Energy Policy and the
Secretary of Energy prior to actions that could undermine
energy and fuel supply; and
Establish guidelines to assure that EPA's application and
enforcement of its NSR requirements will not interfere with
the Administration's energy and fuel supply policy.
Requirements should be developed, which are consistent with
responsible implementation of the statutory NSR requirements.
Specifically, to assist you in assessing the implications
of NSR on meeting the nation's energy and fuel supply
demands, you may want to obtain the following: (1) all
requests since January 1, 1998 for information under section
114 of the Clean Air Act issued to facilities and companies
in any sector involved in energy and fuel supply; and (2)
notices of violation issued to, and complaints filed against,
any such company and/or facility alleging NSR violations
during that period. We are submitting a similar request to
EPA today.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look
forward to working with you in the future to develop
environmental policy, which further protects human health and
the environment and works in concert with sound energy
policy.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator.
John B. Breaux,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I publicly thank the administration for
being responsive to the concerns of Senator Breaux and myself. I know
it took real courage to pursue the NSR reforms. It took courage because
the President knew that many people would misconstrue these reforms as
a ``sneak attack on the environment'' in an attempt to score cheap
political points and fundraise.
Despite the rhetoric we will hear today and have heard today about
NSR reforms and the process of developing these reforms, make no
mistake: President Bush's decision will result in a cleaner environment
and greater energy security.
The Clinton administration developed draft proposals and accumulated
over 130,000 pages of comments on NSR reform. In fact, on his last day
at work on January 19, 2001, President Clinton's air chief with the
EPA, Bob Perciasepe, wrote a letter, No. 1, outlining NSR reforms which
are similar to the Bush administration's NSR reforms and which are
almost identical and, No. 2, calling for the Bush administration to
consider finalizing the reforms.
At this point in the presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have
this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, January 19, 2001.
Memorandum on the Status of the New Source Review
Improvement Rulemaking:
Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop
improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) program. As I
have discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this
program have greater incentives for companies to employ the
most effective emission reduction techniques voluntarily and
give greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary
actions. I am writing to share with you where we are on the
NSR Improvement effort as I leave this office.
We have come a long way together in developing the
conceptual framework for how EPA can improve the NSR program
by providing greater certainty and flexibility for industry
without sacrificing the level of environmental benefit
provided by the current program or meaningful public
participation. Due to the array of policy and legal issues
that arose on the vast number of areas we attempted to tackle
in one very large rulemaking, we were not able to complete
the regulatory/packages in this Administration. The concepts
that we developed make both economic and environmental sense
because in return for environmental performance, industry
will receive greater flexibility and more certainty for
business investment decisions. The concepts would not
undercut the basic goals of the NSR program.
The concepts that we developed and which I support are
listed below. I believe many of these could be taken as final
actions because of the hard work we have done together.
Voluntary Alternative NSR Program for the Electric Power
Generating Industry.--This voluntary program would allow
owners of power plants to commit to specific, verifiable
emissions reductions across all their generating units over a
defined period of time and in most instances would avoid the
need to get an NSR permit when making changes at their
facilities.
Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs.--Source owners would
be able to make changes to their facilities without obtaining
a major NSR permit, provided their emissions do not exceed
the plantwide cap. Also, facility owners that use PALs must
commit to install best controls over time to gain this
flexibility and certainty. PALs would be especially
attractive to those industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals and
electronics) who need to make changes quickly to respond to
market demands in order to stay competitive in a global
marketplace;
Clarifications of Roles, Responsibilities and Time Frames
for Class I Area Reviews.--The process for review of permit
applications by Federal Land Managers (FLMs) would be
clarified to delineate the roles of the source owner, the
permitting authority and the FLM, in conducting permit
reviews for sources potentially affecting air quality near
national wilderness areas and parks (Federal Class I areas).
These changes would reduce delays and disputes associated
with permitting applications for sources near Federal Class I
areas because they would provide a time frame for the FLM to
identify any concerns and analyses needed for the permit
applications. Also, it would clarify that the FLM does not
have the authority to veto permits, and ensure that the FLM
obtains the necessary information to conduct their permit
reviews in a timely manner;
Clean Unit Exemption.--This exemption would provide an
incentive for source owners to install the best emission
controls on new or modified emission units and provide
flexibility and certainty so that most future changes at such
units would not trigger NSR. An owner of an emissions unit
that meets certain minimum criteria to be considered
``clean'' could make most changes to these units without
triggering NSR for a specified period of time, such as ten
years.
Innovative Control Technology Waiver.--This waiver would
provide more flexibility for owners of sources who risk
trying innovative technology that have not yet been proven
effective. Should the innovative technologies not perform up
to expectations, we would provide the owners with time either
to correct the efficiencies or alternatively apply a more
standard control technology;
Pollution Control Project Exclusion.--This would codify our
existing policy that owners of facilities making changes to
their plants that primarily reduce one or more targeted air
pollutants (but which collaterally increase other pollutants)
are excluded from NSR provided certain conditions are met. We
would provide a list of environmentally beneficial
technologies that, absent other information that would
indicate that the projects would not be environmentally
beneficial, would be presumptively eligible for the
exclusion; and
[[Page 1456]]
Control Technology Review Requirements.--Because disputes
arise over what control technologies are considered
available, the permit review process can become lengthy. To
improve the process for obtaining a permit, we would (1) add
a definition of ``demonstrated in practice,'' (2) provide a
``cut off'' date for consideration of additional control
technologies, (3) add provisions that specify when
applications are deemed ``complete,'' and (4) require that
control technology determinations be entered into a
clearinghouse before permits can become effective.
Nearly all parties in our discussions identified the need
to have all of the data on the latest control technology
determinations made by permitting authorities in the EPA
clearinghouse. Improving the availability of this information
to everyone will greatly assist the permitting process. To
this end, I have committee significant resources to gather
all of the existing data, input into the database, and
redesign the system to make it easier for all parties to put
in new data to keep it up-to-date.
One of the lessons that we have learned through our ongoing
efforts is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
improve NSR in one large rulemaking. Instead, I believe it is
best to make incremental changes that will provide
flexibility and certainty without sacrificing the benefits of
the current program. I hope the new Administration will
consider finalizing the concepts described above that provide
flexibility and certainty without compromising environmental
protection to make near term progress. I realize there are
other issues, such as applicability for the base program,
that also need resolution. For these remaining issues,
continued discussions in the context of the overall program
are needed.
I appreciate and thank you for the time, effort and input
that you have provided over the past years, and I believe
that both industry and environment will benefit from the
approaches described above.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I very much look forward to seeing the
fruits of the Clinton and Bush administrations' labors on this issue.
From my tenure as chairman of the Senate's Clean Air Subcommittee, I
knew that New Source Review was a major issue for the energy sector. In
fact, I held the very first congressional hearings on New Source Review
in February of 2000 in Ohio. I could not believe my own ears. We heard
from companies that were trying to make environmentally friendly
modifications to their facilities being stopped dead in their tracks
by, ironically, the Clean Air Act.
I was also shocked to hear that it took 4,000 pages of guidance
documents to explain 20 pages of regulations. That is 4,000 pages of
guidance documents just to explain 20 pages of regulations.
Since then, my shock at the absurdity of the NSR Program has not worn
off. We, as a nation, need to rethink the manner in which we approach
regulations. We all need to keep an open mind during the debates on
various regulatory reform initiatives. I am sick of continually hearing
that these are ``sneak attacks on the environment.'' In fact, just the
opposite is true. If we rethink regulation, we could find ourselves in
a place where we can have far greater environmental protection and more
reliable and diverse energy sources.
Congress and the executive branch must also do a better job of
understanding how the various layers of regulations impact sectors of
our economy. I normally have a chart which shows all of the different
regulations that are going to be hitting the various regulated
sectors--a chart that shows the refiners that are currently working at
almost 100-percent capacity are going to be simultaneously hit with a
number of regulations in the next few years. NSR will make it close to
impossible for refiners to make these environmental upgrades. Now is
the time to work together on these and other regulations to not only
achieve the environmental goals but also ensure no disruption in fuel
supply which would cause the price spikes that we know are inevitable.
Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of
energy rises, that means the less fortunate in our society must make a
decision between heating their home and keeping the lights on or paying
for other essential needs.
During a recent EPW Committee hearing last year, Senator Voinovich's
constituent, Tom Mullen, articulated this concern. Mr. Mullen stated
that in a recent study--which is well known and very well expected--on
Public Opinion on Poverty, it was reported that 23 percent of the
people in America have difficulty paying for their utilities. That is
one out of every four Americans.
I will not support policies, such as NSR, that will hurt the poor in
Oklahoma and around the Nation. Additionally, the lower environmental
performance resulting from the current NSR Program impacts Americans in
every tax bracket. NSR reforms enjoy the support of a wide range of
interests--from the State attorneys general to labor unions to business
groups.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers in support of NSR reform.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2002.
Hon. James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: I am writing on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce (U.S. Chamber), the world's largest
business federation, representing more than three million
businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and
region, to express our support for reform of the new source
review (NSR) program. NSR, in its current form has impeded
environmental progress and energy production for decades. The
revisions recently announced by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) are a good beginning to reforming a
deeply flawed program.
The NSR program concerns the Clear Air Act (CAA) emissions
standards applicable to significant new and modified
stationary sources. In 1980, EPA established a regulatory
exclusion for ``routine maintenance.'' The scope of this
term, however, remains subject to debate. A clear
administrative interpretation of ``routine maintenance''
would be an improvement over the present situation, which is
mired in complexity and confusion.
Reducing the problems with the NSR program is vital.
Governments should not unnecessarily impede the work of the
private sector. The NSR program is a classic example of
bureaucratic complexity. More than 20 years after the initial
regulation, a plant manager cannot determine with any
certainty whether planned maintenance activities will subject
the facility to millions of dollars of extra costs.
The NSR program, as presently constituted, is a severe
impediment to increasing domestic energy supply. Electric
generating plants cannot make even minor changes to their
operations without running the risk of ruinous enforcement
actions that would impose huge fines and enormous compliance
costs on their facility. National energy policy, indeed
national security, requires the removal of every obstacle to
increased domestic energy production.
The National Energy Policy Report directed EPA to review
the NSR program, and report on its effect on environmental
protection and energy production. EPA's review found that the
NSR program has impeded or resulted in the cancellation of
projects that would maintain or improve reliability,
efficiency, or safety of existing power plants and
refineries.
On June 13, 2002, EPA announced a set of revisions to the
NSR program. Among other changes, facilities would be able to
make physical changes to their plants without obtaining an
NSR permit, if their emissions do not exceed a plantwide cap.
Projects would be excluded from NSR requirements if they
result in a net overall reduction of air pollutants. EPA
would also establish a safe harbor test. Projects whose
aggregate costs are below the threshold established by the
safe harbor test would be exempt from NSR requirements.
These proposals promise a major improvements to the NSR
program. They will lead to improvements in the environment,
as regulatory certainty will allow facilities to perform
routine maintenance and repairs without the fear of
triggering NSR requirements. Plants have deferred routine
maintenance, which would have improved safety and decreased
emissions, due to the potential costs of NSR requirements.
With the NSR program modifications, overall emissions will be
reduced. The reforms, particularly the plantwide cap, will
benefit facilities by allowing increased operational
flexibility. The revised NSR program will simplify an overly
complex program.
The recently announced NSR reforms are long overdue. The
regulations to be made final later this year were proposed in
1996. The proposals requiring notice and comment rulemaking
will not be in effect until 2004, at the earliest.
The U.S. Chamber supports reform of the NSR program. The
U.S. Chamber urges the
[[Page 1457]]
Senate to encourage these efforts to improve environmental
progress and energy production.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice President,
Government Affairs.
____
Statement of Ande Abbott, Director, Legislative Department,
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers on the New Source Review
Program
Chairman Jeffords, Chairman Leahy, and members of the
Committees, my name is Ande Abbott and I am the Director of
Legislation for the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO. I thank you for this opportunity to present
our views.
Commonly referred to as the Boilermakers Union, we are a
diverse union representing over 100,000 workers throughout
the United States and Canada in construction, repair,
maintenance, manufacturing, professional emergency medical
services, and related industries. Boilermakers, who make and
maintain industrial boilers and the pollution control
equipment they use, have had a long-time commitment to a
clear, effective and reasonable new source review (``NSR'')
policy. We support the recent efforts of this Administration
to clarify the program. The efficiency of our facilities and
the safety of our workers hang in the balance.
First, let me be clear today that Boilermakers do not
oppose the Clean Air Act, nor do we oppose its rigorous
enforcement. In fact, construction lodges of our union look
forward to doing much of the actual work for the installation
of new technologies and controls at utility plants and for
industrial boilers across this region and the country. In
reference to the NOX control program alone, our
international President Charlie Jones recently wrote:
``The EPA estimates that compliance measures will cost
about $1.7 billion a year. A sizable portion of that money
will go to the Boilermakers who do the work necessary to make
the additions and modifications required by the SCR
technology.''
Aside from NOX control, Boilermakers have always
led the way on Clean Air Act issues. For example,
Boilermakers were pioneers in installation of scrubbers and
further in fuel-substitution programs at our cement kiln
facilities. In short, Boilermakers have been there to meet
the challenges of the Clean Air Act, to the benefit our
members and all Americans that breathe clean air.
However, Boilermakers could not support the EPA's 1999
recent interpretation of its authority under the New Source
Review program. NSR, correctly interpreted as we believe the
Administration's clarification does, forces new sources or
those undergoing major modifications, to install new
technology, like the technology President Jones mentioned. We
support NSR in that context.
But, when NSR is applied to the routine maintenance
policies and schedules of existing facilities, very different
results occur. In those cases, facilities are discouraged
from undertaking routine actions for fear of huge penalties
or long delays or both. By applying NSR in that way, we are
pretty sure that Boilermakers won't have the opportunity to
work on maintenance projects that we know are extremely
important to energy efficiency. Just hearing about recent
events in California is enough to make the case that
facilities need to be as efficient as possible. We now have
read that New York may be facing similar problems. The New
York Times reported just a few days ago that, the State ``is
unexpectedly facing the potential for serious power shortages
over the next couple of months.'' Now is definitely not the
time to play with the reliability of a power grid.
Efficiency is not the only reason to encourage routine
maintenance. Experienced professionals or Boilermakers new to
the trade can both tell you: maintenance is necessary to
maintain worker safety. Electric generating facilities
harness tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue
gases over 2000 degrees; boilers under deteriorating
conditions; and parts located in or around boilers subjected
to both extreme heat and pressure. Any EPA interpretation
which creates incentives to delay maintenance is simply
unacceptable to our workers.
Some critics of the June 13 action by the Administration
have contended that the NSR decision was made with
insufficient attention to public process. This simply has not
been the experience of the Boilermakers or other unions
working on this project. The U.S. EPA held four public
hearings in each region of the country. Paul Kern, the
recording secretary of our Local 105 in Piketon, Ohio,
offered a statement at the hearing in Cincinnati. In
addition, it is our understanding that over 130,000
rulemaking comments were received on this initiative. Given
our experience with certain regulations that just seem to
appear over night, the Administration's action NSR seem
pretty open and fair to us. When you compare the current
clarification to the way the program changed in 1999--without
any rulemaking process whatsoever--the Administration's June
13 announcement looks all the better!
Boilermakers are not just workers; they are also consumers
of electricity that work hard for their wages. One item often
lost in the mess regarding NSR is that capital expenditures
not justified for environmental protection are still passed
along to ratepayers. Unfortunately, the less money you make,
the greater the percentage of your paycheck goes to your
electricity bills. According to Energy Information
Administration data, those living at or near the poverty
level pay 4 to 6 times the percentage of their income for
power. So, advocates of misusing the NSR program hurt those
least able to afford it the most!
As you can see, Boilermakers have never asked for repeal or
substantial revision of the NSR program. We encourage the
development and installation of new technology, and we stand
ready to continue to train and apprentice workers to meet the
needs of the Clean Air Act. However, when the NSR programs
goes where it wasn't intended--and discourages the very
maintenance, repair and replacement activities that
constitute the livelihood of Boilermakers--we must strongly
object. Thanks for the opportunity to make a statement.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the environmental community does not have
to answer to the American people when energy prices go through the
roof. But the President of the United States does, and we do, too. I
think the President is doing the right thing, and we should support him
for it.
So, in summary, this is one of the rare things that both the Clinton
administration and the Bush administration have proposed which enjoys
support by virtually all the labor unions as well as the business
organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations,
and the American people who want lower cost energy.
Mr. President, I am offering a second-degree amendment to Senator
Edwards' rider on the New Source Review. In his amendment, Senator
Edwards asks the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the
impacts of implementing the NSR reform package and to delay the reforms
in the interim.
In our judgment, there is no reason for this delay. We have delayed
already for 10 years. We have been living with this thing for 10 years.
We need reforms now.
Therefore, I am offering a second-degree amendment to allow the NSR
final package to move forward, but to allow the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study. When the NAS completes its study, the EPA
can then benefit from its results. I suggest that the National Academy
of Sciences will be getting their information from the EPA because they
are the ones who have accumulated all the data to date, and there is no
more data that is available. There is nothing to be lost by offering
this as a second-degree amendment. You would have the benefit of the
NAS study as well as moving along the time for implementation.
There is simply no reason to delay the implementation of the final
NSR package. The Edwards amendment calls for a study before the final
New Source Review rules go final. I guess the Senator from North
Carolina has not read the administrative record on the regulations. If
he had, he would see that the EPA conducted a thorough environmental
analysis of the final NSR proposals.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, January 19, 2001.
memorandum
Subject: Status of the New Source Review Improvement
Rulemaking.
To: New Source Review Stakeholders.
From: Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator.
Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop
improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) program. As I
have discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this
program have greater incentives for companies to employ the
most effective emission reduction techniques voluntarily and
give greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary
actions. I am writing to share with you where we are on the
NSR Improvement effort as I leave this office.
We have come a long way together in developing the
conceptual framework for how EPA can improve the NSR program
by providing greater certainty and flexibility for industry
without sacrificing the level of environmental benefit
provided by the current program or meaningful public
participation.
[[Page 1458]]
Due to the array of policy and legal issues that arose on the
vast number of areas we attempted to tackle in one very large
rulemaking, we were not able to complete the regulator/
packages in this Administration. The concepts that we
developed make both economic and environmental sense because
in return for environmental performance, industry will
receive greater flexibility and more certainty for business
investment decisions. The concepts would not undercut the
basic goals of the NSR program.
The concepts that we developed and which I support are
listed below. I believe many of these could be taken as final
actions because of the hard work we have done together.
Voluntary Alternative NSR Program for the Electric Power
Generating Industry--This voluntary program would allow
owners of power plants to commit to specific, verifiable
emissions reductions across all their electric generating
units over a defined period of time and in most instances
would avoid the need to get an NSR permit when making changes
at their facilities.
Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs)--Source owners would
be able to make changes to their facilities without obtaining
a major NSR permit, provided their emissions do not exceed
the plantwide cap. Also, facility owners that use PALs must
commit to install best controls over time to gain this
flexibility and certainty. PALs would be especially
attractive to those industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals and
electronics) who need to make changes quickly to respond to
market demands in order to stay competitive in a global
marketplace.
Clarifications of Roles Responsibilities and Time Frames
for Class I Area Reviews--The process for review of permit
applications by Federal Land Managers (FLMs) would be
clarified to delineate the roles of the source owner, the
permitting authority and the FLM, in conducting permit
reviews for sources potentially affecting air quality near
national wilderness areas and parks (Federal Class I areas).
These changes would reduce delays and disputes associated
with permitting applications for sources near Federal Class I
areas because they would provide a time frame for the FLM to
identify any concerns and analyses needed for the permit
applications. Also, it would clarify that the FLM does not
have the authority to veto permits, and ensure that the FLM
obtains the necessary information to conduct their permit
reviews in a timely manner.
Clean Unit Exemption--This exemption would provide an
incentive for source owners to install the best emission
controls on new or modified emission units and provide
flexibility and certainty so that most future changes at such
units would not trigger NSR. An owner of an emissions unit
that meets certain minimum criteria to be considered
``clean'' could make most changes to these units without
triggering NSR for a specified period of time, such as ten
years.
Innovative Control Technology Waiver--This waiver would
provide more flexibility for owners of sources who risk
trying innovative technologies that have not yet been proven
effective. Should the innovative technologies not perform up
to expectations, we would provide the owners with time either
to correct the deficiencies or alternatively apply a more
standard control technology.
Pollution Control Project Exclusion--This would codify our
existing policy that owners of facilities making changes to
their plants that primarily reduce one or more targeted air
pollutants (but which collaterally increase other pollutants)
are excluded from NSR provided certain conditions are met. We
would provide a list of environmentally beneficial
technologies that, absent other information that would
indicate that the projects would not be environmentally
beneficial, would be presumptively eligible for the
exclusion.
Control Technology Review Requirements--Because disputes
arise over what control technologies are considered
available, the permit review process can become lengthy. To
improve the process for obtaining a permit, we would (1) add
a definition of ``demonstrated in practice,'' (2) provide a
``cut off'' date for consideration of additional control
technologies, (3) add provisions that specify when
applications are deemed ``complete,'' and (4) require that
control technology determinations be entered into a
clearinghouse before permits can become effective.
Nearly all parties in our discussions identified the need
to have all of the data on the latest control technology
determinations made by permitting authorities in the EPA
clearinghouse. Improving the availability of this information
to everyone will greatly assist the permitting process. To
this end, I have committed significant resources to gather
all of the existing data, input it into the database, and
redesign the system to make it easier for all parties to put
in new data to keep it up-to-date.
One of the lessons that we have learned through our ongoing
efforts is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
improve NSR in one large rulemaking. Instead, I believe it is
best to make incremental changes that will provide
flexibility and certainty without sacrificing the benefits of
the current program. I hope the new Administration will
consider finalizing the concepts described above that provide
flexibility and certainty without compromising environmental
protection to make near term progress. I realize there are
other issues, such as applicability for the base program,
that also need resolution. For these remaining issues,
continued discussions in the context of the overall program
are needed.
I appreciate and thank you for the time, effort and input
that you have provided over the past years, and I believe
that both industry and the environment will benefit from the
approaches described above.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to read from the EPA's own
environmental analysis:
The overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit
to the environment.
My second-degree amendment calls for a NAS study to look at the
impacts of the regulation after implementation of the final rules while
allowing the regulations to go forward, thus allowing cleaner and more
efficient technologies to be installed in our Nation's manufacturing
centers.
Delaying these regulations would delay projects to create safer
workplaces. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, a member of
the AFL-CIO, has recently opined against the proposed delay in the
final package on the New Source Review. I would like to read just a
small part of their letter and then will have the rest of the letter
printed in the Record. This letter is a current letter dated today from
the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. It says:
We have encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to
clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose efforts
in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and
competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our
workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue
for millions of American workers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Fairfax, VA, January 21, 2003.
Re Opposition to Appropriations Rider Delaying New Source
Review Reform.
Senator John Edwards,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Edwards: On behalf of the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, ALF-CIO, I am writing to express our
support for clarification of the New Source Review, or NSR,
program and our opposition to any effort to derail NSR
clarification through the appropriations process. Therefore,
we urge you and your colleagues not to offer an
appropriations rider delaying implementation of the final NSR
rules.
Commonly referred to as the Boilermakers Union, we are a
diverse union representing over 100,000 workers throughout
the United States and Canada in construction, repair,
maintenance, manufacturing, professional emergency medical
services, and related industries. Boilermakers, who make and
maintain industrial boilers and the pollution control
equipment they use, have had a long-time commitment to a
clear, effective and reasonable NSR policy. We have
encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose efforts
in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and
competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our
workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue
for millions of American workers.
First, let me be clear today that Boilermakers do not
oppose the Clean Air Act, nor do we oppose its rigorous
enforcement. In fact, construction lodges of our union look
forward to doing much of the actual work for the installation
of new technologies and controls at utility plants and for
industrial boilers across this region and the country. In
reference to the NOX control program alone, our
international President Charlie Jones recently wrote:
``The EPA estimates that compliance measures will cost
about $1.7 billion a year. A sizeable portion of that money
will go to the Boilermakers who do the work necessary to make
the additions and modifications required by the SCR
technology.''
NSR, correctly interpreted as we hope EPA's new rules will
do, forces new sources or those undergoing major
modifications, to install new technology, like the technology
President Jones mentioned. We support NSR in that context.
However, when NSR is applied in an unclear or inflexible
manner to existing facilities, very different results occur.
In those cases, facilities are discouraged from undertaking
appropriate actions for fear of huge penalties or long delays
or both. By applying NSR in that way, we are pretty sure that
[[Page 1459]]
Boilermakers won't have the opportunity to work on projects
that we know are extremely important to energy efficiency.
Further, by reducing the useful economic life of boilers or
by inaccurately setting baselines, the existing NSR confusion
undermines the competitiveness of American job sites. And
that means some of the almost 20 million manufacturing jobs
at stake in heavy industry are placed at risk.
Finalizing new NSR rules is also important to maintain
worker safety. Industrial and utility boilers harness
tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue gases
over 2000 degrees; boilers under deteriorating conditions;
and parts located in or around boilers subjected to both
extreme heat and pressure. Any delay of these important EPA
rules is simply unacceptable to our workers.
Some have argued that the final NSR rules can await further
study. However, the U.S. EPA held four public hearings in
each region of the country on the proposal. Paul Kern, the
recording secretary of our Local 105 in Piketon, Ohio,
offered a statement at the hearing in Cincinnati. In
addition, it is our understanding that over 130,000
rulemaking comments were received on this initiative, and
over 50 stakeholder meetings were held.
As you can see, Boilermakers have never asked for repeal or
substantial revision of the NSR program. We encourage the
development and installation of new technology, and we stand
ready to continue to train and apprentice workers to meet the
needs of the Clean Air Act. However, when the NSR program
goes where it wasn't intended--and creates uncertainty
regarding the very livelihood of Boilermakers--we must
strongly object. Therefore, we ask you and your colleagues
not to offer any appropriations rider delaying the final NSR
rules.
Sincerely,
Ande Abbott,
Director of Legislation.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some supporters of the Edwards rider in
its current form suggest that delay is justified because State
officials seek it. Nothing could be further from reality. Two years
ago, a unanimous resolution of the National Governors Association was
passed. It says:
New Source Review requirements should be reformed to
achieve improvements that enhance the environment and
increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy
efficiency, fuel diversity and the use of renewable
resources.
The Nation's environmental commissioners passed a subsequent
amendment, stating:
The Environmental Council of the States adopts the
provisions of the NGA [the National Governors' Association]
policy. The Environmental Council of the States encourages
the United States EPA to reform the New Source Review
Regulations into a workable regulation that is easily
understood and effectively implemented.
These positions reflect the true direction of the majority of States.
I think there is a propensity in this body for us to think that wisdom
in Washington is greater than that of the States. That is not true. So
you have a unanimous resolution from the Governors as well as the
Environmental Council of the States.
The bottom line is this: My second-degree amendment allows the EPA
and the States to benefit from the wisdom of the National Academy of
Sciences on the important issues of clean air policy. However, my
amendment does not create potential dangers inherent in delaying the
onset of the important and thoughtful administrative reforms of the NSR
program.
So I offer a second-degree amendment to the Edwards first-degree
amendment No. 67 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 86 to amendment No. 67.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 1, strike all after ``Sec.'' and insert the
following:
`` . (a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to evaluate the impact of the final rule relating to
prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment new
source review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31,
2002). The study shall include--
(1) increases or decreases in emissions of pollutants
regulated under the New Source Review program;
(2) impacts on human health;
(3) pollution control and prevention technologies installed
after the effective date of the rule at facilities covered
under the rulemaking;
(4) increases or decreases in efficiency of operations,
including energy efficiency, at covered facilities; and
(5) other relevant data.
(b) Deadline.--The NAS shall submit an interim report to
Congress no later than March 3, 2004, and shall submit a
final report on implementation of the rules.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend will withhold, I have a couple
comments I would like to make.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am glad to withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the second-degree
amendment of my friend, the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. The amendment offered by Senator Edwards, and
cosponsored
by Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Daschle, and Senator Reid of Nevada,
really is a very modest amendment.
This administration has gone ahead with the most radical rewriting of
the clean air rules in 30 years. Let me repeat that. The
administration, administratively, has caused the most radical rewriting
of the clean air rules in 30 years. They have not studied what the
effects of these rules will be for people's health and the environment.
I think Senators on both sides of the aisle have asked for this study.
They have refused to do it.
This amendment simply says, let's wait 6 months--just 6 months--and
get a real study of how this amendment will affect people. Our
amendment says, because these rules have the potential to be harmful,
we should study them first to make sure we know how they will affect
people's health. The amendment says, let's wait until we get that
settled--6 months, a half a year--before letting the rules become
final.
The second-degree amendment says: Yes, we need to study those rules,
but let's have the study after the rules go into effect; that is, let
the rules go into effect first; and, second, we will study the effects.
That means you are rolling the dice with people's health.
What this second-degree amendment says is, we will take our chances
with the health of your children, with the health of your parents. What
we say is, let the amendment go into effect after we have studied the
issue.
What are we going to do a year from now if this study shows--and I am
confident it will--that these radical changes will have made people's
health worse? What are we going to say to senior citizens who are
suffering from respiratory illnesses, as a great deal do?
It was less than a year ago that one of the weekly magazines--I
believe it was Newsweek; ran a front-page article that talked about the
asthma epidemic sweeping this country afflicting our children. Although
they do not determinatively know why, one of the conclusions they
arrive at is because of the bad air. However, I don't think we need
scientific studies to show that.
By allowing the administration to go forward with this rule, what we
are really saying is we do not care. We want these companies to go
ahead and be able to continue their polluting--yet we only studied two
companies.
We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency today has actually
done the environmental analysis and it shows that these radical rule
changes would protect the environment. That is foolishness. It is not
true.
The EPA gave us hundreds of pages of old, irrelevant reports.
They said their assessment was qualitative and not quantitative. That
is a buzzword for ``we have done nothing.'' It means they didn't do
real hard research in how these changes would affect people, children
with asthma, and seniors with respiratory illness.
One group did the real hard research. The Environmental Integrity
Project looked at two factories and found that just with these two
factories, the administration rules would increase pollution by more
than 120 tons a year. One of these EPA studies done by
the current Environmental Protection
[[Page 1460]]
Agency points to Delaware as a model. Companies in Delaware have taken
some good measures to reduce pollution. That is true. But as industries
in Delaware have pointed out and as Senator Biden has pointed out, this
administration is not following the Delaware model. They are following
a different and anti-environmental model.
The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does not discourage
energy efficiency. All of us support more energy efficiency. We support
reform of the New Source Review. We want to reduce pollution at the
same time as we reform. We don't want reform being an excuse to
increase pollution. The new rules would increase pollution.
Again, the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is a modest
amendment. It says: Look before you leap. However, what we are being
told to do with the second-degree amendment is look after you leap.
That is not the same.
Look before you leap; that is what we should do. The second-degree
amendment is misguided, misdirected. It takes away from the importance
and the dignity of the amendment offered by the Senator from North
Carolina which simply says, the President wants to move forward with
radical changes in the Clean Air Act, an act which has been in effect
for some 30 years, so before we do this, let's first wait 6 months to
see if the changes the administration suggested will hurt the
environment.
I certainly hope the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina
passes in its form before the Senate and that the second-degree
amendment does not pass. I say that because if you look at the track
record of the administration, you are looking at a track record that is
not good.
We know the administration came out initially with an effort to
change the arsenic standards in water. We were able to turn that back.
We know the administration has worked very hard to make sure that the
rules relating to testing children to find out if lead in their
environment is bad--they tried to eliminate that. We were able to stop
that.
Clean water: The administration proposed earlier this month changes
for managing waterways under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rules
would affect enforcement of the Clean Water Act by defining protected
and unprotected lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. This rule would
remove 20 million acres of wetlands from protection.
On January 3--just a few weeks ago--the administration issued
categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act for
certain timber projects. As a result, the agency will be able to
approve logging in burned, diseased, and insect-infested forests
without completing individual environmental reviews.
On December 31, the administration proposed regulations that would
allow tuna caught by encircling dolphins to be labeled ``dolphin
safe.'' For the last 5 years, tuna caught using dolphins as targets
were barred from bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label.
Two days after Christmas, the administration came up with a Christmas
present when they issued new guidelines that would allow more
development of wetlands and additional mitigation. However, the
existence of wetlands is important because they filter drinking water,
retain flood waters, and support wildlife.
The administration on December 23--2 days before Christmas--issued a
final rule that would allow States to claim ownership of roads in
national parks, forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands.
Under this rule, States could assert claims to thousands of miles of
dirt roads, trails, and wagon tracks--many of which are in wilderness
areas and other public lands.
On December 19, the administration issued a cost-benefit report
calling for more than 300 rules to be revised and eliminated, or
expanded. These changes affect food safety standards, arsenic in
drinking water, energy conservation standards, and logging in national
forests.
Again dealing with clean water, on December 16 they issued final
regulations under a court-ordered deadline that would weaken clean
water protections concerning concentrated animal feeding operations.
The new rule will affect 15,000 large and medium size U.S. corporate
farms.
On salmon protection, the administration proposed new regulations to
weaken salmon protections and to allow increased logging in the
Pacific.
On November 22 of last year, the administration issued final
regulations that would weaken the Clean Air Act's New Source Review
program. The administration has issued standards relating to drilling
in national parks. They approved natural gas drilling in Padre Island
National Seashore in Texas, the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped
beach. They are going to take care of that and allow drilling there.
On climate change, on November 20 the chairman of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality said: ``Climate change is a technology
issue.'' He believes technological innovations, not curbs on emissions
of greenhouse gases, are the solution to global climate change.
Snowmobiles, something on which I have worked hard: The
administration proposed to increase the number of snowmobiles allowed
in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks by more than 35 percent,
even though the rangers there must use respirators and masks because
the air is so bad because of the snowmobiles.
Should we not, with a record like this, take 6 months to see if the
rules are going to be bad? I didn't read all of them, but you get the
idea why I am a little suspect about the rules and why we should not
leap before we look. Let's look, have a study done to find out if the
rules are as bad as the environmental community says they are.
I hope the second-degree amendment of my friend from Oklahoma is
defeated and we have an up-or-down vote on the amendment to call for a
study before we enact the very extreme radical rule changes with the
Clean Air Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
First, this has nothing to do with tuna, dolphins, drilling,
snowmobiles in the Tetons. The record of this President has been very
good. We passed extensive brownfields legislation with the help of the
Senator occupying the chair. My amendment included over 200,000
petroleum sites. The record has been good.
It is important, when you are talking about this issue, to talk about
the Bush administration. This essentially came from the Clinton
administration, not from the Bush administration. With the exception of
a few technicalities which have been worked out to everyone's
advantage, this is the Clinton administration's program.
Here is the statement made at the last day of the Clinton
administration by Bob Perciasepe:
Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop
improvements to the New Source Review program. As I have
discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this
program have greater incentives for companies to employ the
most effective emissions techniques voluntarily and give
greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary
actions.
And so then we had this study. Look at this study. It is 180 pages.
The study comes to the conclusion that the overall effect of the final
rule will be a net benefit to the environment. This is going to benefit
the environment, not hurt it.
When the Senator from Nevada says, what do we say to senior citizens,
I say what do we say to senior citizens when their energy costs go up,
when they already have to decide whether to heat their homes or have
food to eat.
We have studied this matter for 10 years. We don't need 6 more
months. However, we are willing to have the NAS do a study, and they
will use the same data the EPA used in coming up with the conclusion
that this is not harmful, but it is good for the environment and
health.
I will be joining my friend from Nevada in asking for a recorded vote
on this second-degree amendment at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page 1461]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, during the last few session days, I have been rising
to bring the Senate's attention to an issue which I think is very
important. We have had a lot of discussion in this body about the
concern for deficits. I share those concerns about how much money we
are going to be borrowing in the future. One of the principal reasons
for these discussions, particularly from Democratic Members, is their
concern that because of these deficits going forward, we cannot give
or--let me put it this way--let people in America keep more of their
money and provide tax relief, as the President has proposed, to try to
stimulate this economy.
The President has proposed in the area of $600 billion in tax relief
over the next 10 years to try to help put more money into the private
sector to help create jobs, secure jobs, and grow this economy. I think
that is a very worthy goal.
Economic growth is vitally important for all of us in America. It
creates job security. It creates new opportunities for advancement. It
increases our standard of living. I believe everybody in this Chamber
would agree that one of our priorities should be to create more jobs
and create a stronger economy. The President has put forward a package
which he believes will do that.
One of the major criticisms against the package is that it adds too
much to the deficit; that while maybe some of these ideas are good
ideas--letting people keep more of their money, providing incentives
for people to invest, businesses to invest in capital equipment,
stopping the double taxation of dividends--all those may or may not be
good ideas, depending on to whom you listen--even if they are good
ideas, we cannot afford it, we simply do not have enough money;
frankly, we are running these deficits, so we have to be fiscally
responsible--I am talking about the Democratic conversations of late--
that we have to be fiscally responsible and not provide this tax
relief.
What I am going to do in the next few days as we continue to debate
this year's appropriations bills, the 2003 appropriations bills--not
next, but this year, since we did not get our job done last fall and
pass the appropriations bills for this year--is I am going to detail
all of the amendments the Democrats are offering and begin to add up
the 10-year costs of these amendments.
We have the first amendment offered by Senator Byrd on homeland
security, which is $70 billion over the next 10 years.
Senator Kennedy's amendment on education was $84 billion, which
brought the total to $154 billion. Senators Hollings' and Murray's
amendment on Amtrak, that was $5 billion over 10 years. Senator
Harkin's amendment, $7 billion over 10 years, and then Senator Byrd's
amendment, which was to basically strip away what was a mechanism to
try to pay for some of these increases such as education and others,
which was an across-the-board reduction, he eliminated the across-the-
board reduction which basically put $154 billion on to the deficit over
the next 10 years.
Pending is Senator Dodd's amendment, which adds $21 billion over the
next 10 years in the area of paying for education for people with
disabilities.
We have already had a majority of Democrats, in fact almost every
single Democrat, vote for $320 billion in new spending and now we have
another $21 billion on which to be voted. There are a whole host of
other amendments which have to be filed by 6 p.m. today, which will add
robustly, I suspect, to this total of $341 billion to date that have
been offered by Members on the other side of the aisle who have come to
this Chamber repeatedly and suggested that, we cannot provide tax
relief to spur this economy to create jobs and to put more money out on
to the private sector into taxpayers' pockets but we can afford almost
half of what the President's tax reduction measure will cost.
It is important to show where the priorities are of the respective
parties. What we have suggested is that to help this economy get going
we need to put more money in taxpayers' hands so we can create a
stronger economy and a better quality of life for people in America.
Many on the other side, not all, have said that is not acceptable.
What is their alternative? Well, this appears to be their
alternative: To grow the size and scope of Government in increasing
amounts.
We made a mistake. We made this chart too small. My guess is by the
time we are done we are going to have a line of charts as to how much
money we are going to add to the deficit at a time when we are hearing
all this gnashing of teeth about the President's tax plan that is
simply too expensive, that it adds too much to the deficit. Yet time
after time Members on the other side are more than willing to add money
to the deficit. As long as we spend it on Government programs, as long
as we spend it on growing the size and scope of the Federal Government,
they are willing to spend taxpayers' dollars and willing to put the
deficit to even higher levels.
To set the record straight, when we hear the debate on taxes, as we
will later this year and we will hear Members coming to the Chamber
saying we cannot afford this tax reduction, remember what they thought
they could afford and that is a much bigger Federal Government, more
tax dollars being spent in Washington, DC, and higher deficits as a
result.
I will be back after each series of amendments we vote on and we will
be adding to this chart. I am hopeful this number of votes for these
amendments will begin to change. Where we look at almost every single
Democrat voting for these large increases in spending, I am hopeful
that at some point there will be a recognition that it is important to
control the growth of Government spending, it is important not to have
big deficits in ever increasing amounts, and we will see some
contraction in these numbers.
Time will tell what will happen in the Senate over the next several
days as we begin to debate more amendments offered by the other side of
the aisle to add more money to the deficit which they decry as already
too big in the first place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Rhode Island will offer a very important
amendment on unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that
following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized to
speak for 15 minutes; following that, the Senator from Rhode Island be
recognized to offer an amendment.
I have spoken to the manager of the bill and have indicated to him
that we were going to offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent,
therefore, that when Senator Reed offers his amendment the pending
amendment be set aside. If there is a problem with that, that would
give time to someone on the other side to be available to object having
that set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. My friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, has come
to this Chamber on other occasions with his chart and talked about the
Democratic amendments. What he has not talked about is the fact that a
year ago, we had a huge surplus. There are estimates that it was as
much as $7.2 trillion--some say it was only $6 trillion--over a 10-year
period. As a result of what has taken place with this administration,
that is gone. We are now spending in the red and using Social Security
surpluses to pay for the Bush economic plan.
I was on a TV program with Senator Nickles, who was my counterpart.
The person doing the interviewing showed Senator Nickles a chart. From
the time that Harry Truman was President until today, going through
every President, every President of the United States has created jobs,
without exception, except the current President Bush. In fact, he has
done so poorly in
[[Page 1462]]
job creation that he has lost over 2 million jobs.
I hope the American people understand we are offering these
amendments because we believe the American people deserve more than tax
cuts for the rich.
The present administration's tax cut plan will increase the deficit
by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania
would vote against that if he is concerned about deficits, because that
is a huge deficit builder.
Every time my friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania,
comes to the Chamber with his chart, we are going to also talk about
what this administration has done that has adversely affected the
American people.
The amendments offered by the Democrats--which are said to be
``outrageous things''--fund school districts around America to take
care of handicapped children. I know that is somewhat radical that we
want to pay for handicapped children to be educated, but that is what
we have decided we would like to do, that we would fully fund the IDEA
program. There is not a school district in America that opposes that.
Some of the other amendments funded the unfunded mandates that have
taken place with our passing the homeland security bill. I know the
State of Nevada badly needs that money because we have been forced to
do things that the Federal Government has passed on to us that we
cannot afford to do. The State of Nevada needs help. That is why today
States have deficits of about $100 billion.
The deficit of the State of California alone is $35 or $40 billion,
but of course it has 15 percent of the population of this country.
So they can bring out all the charts they want to talk about these
amendments the Democrats are offering. The reason we have voted nearly
unanimously for every one of these amendments is because it is the
right thing to do for the people who are not represented by the Gucci
shoe crowd, the big limousine crowd.
My friend from Rhode Island is going to offer an amendment to take
care of about a million people who have no unemployment insurance. The
unemployment rate has increased by millions under this President. It
has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent. Job losses, as I have indicated,
are over 2 million. The private sector has lost 2.4 million jobs since
President Bush took office. Unemployment is staggering. A total of
almost 9 million people were unemployed in December. The length of
unemployment, which is more than 26 weeks, increased by 122,000 in
December alone, the biggest 1-month increase in a long time.
There are a great deal of problems with this economy. We believe
there should be a tax plan to stimulate the economy. What we believe
should take place is an immediate tax cut. It should be directed toward
the middle class. It should have no long-term impact on the deficit in
this country.
I talked earlier about the Bush economic record. It is the only
administration to lose private jobs in more than 50 years. We have had
no other administration that has not created jobs. His dad came close.
He almost was in the negative. He was the lowest we had since
Eisenhower. But it is topped by this President. Eisenhower created
increased employment by one-half of 1 percent, Kennedy by 2 percent,
Johnson by 3.6 percent, Nixon by 2.1 percent, Ford by .18 percent,
Carter by 3.3 percent, Reagan by 2.3 percent, George H.W. Bush by .4
percent, Clinton by 2.6 percent; George W. Bush has lost jobs. He is
the only president whose job creation is in the negative.
We do not need people to lecture us on how bad the Democratic
amendments are. Our amendments are targeted toward American people, not
targeted toward the rich.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Under the previous order, the
Senator from North Dakota is now recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nevada a
question about what he just stated?
Mr. REID. I am happy to maintain the floor and yield to my friend
from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, what
confuses me about what the Senator from Pennsylvania said, and others
have said, and is disturbing, our friends on the other side of the
aisle have an incredible definition of what constitutes security. The
idea that we would at this moment cut the end strength of the U.S.
military, there would be 100 out of 100 Senators in opposition on the
floor.
The idea that we are like those soccer moms we talk so much about,
they are no longer soccer moms, I suggest. They are security moms. They
are literally worried about whether or not in their children's
schoolyard, in their shopping center, in their daily routine, they and/
or their family might be a victim of terrorism.
If this war is a war the President talks so much about, with good
reason, a war on terror, I assume we are saying the same thing. A war
on terror is not a war that is only being conducted by special forces
overseas, but the war on terror is in the United States.
What is the greatest concern Americans have? It is that something is
going to happen as happened on September 11.
I ask this of these friends of ours on the other side of the aisle. I
think they mean well. They talk about the fact they do not want to grow
government. I ask, How are you going to combat terror in the United
States of America, in Washington, DC; in Omaha, NE; in Wilmington, DE;
in San Francisco, CA; how are you going to confront terror, combat
terror? How are you going to make our nuclear powerplant that is right
across the river from tens of thousands of Delawareans secure? How are
you going to make sure there are no Americans subject to poison gas
attacks, the water supply being polluted, chemical agents, or, God
forbid, biological weapons. The only way to do that, it seems to me, is
with more defense.
What is the defense? That is homeland defense. The defense is the
FBI, local law enforcement; the defense is domestic surveillance,
domestic operations. My friends keep saying they do not want to grow
government. What the devil are they talking about? They just cut 1,100
FBI agents. They shrank government. If tomorrow they took this similar
percentage of U.S. Marines and cut them, we would say: My God, what are
they doing? They are crazy.
A U.S. marine, I ask my friend from Nevada, who is going to confront
a terrorist on the Mall in Washington, DC, or at a nuclear powerplant
in Nevada or Delaware, who will confront that person? Who will track
them down? Is it a marine? A special forces person? No, it is going to
be a law enforcement officer.
These fellows have, unintentionally, I hope, emasculated law
enforcement. They have cut the COPS Program that put 100,000 cops on
the street. They eliminated that. They transferred, necessarily, 570-
some FBI agents out of violent crime strike forces toward terror. They
have reduced the coverage in the States. They have now cut another
roughly 1,100 FBI agents, eliminated any help for local law
enforcement. They ballooned--as a consequence of that, in part--the
budget of all these States, and they proudly stand here and say: We are
not going to grow government.
I raise my hand; I want to grow government to fight terror. I want to
grow the number of FBI agents. I want to grow the number of CIA agents.
I want to grow the number of police officers. I want to grow the
ability to defend my family from a terrorist attack on a nuclear
powerplant in my region, all of which are exposed now. They are
exposed.
I hope my friends, when they come to the floor, will explain to me
why an increase in the deficit to maintain the end strength of the FBI
is less worthy than increasing the deficit over 10 years by half a
billion, counting interest, to give people a deduction, no taxes, on
their dividends.
Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend, the distinguished Senator,
formally chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations
Committee, the only place the Senator has
[[Page 1463]]
misspoken is that the tax cut will be near $1 trillion when interest is
included, near $1 trillion.
Mr. BIDEN. I was only talking about the dividends.
Mr. REID. And I say to my friend, the Senator is absolutely right.
We have to have a secure nation. The amendments we have supported and
were offered by Senator Byrd are amendments that would give the State
of Delaware, the State of North Dakota, and the State of Nevada, a
little bit of relief from the unfunded mandates we passed on.
I also remind my friend from Pennsylvania who was talking about how
bad the amendments were; he talked a lot about the deficit. We are not
talking as ``pie in the sky.'' We, as Democrats, have a ledger you can
look to of success. For the first time in modern history, during the
Clinton years, we were spending less money than we were taking in. The
last year of the Clinton administration, they were coming to us saying:
Better not retire that debt so quickly because you could have an
adverse effect on the economy. I guess someone in the Bush
administration heard that because they listened clearly. Instead of
having a surplus, as we had, they have gone gang busters.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield briefly--and I will yield the
floor--I appreciate the response.
I have no doubt and I do not disagree with anything the Senator has
said overall, but I am just suggesting that I wonder how any Members
will explain at home, if, God forbid, one of our nuclear powerplants is
blown up; if, God forbid, sarin gas is released in the tunnels under
New York City; if, God forbid, any number of other things I could
mention, which I won't because they will frighten people, happen, I
wonder how any Member will explain how we justified, in the name of not
growing government, reducing the number of what I call domestic defense
officials, the number of FBI agents, the law enforcement agents, the
number of people who, in fact, have as their primary responsibility,
the security of our people. A government's first and foremost
responsibility is security. It is not tax equity, it is security.
Security. I am here to say we are skating perilously close to a
disaster line here for failing to step up to the plate.
My last comment is I made a speech on September 10 to the National
Press Club making the same argument I am making now. It was at that
time thought to be somehow a little bit of--we can't afford it. The
argument I made on September 10 at the National Press Club was we were
ignoring domestic security and international terror at our peril and I
laid out what we were not doing.
Let me say to you, I will be back on the floor again and again
because I do not want my children or my grandchildren saying to me:
Where were you during the war, daddy? Put it another way: Where were
you when we were fighting terrorism, or supposed to be fighting
terrorism? Why were you cutting law enforcement, cutting the FBI? Why
were you cutting the very agencies that were designed to protect our
security, that mom in her living room, her child in her school, her
husband on the subway? Where were you?
I think we are misguided, in terms of the majority view on this
floor. I want to grow government to defeat terror. I want to do it with
people with guns. I want to do it with people with might. I want to do
it with people with intelligence capability. I want to stop it before
it happens. You cannot convince me you can do a better job with fewer
people.
I thank my friend.
Mr. REID. I have a unanimous consent request, if my friend will
yield.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Clinton,
Bingaman, Johnson, and Schumer be added as cosponsors to the Dodd
amendment No. 71.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized under the previous order
for 15 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor because I want to talk
about an amendment that will be offered tomorrow dealing with disaster
aid for farmers, but I can't help but comment just a moment on some of
the discussion I heard on the floor as I entered the Chamber, and also
just prior to that, the notion there is one side of this Chamber that
somehow is for big government and there is the other side that is
protecting the American people against big government.
My colleague from Delaware said it appropriately. If you take a look
at the amendments that have been offered and debated, the amendments,
for example, by my colleague, Senator Byrd, are talking about
additional investments in homeland security. Does anyone really think
it is just building big government to care about investments in
homeland security?
Do you know, for example, that there are 5.7 million containers that
come into America's ports every single year and only 100,000 of them
are inspected and 5.6 million containers are not inspected? Do you
think maybe we ought to do better than that? Do you think there is a
potential threat by terrorists dealing with our ports and harbors and
the containers that are coming in from all parts of the world?
If you do, do you really want to stand up and say what my colleague
is trying to do is just big government? Or maybe you want to stand up
and say this is an important investment in the security of this
country. Maybe you want to stop the kind of demagoguery that exists
around this town at almost every turn on almost every subject.
Isn't there a reason to have a thoughtful debate about what kind of
security the American people expect and deserve, responding to the
terrorist threat around the world? I think it ought to be thoughtful
rather than thoughtless, and too much of the dialog I find,
regrettably, is thoughtless.
We have heard, of course, the same dissenting voices. When the
proposal was to create a Medicare program, the dissenting voices were
to say: Oh, no, we can't do that. Create a Social Security Program to
help seniors? No, we can't do that.
It's a good thing this Chamber wasn't filled with people with that
attitude when President Eisenhower proposed we build the interstate
highway system or that wouldn't have gotten built.
I won't go on. I will just say I don't think anyone in here pines for
``big government.'' But I think we want a better country. And some of
us very strongly believe that to have a better country is to decide to
invest in America's kids, to improve education, to make our
neighborhoods safe, to create the kind of circumstances in which we
have economic growth and opportunity, and people have decent jobs--jobs
that pay well, jobs that have security. All of these represent what
will make this a better country--not a bigger government, a better
country. I think we would be well advised to redraw a few of these
charts that we see brought to the floor of the Senate and talk about
what is important to the future of America instead of trading slogans
back and forth.
But that is not why I came to the floor. I want to talk just for a
moment about the issue of disaster aid for family farmers. Last week a
cattle rancher from western North Dakota called and said: I don't want
any political discussion or political talk. What I need to know is,
will there be some assistance for those of us who have been hit by
disaster? Because I just spent 2 hours at my local bank. The fact is,
if there is not disaster aid made available by the Congress to help
those of us who got hit by a natural disaster--a drought that has been
devastating for them--then I am not going to be able to continue. There
will not be any credit for the coming year and I am not going to be
able to continue on my ranch.
There are thousands, tens of thousands of people all across this
country in exactly the same situation, wondering if, during this
disaster, this devastating drought that has been likened in some parts
of our country to the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s--a devastating
drought that is not the fault of farmers and ranchers but that has
crippled their ability to make a living, devastated their livestock
herds and meant that seeds they planted in the
[[Page 1464]]
spring could not possibly produce the harvest in the fall--wondering
whether, as has always been the case, whether Congress will do in this
disaster what it has done in previous disasters, and that is say to
those farm families: We would like to extend a helping hand.
We do that in virtually every other circumstance. When there is a
hurricane in one of our southern States, when there is a fire or a
flood or an earthquake, our country is quick to send teams of people
and say: Let us help you. This is a natural disaster. It is not of your
making and we understand the need for our country to reach out and
extend a hand and say let us help you.
I have always been pleased to say let me be a part of that. I want to
help the people who have been hit hard by these devastating natural
disasters. So my vote has always been yes. My colleagues, fortunately,
have always said the same when it comes to disasters that hit the
family farm. The question is whether we will provide enough help to
allow them to continue on that family farm or ranch.
We are going to offer, tomorrow morning, I believe--at least it will
be tomorrow, I hope it will be the first amendment up--Senator Daschle,
myself, Senator Baucus, and others will offer a farm disaster package
here on the floor of the Senate and that package will be similar to
that which has been offered in the Senate previously and passed by the
Senate previously, $5.9 to $6 billion. It received a very wide margin
here in the Senate. The vote was bipartisan. It was declared emergency
spending, as has always been the case with respect to disaster relief.
And it was blocked. It was blocked by the House; blocked by the White
House. But nonetheless, blocked.
We passed disaster relief on three occasions in the last Congress,
only to see it blocked, and we were unable, then, to get this disaster
relief made available to family farmers across the country.
So, we will try again tomorrow, urging that the Congress pass
disaster relief. We could and should be able to do that in the Senate.
I am reading there are some others with a disaster proposal that is
less than half of what should be available and also providing that
those who had no disaster will get payments. Last week's construct was
a bit different from this week's. But what I read is we will still see,
under the proposal offered by the majority, a disaster relief proposal
that will spread money to those in rural America, notwithstanding who
might or might not have been hit with a disaster.
It is our proposition that only those who have need--incidentally, it
is a wide group of family farmers and ranchers across this country who
have been hit by this devastating drought--it is only those, in my
judgment, who should receive the benefit of the disaster program.
We passed a new farm program last year that would provide better
price supports and that would guard against falling prices. But this
isn't about price support. This is about disaster.
In my part of the country, a fair portion of the crops--particularly
in southern North Dakota--never got out of the ground. In parts of
North Dakota and in parts of much larger areas of the country, if you
saw a picture of the ground that you would have taken during what would
have been harvesttime, you would see something that looked very much
like a moonscape. The seeds were in the ground but the seeds did not
come up. That farmer and his or her spouse would have lost everything.
Many of them right now are visiting with their bankers to determine
whether they will be able to continue on the farm or ranch.
I hope this Congress is ready to say, as it did last year in the
Senate, that we believe we ought to provide a disaster package to
family farmers who suffered this drought disaster.
There are many strikes that are against farmers and ranchers--some
perpetrated by the Congress and some by others, one of which is trade,
for example. I will not spend much time talking about that. But our
farmers have been beset these years by low prices, by bad trade deals,
and by a range of disasters--in some cases too much moisture, and in
other cases too dry, but the result is the same. In both cases, their
livestock herds are decimated. They are unable to raise a crop.
My hope is that by tomorrow we will have sufficient numbers in the
Senate, as we have had on previous occasions in the last year and a
half, who will stand up for family farmers and ranchers and decide
they, too, will support, as they have in the past, disaster relief. My
hope is that by this time tomorrow we will have had the debate,
finished the debate, and had a favorable vote. Senator Daschle and I,
and Senator Baucus and others, have spoken on the floor previously.
Senator Baucus put this in the stimulus plan last year and Senator
Daschle was in the Chamber leading the effort. We have had plenty of
debate on it. It ought not be a mystery for any Member in this Senate
about what is happening in rural America. No one, in my judgment, need
ask the question, including the President of the United States--who,
incidentally, went to South Dakota so often last year that he should
have rented an apartment in South Dakota, and he came to North Dakota.
And within the last couple of years, he has said, oh, by the way, you
family farmers, when you need me, I will be with you. We needed him and
he wasn't with us--last year and now this year. We asked this President
to join us. We asked the Speaker of the House to join us and help us
pass disaster relief at this point.
That is why beginning tomorrow Senator Daschle, myself, and others
will be pushing for an amendment on this omnibus bill. I know there
will be those who will come to the floor--and perhaps one of my
colleagues who spoke earlier today--and say, well, what they are
talking about is big government. What we are talking about is trying to
stimulate the economy and help those in the country who need some help.
One quick way to stimulate the economy in rural America is to help
those farmers and ranchers with some disaster relief, as we have always
done in the past. That disaster relief finds its way into the
mainstream. It supports jobs and main streets and businesses in all of
our communities in rural America.
It is not just about family farmers. It is about the world economy.
It is about stimulating our economy. There is no more quick way to do
that than to include in any stimulus package--in this case to include
in the omnibus bill--a piece of legislation that does what Congress
should have done a year ago but failed to do because the Speaker of the
House and the President blocked it; that is, pass a decent disaster
relief bill in the neighborhood of $6 billion on an emergency basis
that no longer leaves America's food producers in doubt; that says to
those families who are struggling on the farms that we are with you, we
care about you, but when you suffer disaster this country is going to
extend its hand to you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the remarks Senator Reed I be recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have spoken
to the floor staff. Following the statement of Senator Voinovich,
Senator Durbin wishes to speak on the amendment that Senator Reed is
going to offer.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding that Senator Reed may speak for 10 minutes. Is that
correct?
Mr. REED. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no limit.
Mr. DURBIN. All right. I ask unanimous consent that follow his
remarks I be recognized for brief comments on the same subject. But I
will wait. I think that is appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have to preside at 4 o'clock. May I
ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak at 5 o'clock after I am
finished presiding?
[[Page 1465]]
Mr. REID. I think that will be just fine. We will have no objection.
Mr. REED. I have no objection. I think I can assure the Senator that
I will be finished before 4 o'clock.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I inquire of the assistant
Democratic leader, when will we get a unanimous consent on the African
famine amendment?
Mr. REID. I have spoken to the majority. They recognize that the next
amendment we want to offer is by the Senator from Florida. We
understand that Senator Inhofe will be ready to go also. I am sure we
will get that consent as soon as the debate on unemployment insurance
is completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the unanimous consent
request of the Senator from Ohio is agreed to. The Senator will follow
the Senator from Rhode Island.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Amendment No. 40
Mr. REED. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I call up
amendment No. 40.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), for himself and
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mrs.
Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 40.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002)
At the appropriate place in title I of division G, insert
the following:
SEC. __. ENTITLEMENT TO ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY
EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) Entitlement to Additional Weeks.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 203(b) of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--The amount established in an account
under subsection (a) shall be equal to 26 times the
individual's weekly benefit amount for the benefit year.''.
(2) Repeal of restriction on augmentation during
transitional period.--Section 208(b) of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147), as amended by Public Law 108-1, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting
``paragraph (2)''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including such compensation by reason of
amounts deposited in such account after such date pursuant to
the application of subsection (c) of such section'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(3) Extension of transition limitation.--Section 208(b)(2)
of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-147), as amended by Public Law 108-1 and
as redesignated by paragraph (2), is amended by striking
``August 30, 2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(4) Conforming amendment for augmented benefits.--Section
203(c)(1) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28) is amended by
striking ``the amount originally established in such account
(as determined under subsection (b)(1))'' and inserting ``7
times the individual's average weekly benefit amount for the
benefit year''.
(b) Effective Date and Application.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning
on or after the date of enactment this Act.
(2) TEUC-X amounts deposited in account prior to date of
enactment deemed to be the additional teuc amounts provided
by this section.--In applying the amendments made by
subsection (a) under the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 26),
the Secretary of Labor shall deem any amounts deposited into
an individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation
account by reason of section 203(c) of such Act (commonly
known as ``TEUC-X amounts'') prior to the date of enactment
of this Act to be amounts deposited in such account by reason
of section 203(b) of such Act, as amended by subsection (a)
(commonly known as ``TEUC amounts'').
(3) Application to exhaustees and current beneficiaries.--
(A) Exhaustees.--In the case of any individual--
(i) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) who exhausted such individual's rights to such
compensation (by reason of the payment of all amounts in such
individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation
account) before such date,
such individual's eligibility for any additional weeks of
temporary extended unemployment compensation by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to
weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(B) Current beneficiaries.--In the case of any individual--
(i) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) as to whom the condition described in subparagraph
(A)(ii) does not apply,
such individual shall be eligible for temporary extended
unemployment compensation (in accordance with the provisions
of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002, as amended by subsection (a)) with respect to weeks of
unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(4) Redetermination of eligibility for augmented amounts
for individuals for whom such a determination was made prior
to the date of enactment.--Any determination of whether the
individual's State is in an extended benefit period under
section 203(c) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28)
made prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall be
disregarded and the determination under such section shall be
made as follows:
(A) Individuals who exhausted 13 teuc and 13 teux-x weeks
prior to the date of enactment.--In the case of an individual
who, prior to the date of enactment of this Act, received 26
times the individual's average weekly benefit amount through
an account established under section 203 of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147; 116 Stat. 28) (by reason of augmentation under
subsection (c) of such section), the determination shall be
made as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) All other individuals.--In the case of an individual
who is not described in subparagraph (A), the determination
shall be made at the time that the individual's account
established under such section 203, as amended by subsection
(a), is exhausted.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Durbin and several
other of my colleagues in calling for an extension of Federal
unemployment benefits for the 1 million long-term unemployed workers
who have exhausted their benefits and were not aided by the legislation
that we passed on January 8.
On January 8, we passed a bill that extended benefits to unemployed
workers who were cut off from receiving their benefits on December 28.
With the December 28th deadline, approximately 800,000 workers were cut
off from receiving their benefits. We essentially gave them 13 weeks of
extended benefits, but in doing so we neglected to provide additional
benefits for a million Americans who lost their unemployment benefits--
first, their State benefits of 26 weeks, and then their extended
Federal unemployment benefits.
In recent recessions, Congress always acted to respond to the plight
of these unemployed Americans who are searching for work, trying to
maintain their households, and trying to maintain their families. In
the early 1990s, Congress extended benefits five different times--three
of those times during the Presidency of President George Herbert Walker
Bush.
In contrast to the 1990s, the situation is even greater today. At the
end of December 2002, an estimated 2.2 million workers exhausted their
Federal benefits; whereas, in the recession of the 1990s, approximately
1.4 million Americans had exhausted those benefits.
Where is this crisis affecting Americans? It is everywhere. It is
estimated that of these 1 million jobless Americans, about 56,800 are
from Texas; 44,000 are from Pennsylvania; 43,500 are from Ohio; 37,600
are from North Carolina; 53,000 are from Illinois; 20,000 are from
Indiana; 27,000 are from Tennessee; 18,000 are from South Carolina; and
84,000 are from New York. And the list goes on and on.
This is not a rollcall to be proud of because it represents the fact
that the economy is not working. These are not
[[Page 1466]]
small numbers. We overlooked a lot of those Americans when we took
partial action on January 8.
This is not just about numbers. This is about people.
I think there is an erroneous perception that somehow these people
are not looking hard enough for work; that they are really the hard-
core unemployed, transient workers; that somehow they just don't
deserve our help. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I will share some stories that have appeared in the press about
people who are struggling with this dilemma of unemployment. I think
you will find these people are very similar to people in your
neighborhoods, in your families. They are Americans who want to work
but in this economy cannot find work.
And there is something else that is going on here, too. This economic
dilemma has some characteristics of a cyclical unemployment cycle, but
many economists believe there are structural issues at work. You see,
this is the situation where, for the first time in recent memory, many
of these unemployed Americans are highly skilled, highly educated, and
highly motivated. Yet they cannot find work.
For example, Laura Carson of Easton, MA, lost her job in July of
2001. She was a human resources executive. She worked for approximately
17 years, since she graduated from Suffolk University. She has applied
for unemployment insurance. She exhausted her State benefits, and then
she exhausted her extended benefits. She is still looking. She tried to
get a job this holiday season in a retail shop, but she could not find
work. She is still looking. Just to survive, she has gone ahead and
refinanced her house and taken out a home equity loan. But that is only
putting off the inevitable, as bills keep crashing in upon her.
These are the types of people we are trying to help: Susan Brown of
Chappaqua, NY, lost her job as a consultant 18 months ago. She used to
be a principal in a firm that specialized in Web design. She is one of
the victims of this technological bubble that burst. Her company went
belly-up in 2001.
This is a woman who has worked for 18 years since she got out of
college. She worked through high school and put herself through
college. This is exactly what we like to reward in America: hard work,
discipline, and dedication. She got remarried over the summer and,
ironically--but in this market, not surprisingly--her husband lost his
job, also. She has had to dip into her 401(k) plan to make ends meet.
She is still looking but still very frustrated about finding work. She
said:
There are just no jobs. I can't even tell you how hard it
is.
And prior to her loss of employment, she was making $200,000 a year.
This is an example of this new phenomenon where highly skilled, highly
motivated, highly educated people just can't find comparable employment
in this recession.
Jules Berman of Queens was laid off from his job. He worked for
almost 30 years for a New York candy company. He filed for unemployment
insurance in December 2001, and he has seen his benefits exhausted. He
has never been out of work before in his entire work life.
What you are seeing, again, if you do the math: after 30 years,
seeing middle-aged men and women, who are losing their jobs for the
first time in their work history, who thought--as we all did, our
contemporaries--if you worked hard, got a good education, got in with a
good company and strived and struggled each day, you certainly could
work until you retired on your pension and your Social Security. That
is not the case. And now, at the age of 50, with mortgages, with
children who are going to college, with health care bills and health
care concerns, they are looking for a job.
That is the reality, and it is not just in the Northeast. Eric
Strubble lives in Newcastle, CA. He was laid off from Hewlett-Packard--
another example of the huge downturn in technology companies that has
taken place in the last few years. He has filled the gap with these
unemployment benefits, but, as he said:
Obviously, if we had to live off it, there would be no way,
but it helps stretch things out a bit.
People don't get unemployment insurance because they don't want to
work. It is a fraction of what you make in your salary check each week.
The average unemployment benefit is about $256. It does not make up for
your lost wages. It allows you, as Mr. Strubble says, to ``stretch
things out a bit'' until you get on your feet.
Joyce Smith, 52, of Ardmore, TN, exhausted her $190-a-week benefit in
August. She was a factory worker. As she said:
There's not much out there. They don't want people my age.
It's been a panic and a struggle, and you just go into a
depression.
Gary Hineman of Morgantown, PA, an unemployed steelworker who is 48
years old, has worked his whole life. In fact, he fibbed about his age
at 16 just to get in the Steelworkers Union. He worked all his life,
worked hard, and yet he is looking desperately for work. He said:
If I could speak to Members of Congress, I would tell them
to see how we live and how we feel. They want the economy to
pick up, but there are no jobs to pick it up with.
That is Mr. Hineman. His wife Michelle works as a grocery clerk. They
are getting by on her $15-an-hour job.
Mr. Hineman said: ``That is the only thing I've got going for me.''
These are examples. These are the realities. These are the people we
are trying to help and we should help: hard-working Americans. Yet we
neglected 1 million of them.
Now, as the comments of these individuals suggest, this is a
reflection of an economy that is not working. For the first time in 8
years, family incomes have fallen; poverty is increasing; families at
all income levels are losing their health insurance; gross domestic
product is growing, but it is not growing fast enough to make up the
jobs that are necessary so these people can get back to work.
Indeed, the reality for most Americans today is, they live on their
paychecks not their portfolios. When the paycheck stops, they are in
very difficult circumstances. Our proposal is very simple: Let's give
these individuals some more extended unemployment benefits so they can
stretch it out a bit longer, find that job, make decisions that are
going to get them back in the workforce.
Let me point out that our economy has lost over 2.2 million private
payroll jobs since President Bush took office. The unemployment rate is
currently 6 percent--nearly 2 percentage points higher than when
President Bush took office. Long-term unemployment is very high, and
that is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment: giving some
support to these long-term unemployed.
By the way, I cannot think of a more efficient stimulus program than
giving people looking for work unemployment benefits to tide them over
until they find work. The money goes directly to them and directly into
the economy. So from the standpoint of economic policy, that makes
sense. Certainly from the standpoint of helping citizens of this
country, it makes a great deal of sense.
The unemployment insurance trust fund has a $24 billion surplus. The
funds are there. We should access them and allow these individuals
additional benefits. We have to do more to help working Americans to
make sure they make it through a very difficult, very challenging
economic situation.
We have done it before, and I hope we can do it again. I hope we will
do it again in this bill. This is an issue of great concern for our
economy, but, as I have tried to illustrate with these individual
stories, this is about our neighbors, people we live with back in our
home States, the people we represent, the people who have worked all
their lives; and all they want is a chance to keep their heads above
water until they can find that job, as they look for that job day in
and day out.
I think it is the least we can do for them. I hope we will do it. I
am pleased and proud to be joined by Senator Durbin as a cosponsor. I
know he will return a bit later to make his comments.
[[Page 1467]]
I hope we can, in fact, take up this amendment, adopt it on a strong
bipartisan basis, and make sure that all long-term unemployed, not just
those who were satisfied in the last legislation--but all the long-term
unemployed--get a chance for extended benefits.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Amendment No. 86
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
proposed amendment to stop the New Source Review reforms from moving
forward, and in support of Senator Inhofe's second-degree amendment. I
am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this because there is
a lot of confusion among our colleagues and throughout the country over
what NSR New Source Review--means. The program is a policy that is in
desperate need of reform. Reform is critical to public health and the
environment, to our Nation's economy and energy supply, and to the
safety of our country's workforce.
The program was created back in 1977. It simply requires new
facilities to install the ``best demonstrated technology'' to control
emissions. The program also requires older facilities to update their
equipment to ``state of the art'' when they do major modifications. I
underscore ``major modifications.''
When the NSR program was created 26 years ago, Congress believed that
incorporating pollution controls whenever new facilities are built or
when older ones are significantly modified was the most efficient way
of controlling pollution. The EPA issued their first NSR regulation, a
20-page document, in 1980. This implementing regulation excluded from
the definition of modification ``routine maintenance, repair and
replacement.'' Since then, the EPA has produced over 4,000 pages of
guidance documents in an attempt to explain and reinterpret the
regulations. I say ``attempt'' because in fact the guidance documents
are very confusing.
It is important for the public and Members of this body to understand
that the lawsuits blossoming all over the United States for NSR
violations were brought about by an EPA guidance document, not new
regulations, an EPA guidance document in 1998 which changed the
definition of routine maintenance. This continual reinterpretation has
led to confusion, misunderstanding by the EPA, the States, and the
industries affected by the regulations.
This chart, which I have used at hearings before the Government
Affairs and EPW Committees, shows why companies are reluctant to
subject themselves to New Source Review permits. If you were a company
and you were going to do routine maintenance and repair, would you ever
submit yourself to this maze? I am sorry it is in such small print
because my colleagues can't see it. But this is the kind of thing they
are being required to do if they want to go forward with routine
maintenance and repair.
Not only has the situation led to costly litigation, but to a climate
of uncertainty, forcing companies to forgo needed maintenance and
repair work until the regulatory policies are clarified. Ironically,
this uncertainty has led companies to reduce their investments in
cleaner, less polluting technologies for fear that the shifting
regulatory environment would declare such improvements a violation.
While the goal of the Clean Air Act has been to make the air cleaner,
the NSR program has at times worked against this goal and wound up
having the opposite effect.
I want to clarify a very important point often misconstrued by the
opponents of NSR reform. All major facilities are regulated by the
Clean Air Act. No plants are exempt from the Act, and no plants are
``grandfathered.'' All facilities have permit levels that they must
meet for their emissions. They must abide by ozone and particulate
matter standards, what we refer to as maximum achievable control
technology standards, the acid rain program, the NOX SIP
Call, the regional haze program, and a range of other regulatory
programs that apply to each industry or facility. Furthermore, states
implement source-specific emission limits through state implementation
plans that can be set at more stringent emissions levels if the states
deem it necessary.
In fact, as this chart shows, the Clean Air Act has been extremely
successful in reducing emissions of pollutants. Since the 1970s,
emissions of all criteria pollutants--carbon monoxide, lead,
particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide--have
been reduced by 29 percent. This is significant when you consider the
fact that over the past 30 years, our population has increased by 38
percent, our Nation's energy consumption has increased by 45 percent,
the number of miles our vehicles travel each year has increased by 143
percent, and our gross domestic product has increased by 160 percent.
While our country has grown, emissions have decreased. However, I
strongly believe that more can and should be done.
I have worked tirelessly over my entire career to improve our
nation's and Ohio's air quality. In the 1970s, as Mayor of Cleveland, I
worked on this issue firsthand by operating a 57 megawatt municipally
owned utility. I also spent considerable effort as Governor to get 28
of Ohio's counties into attainment for ozone. Through my efforts to
institute an automobile emissions testing program and convince one of
our major coal fired facilities to install a scrubber, all 88 of Ohio's
counties met the air quality standard requirements of the Clean Air Act
by the time I left office.
I have continued this work here in the Senate since 1999. As chairman
of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I have been working to further reduce
pollution from power plants through a multi-emissions strategy. Last
year, we worked on this issue in the EPW Committee. Unfortunately, the
majority moved ahead on a proposal that would have been unjustifiably
devastating to our economy and very costly for consumers and businesses
alike.
In the 108th Congress, I plan to work to craft a bipartisan multi-
emissions strategy that makes real reductions possible right away. I
urge my colleagues to lay politics aside and work with me to improve
public health, protect our environment, provide better regulatory
certainty, and ensure continued access to safe, reliable, and low-cost
electricity.
Mr. President, the NSR program plays an important role in reducing
power plant emissions. It also--this is something that is not well
understood--applies to every stationary source in the country. When
people talk about this, they think it is just utilities that are
involved. Rather, we are talking about refineries, chemical plants, and
manufacturing facilities. NSR applies to all of them, and all of them
out there today are uncertain about what they should be doing and, as a
result, are doing nothing.
The current confusion over NSR is actually contributing to polluting
our air. When NSR is clarified, I am sure that many of these companies
would move on with their programs. They would reduce emissions, and
they would make their facilities more efficient.
It is imperative that the NSR program be reformed if we are to
improve air quality because at present companies either can't or won't
make the necessary changes to improve efficiency and the environment.
Without NSR reform, multi-emissions legislation will not work.
We need to do everything possible to encourage new investments in
more efficient equipment that produces fewer noxious emissions. That is
why Senator Conrad and I, along with 24 of our colleagues, sent a
bipartisan letter to Administrator Whitman in May calling on her to
``complete the [NSR] review and to undertake the necessary regulatory
process in the near future to clarify and reform the NSR program.''
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page 1468]]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2002.
Hon. Christine Whitman,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Whitman: The Administration's National
Energy Policy included a recommendation that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a review of the
New Source Review (NSR) program and make recommendations to
improve the program. We are writing to urge you to complete
that review and to undertake the necessary regulatory process
in the near future to clarify and reform the NSR program. We
also encourage you to implement any changes in a way that
protects human health and the environment while providing
regulatory certainty for the electric utility industry and
other industries that must comply with the program while
providing reliable and affordable electricity to consumers.
We have heard of many situations where confusion over the
NSR program is having a dampening effect on utilities'
willingness to perform energy efficiency and environmental
improvement projects. The NSR program needs to be clarified
to adequately define the concept of ``routine maintenance''
to avoid the regulatory uncertainty currently facing
industry. Such clarification would allow companies to repair
their facilities and maintain reliable and safe electric
service for consumers and workers without being subject to
the threat of federal government lawsuits for allegedly
violating vague NSR requirements.
Again, we urge EPA to expeditiously proceed with a
regulatory process to clarify and reform the NSR program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kent Conrad, George V. Voinovich, Mark Dayton, Byron L.
Dorgan, Jean Carnahan, Tim Johnson, Zell Miller,
Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Kit Bond,
Thad Cochran, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Evan Bayh, Sam
Brownback, Jim Bunning, Mary Landrieu, Craig Thomas,
John Warner, Pete Domenici, Ben Nelson, Larry Craig,
Mike Euzi, Mike DeWine, Richard Shelby, Mitch
McConnell.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Our letter was bipartisan, nine Democrats and 17
Republicans, all calling for reform. While I am sure all 26 of us would
not necessarily agree on exactly what the reforms should ultimately
look like, we did all agree that we ought to get moving with it. We are
running out of time.
In our letter to Ms. Whitman we also stated:
We have heard of many situations in which confusion over
the NSR program is having a dampening effect on utilities'
willingness to perform energy efficiency and environmental
improvement projects.
Mr. President, I'd like to share just one of the examples that I am
aware of. For refiners, I am aware of an incident in which tubes on a
reboiler furnace failed, resulting in a fire which damaged the
remaining tubes. New tubes were installed and the unit was back in
production within two weeks. However, they were in violation of NSR due
to the ``actual-to-potential'' emissions test. If NSR regulations were
followed, the unit should have undergone the permit process, resulting
in the refinery being out of commission for five to 18 months. I think
my colleagues should remember that the next time a refinery closes and
prices spike.
Mr. President, the 26 Senators who signed this letter are not the
only ones who think that NSR has prohibited reductions in emissions.
This is really important. In August 2001, the National Governors
Association passed a unanimous resolution calling for NSR reform. Their
resolution states ``New Source Review requirements should be reformed
to achieve improvements that enhance the environment and increase
energy production capacity, while encouraging energy efficiency, fuel
diversity, and the use of renewable resources.''
Furthermore, according to the National Coal Council study,
commissioned by the Clinton administration, if the EPA were to return
to the pre-1998 NSR definitions, we could generate 40,000 new Megawatts
of electricity from coal-fired facilities and reduce pollution at the
same time.
The current NSR program threatens our energy supply due to both
short-term and long-term reliability problems. According to the
Department of Energy, electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.8
percent per year through 2020. At the same time, no new nuclear plants
have been constructed since the 1970s and the number of new coal
facilities has declined significantly since the 1980s. Our nation's use
of coal will continue to increase, resulting in greater demand on our
aging coal facilities. In order to meet the growing electricity demand,
more frequent maintenance and repair work will be needed to keep these
coal facilities on-line.
Another point that needs to be made, which is often overlooked in
this debate, is that the costs of NSR are passed on to the ratepayers.
Somehow people forget that the customer always pays. Too often, the
environment and the ratepayer get lost in the constant duel between
extremist environmental groups and recalcitrant companies.
Higher energy prices will have a more profound effect on low-income
families and the elderly. The Department of Energy, as this chart
shows, claims that those individuals or families making less than
$10,000 per year will spend 29 percent of their income on energy costs,
and those making between $10,000 and $24,000 a year will spend 13
percent of their income on energy costs.
The NSR program not only prevents the installation of more efficient
and less polluting technologies, but it also interferes with safety
improvements.
According to the Boilermakers Union, ``Maintenance is necessary to
maintain worker safety. Electric generating facilities harness
tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue gases over 2000
degrees; boilers under deteriorating conditions; and parts located in
or around boilers subjected to both extreme heat and pressure.''
Failure to maintain and repair equipment creates a potential danger
to the lives and safety of the men and women who work on these
facilities, and they are not moving forward right now with many of
these repairs.
Fortunately, the EPA has responded to the bipartisan and strong call
for reform of the New Source Review program. On December 31, 2002 the
EPA published a rule that included five reforms of the program. Some of
my colleagues might not know that the final rule was actually proposed
by the Clinton administration. Let me repeat: These reforms were
proposed by the Clinton administration. They are bipartisan.
The reforms are the result of over 10 years of work by the EPA across
three administrations and have involved over 130,000 written comments
in the last year alone. The EPA has conducted a detailed environmental
analysis of the rule and found that the reforms will have a net benefit
to the environment, a net benefit. They are good for the environment.
Again, I want to stress to my colleagues that Senator Inhofe's
amendment will allow us to move forward and help the environment.
This morning my colleague from North Carolina proposed an amendment
to delay the implementation of these reforms for 6 months until a study
is completed to assess their impact. They have been studied for a long
time. On the surface this sounds like a good idea. However, if this
amendment passes, we will delay reforms that have been worked on for
over 10 years and would make improvements in the environment and to
public health today. An EPA analysis already found that the reforms
will have a net benefit to the environment.
Furthermore, Mr. President, contrary to an argument put forth by
critics of NSR reform, EPA has stated publicly that it deliberately
wrote the rule so that current lawsuits would not be affected by the
proposed NSR reforms.
It is my belief that if this amendment passes, it will also seriously
harm the prospects of future reforms to the NSR program. For example,
EPA has proposed a rule to provide a new definition for ``routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement.'' The EPA did not offer specifics
but asked for public comment on a range of options. This proposal is at
the crux of the issue and is imperative. I believe this amendment would
not only delay the current rule from being implemented, but it would
also effectively delay other very important reforms to the program. We
have to get on with it.
I join my colleague and friend, Senator Inhofe, today in the second-
degree amendment he has proposed. This
[[Page 1469]]
amendment would allow the reforms to be implemented while requiring the
National Academy of Sciences to evaluate its impact. It allows the
reforms to go forward to stop this state of limbo that exists. At
present, nothing is happening. Companies will then be able to make
efficiency improvements and reduce their emissions. At the same time,
the Academy can study the impact of the reforms as they are being
implemented.
Ending the confusion surrounding the NSR reforms will allow companies
to make the investments that are necessary to both increase our energy
supply and environmental protections. We can reduce pollution and
become more energy-efficient. We need to provide both for continued
economic development and protections for public health and the
environment. To meet these needs, we must move enact substantive NSR
reform.
I thank the administration for their work in developing this proposal
and moving ahead with the Clinton era reforms. I urge them to continue
these efforts. Support for these actions is strong and broad-based. The
confusion about NSR regulations is pervasive throughout our Nation,
from the regulated community to the regulators. It must be addressed--
and soon.
Mr. President, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support Senator
Inhofe's second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' amendment. The
program is broken and desperately needs to be reformed. We cannot
afford further delay.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I thank the Senator from Ohio for the time
he has spent in setting out this issue. Not many people are aware of
the fact that Senator Voinovich was the head of the National Governors
Association Clean Air Committee and has been working on it for a long
time.
I only add to his comments and ask him if he is in agreement that we
have 180 pages here, and almost all of this was done during the Clinton
administration. All the data that would be available for the NAS is
found in the results that are very positive in this report. So I
certainly hope this is an accommodating way for the Senator from North
Carolina to say, yes, we want the input of the NAS; we don't want to
wait 6 more months.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Again, I thank the Senator. I emphasize that 130,000
comments were made last year regarding those regulations that have been
issued by the EPA. So it has been really vetted. People have had an
opportunity to participate in this. I support the Senator's suggestion
that rather than ask for a study by the Academy, we delay that and let
the rules be issued, and then let the Academy look at it. That is a
much sounder, more commonsense approach to dealing with this problem.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I am more than happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, would it not be better, rather than having
the rule going into effect and having all the people, from our
perspective, start polluting while the study is taking place, to find
out which side is right? We are saying to have the NAS study the issue,
hold this off for 6 months, and then there should be a determination
made as to whether the rule as proposed by the administration affects
people.
I don't see--and I ask my friend from Ohio, the distinguished junior
Senator--what harm can be done in holding off for 6 months this rule
going into effect when, if we don't hold off, our reasoning would be,
as indicated in the study I talked about earlier today, where just 2
months--2 plans would put into the environment 120 tons of bad things
every year.
Would it not be better to wait and see what the study of the National
Academy of Sciences comes up with before the rule went into effect?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that
the previous administration had been working on these rules. They
started out during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration
began looking at the recommendations from the previous administration.
They subjected them to review by many organizations. By the way, these
rules do not apply to utility companies. They have only proposed a rule
in this regard. What I am saying to Senator Reid and others is that
because the regulations have not been reformed, companies for several
years have done nothing to move forward with installing controls that
would reduce emissions or make their facilities more efficient. I think
we have delayed long enough. It has been vetted.
If someone believes yet another review is necessary, it should be
done after the reforms are implemented. Any additional review should be
done after implementation so that we are dealing with reality and not
speculation. This is very important. I think it is time for us to go
forward with the reforms to allow facilities to do their routine
maintenance and repair work. This will make their facilities more
efficient, reduce their emissions and, in some cases, produce more
energy.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will respond simply to my friend that the
environmental community has a different view. They believe this radical
rule change would simply allow pollution to take place that is not
allowed now.
We hear that the rules the administration has made are the same as
rules made in the Clinton administration. This simply isn't true. Here
is what Carol Browner has said:
Some have suggested that the administration's announced
changes are changes the Clinton administration supported.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamental to
everything we did was a commitment to ongoing air quality
improvements. There is no guarantee, and more importantly, no
evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the
administration's announced final or proposed changes will
make the air cleaner. In fact, they will allow the air to
become dirtier.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we had a hearing in the EPW committee
last year on the rules before they were publicized, and they were
savaged because many people believed the issuance would interfere with
current lawsuits. The EPA claims that the reforms do not interfere with
pending lawsuits for violations under the guidance that was issued back
in 1998.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Amendment No. 40
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak on the Reed-
Durbin amendment regarding unemployment insurance. If another Senator
has been waiting to speak, I will be glad to wait. If not, I will
proceed.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which has been
introduced by Jack Reed of Rhode Island and myself. About 20 years ago,
when I first ran for Congress, I waited each month for an economic
indicator which really led the debate about the state of America's
economy. That economic indicator every single month was the
unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate in America was high, or
going up, that really consumed all of the political attention of
candidates and Members of Congress. That was considered to be the
yardstick or barometer of how healthy America's economy is. In the span
of time I have served in Congress, that yardstick and barometer has
changed.
We now focus more on the situation of the Dow Jones Index and
Standard & Poor's. We look daily, almost on a minute-by-minute basis,
to the report of the Dow Jones Index as an indicator of our economic
well-being. But I think in so doing, we have overlooked something we
have done for a long time. If the economy is not strong, people do not
go to work. If they do not go to work, they get desperate to keep their
families together, to pay for the basics, to make sure their kids have
the necessities of life, and they struggle to hope that the economy
returns to strength and they can return to employment, and soon.
There is a lot of talk in this Chamber about who is responsible for
this recession. That is a common topic in politics. We politicians
spend a lot of time pointing fingers, saying: This recession really
started the last few months of the Clinton administration; no, no, it
[[Page 1470]]
really started in the first few months of President George W. Bush's
administration. Let me for a moment push that aside and suggest that
the families who lost their jobs do not care. They are not interested
in when this started. They want to know when it is going to end so that
if they lost a job and are falling behind, they have a chance to get
back into the workforce.
These are not people who can be characterized as lazy in any way.
They have worked, and worked hard, for a long time, but contractions in
the American economy because of this recession have killed jobs all
across America. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration, we
created 22 million new jobs. During the first 2 years of this
administration, we have lost 2 million jobs nationally, and we are
losing over 100,000 a month. As a result, many people are hard pressed
to keep up with their obligations to their family.
The December 2002 unemployment rate of 6 percent is the highest rate
in over 8 years. According to a Congressional Budget Office economic
forecast, the unemployment rate is expected to remain at that level at
least until the second half of this year, 2003.
Over 1.85 million workers have been looking for work for at least 6
months. As of January this year, more than 1 million workers exhausted
the 13-week temporary benefits extension enacted in March 2002 and
remain unemployed. Employment has declined by 1.7 million jobs since
January of 2001. The decline is slightly worse than the average fall-
off after the last six recessions. While the unemployment rate remains
far lower than at the end of the recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, it
has still risen significantly from its 30-year low of 3.9 percent in
2000, not that long ago.
The reason I raise that point and the reason Senator Reed and I come
to the floor to offer this amendment is to suggest that hundreds of
thousands, perhaps 1 million, unemployed workers in this country are
facing extraordinarily dangerous and difficult times. These are people
who are caught up in the vortex of this recession and cannot get out.
They cannot find work. They drew unemployment for a short period, and
it has been exhausted. They used it all up. Now where are they? They
are stuck in a position where they have to try to meet their monthly
bills and have no unemployment compensation, no prospects for
employment, and the recession seems to be going on interminably.
I asked business leaders of major corporations from my State to give
me their best guess of when this recession would end. Frankly, they
told me--and it was depressing to hear--it might be 2 years. I hope
they are wrong. I hope it ends tomorrow. I hope we see better signs of
encouragement. The fact is, it has not happened.
What have we done in the past when we have dealt with recessions not
even as bad as this one? We said time and again if the recession
continues indefinitely, we have to step in. We cannot abandon these
Americans who are victims of this economy. Let us give them a helping
hand. Let us do something for their families. Let us make certain they
do not lose their homes to mortgage foreclosures. This is not a
Democratic response or a Republican response, it has been our American
response year in and year out.
Let me give an example. During the recession of the early 1990s
which, in many respects, was not as bad as this one, Congress extended
temporary unemployment benefits five times. During this recession, we
have extended benefits only twice. Of the five times Congress extended
benefits in the early 1990s, three were under President Bush's father
in the recession he faced, and two were under President Clinton when he
took office, and the recession had continued.
This is not a partisan response we are suggesting today. It is
unfortunate only two Democratic Senators would offer this. This should
have been a bipartisan offering.
During the recession of the early 1990s, Congress established the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program which was in place for 30
months, from November 1991 to April 1994. During this recession, we
established the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program
which is scheduled to expire at the end of May 2003 and, therefore,
would have only been in place for less than 15 months. Here we are with
a recession that is worse and a response that does not measure up to
half of what we did during the last major recession we faced.
We passed an extension of unemployment compensation benefits recently
which will provide temporary benefits to some workers. This amendment
which Senator Reed and I proposed will provide assistance for an
additional 53,000 workers in my State and 1 million workers nationwide.
It will provide 13 weeks of additional benefits. Workers in high
unemployment States who already receive 26 weeks of benefits will
receive an additional 7 weeks of benefits. Thus, the greatest number of
weeks a worker can receive is 59 weeks, the same as under the extension
enacted under President Bush's father.
The CBO cost estimate, $6.5 billion, is substantial but still
represents only slightly more than a third of the balance in the
unemployment insurance trust fund, after accounting for the extension
enacted earlier this month. I think the 5-month extension we enacted
was something that was good and it helped a lot of workers, but we
cannot leave out the 1 million Americans who will not be helped by this
action taken just a few weeks ago. One million Americans have exhausted
their unemployment benefits and are stuck in a situation--without a job
in a recession--to which, frankly, we do not see an end. What we are
asking the Senate to do today on this appropriations bill is to think
about those we have left behind. I do not believe it is fair to
characterize the people who are victims of this recession as anything
less than hard-working Americans caught behind the curve of this
economy. I do not care whose responsibility this recession is for this
moment. We can argue about that for a long time, but I do feel a
responsibility to these workers and their families.
In my State, the unemployment rate in November of last year was 6.7
percent. This is a 13.6-percent increase from November of the previous
year when our rate was 5.9 percent. Our unemployment rate in Illinois
sadly is tied for third highest in the Nation. Alaska and Oregon are
higher. We are tied with the State of Mississippi. If one measures the
impact of a recession by the percent change in unemployment rates, this
recession has hit my State twice as hard as the recession of the early
1990s, and as of January 1, 2003, over 53,000 Illinois workers
exhausted the 13-week temporary benefits extension enacted in March
2002 and remain unemployed. Each week, 4,000 Illinois workers will
exhaust their regular State unemployment benefits.
The President, in his radio address a few weeks ago, said as follows:
We will not rest until every person in America who wants to
work can find a job.
Thank goodness. That is a pledge every President should make. On
December 28, in another weekly radio address, the President said, and
this is right after Christmas and we knew unemployment benefits were
expiring:
One of my first priorities for the new Congress will be an
extension of unemployment benefits for Americans who need
them.
The President responded and Congress answered with an extension of
unemployment benefits that took us close to meeting that pledge, but
not close enough for 1 million Americans who were left behind. The
extension of unemployment benefits that the President proposed and
signed excluded 1 million American workers who have been unemployed for
over 9 months and have exhausted all their temporary Federal benefits
without finding a new job.
I have argued in this Chamber today that this is a question of
fairness and compassion. Let me add parenthetically that it is also a
stimulus to the economy. The money given to unemployed workers is spent
almost immediately to meet the needs of their family. It is not salted
away, invested, or saved. It is spent for goods and services creating
economic activity and jobs in a time when this economy dearly needs
that to happen.
[[Page 1471]]
I hope my colleagues will reconsider this issue and join Senator Reed
and myself in enacting this amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. I will ask a quick question. I know my colleague
referred to the 1990-1991 recession a couple of three times and alluded
to: We did it then. Why do we not do it now?
Is the Senator aware of the fact that the unemployment rate was 7
percent or more, compared to the current level of 6 percent, when we
passed the Federal unemployment extension in 1990-1991?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am aware of that
fact, but I hope he is also aware of the fact that the recession we are
currently in also has some economic indicators that are even more
troubling than what we faced in the early 1990s.
I say to the Senator in good faith that I sincerely hope this
recession ends tomorrow. I do not care what the political consequences
are for Democrats or Republicans, but I hope the Senator from Oklahoma
will concede the recession we are in today is unlike those we have had
before. There is high unemployment. Maybe we have not reached record
levels, but there seems to be a resistance to getting this economy
started again. I think that is why we are debating a stimulus and
growth package.
I hope the Senator will concede that, though the numbers may not be
exactly as bad, the depths of this recession and the impacts of the
current recession are really unique and we should respond to them at
least in the way we did before.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this issue, but my
colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, was in the Chamber
prior to my arrival so I will speak after his comments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I think all 100 Senators would
agree, both from the standpoint of our needs for the future as well as
what we have done in the past, that we all recognize the legitimacy of
the Federal Government stepping in to compensate with Federal
unemployment help when State programs have run out. There is no dispute
about that.
There is a dispute over when and how much, and the plan we are being
offered now would be a plan that has been put in place at other times
but under much higher rates of unemployment.
I hope we do not have higher rates of unemployment, but sometime down
the road we will, hopefully not now during this period of time, and it
seems to me we ought to keep reserve to do what we have other times in
the past when we have had higher rates of unemployment than we have
right now, as opposed to triggering in programs that do much more for
the unemployed than we normally do at 6-percent unemployment, let's
say, as opposed to 7-percent unemployment.
If we were to go the route that is being proposed, then we would be
doing more than we normally do at this rate of unemployment we have
now. Surely, the people who are proposing what they are proposing
today, as all of us would probably do if there is a higher rate of
unemployment, would expect the Congress to respond to that. It is not a
question of should we respond; it is a question of a measured response
and when it triggers in.
I am not condemning people who say we ought to do more today beyond
what States do, but they are responding in a way that we would normally
respond when the unemployment situation would be much more negative
than it is right now.
I think it is wrong for my colleagues to speak about this recession
being different than other recessions, for two reasons. No. 1, the
definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth. We had
three quarters of negative growth but that negative growth ended
September 30, 2001. So we have had five quarters now of growth, about
2\1/2\ percent average.
Economists are predicting the quarter we are in now for 2003 would be
about 3-percent growth, so I do not think it is fair to say we are in
recession unless we have a Senator who is making his own definition of
a recession--and he has that right--but I think we should be comparing
apples with apples and not apples with oranges.
The second point I make is even if we were just coming out of a
recession instead of being five quarters out of a recession--an
official recession as defined by economists--I think we all need to
remember that historically unemployment as a statistic is a lagging
indicator. So one would expect other indicators of an improving economy
to improve before the unemployment figure improved. Consequently, this
has to be taken into consideration as help is given to unemployed
people.
It is quite obvious that a number of my Democratic colleagues seem to
think we can never spend enough on unemployment. So I want to review
where we are so the record is straight.
Under the regular State unemployment program, workers are entitled to
as much as 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Under the temporary
federally funded unemployment program enacted last March, those who
exhaust their regular State benefits can receive up to 13 weeks of
additional Federal benefits. In addition, workers in high unemployment
States can receive yet another additional 13 weeks. That is a maximum
of 26 weeks of Federal benefits.
So to some, it works out this way: Workers in every State can collect
up to 39 weeks of benefits, 26 of those being State and 13 Federal.
Workers in higher unemployment States can collect up to a whole year of
unemployment benefits, which means 26 weeks State, 26 weeks Federal.
Last year, this temporary program was estimated to cost $11 billion.
We are still responding, as we should in a bipartisan way, to this
unemployment statistic still being relatively high but not as high as
it has historically been. Earlier this month, in addition to what we
did last March, Congress voted to extend these Federal benefits through
May of 2003. This extension is estimated to cost $7 billion more. That
happens to be a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment
benefits. According to some of my Democratic colleagues, that still
seems not to be enough.
Through this amendment, I think they are trying to spend an
additional $6 billion. The amendment they offered today would change
the current law to provide 26 weeks of federally funded benefits in
every State, and 33 weeks in high unemployment States. The last time
Congress provided 33 weeks of benefits, the unemployment rate was well
over 7 percent. That is why I made the point. If we do this, what are
we going to do if unemployment gets up to 7 percent, which I do not
think anybody expects it to but suppose it did? The current
unemployment rate is 6 percent.
Now there is something even more troubling. What I have said until
now has been done by Congress in the past during certain times of high
unemployment. More disturbing to me, this amendment changes current law
to provide a uniform duration of benefits. Most States vary the
duration of benefits based on the worker's actual employment history.
Variable duration recognizes the insurance principles inherent in
unemployment compensation by providing a shorter duration for workers
who had a limited amount of work prior to qualifying for the benefits.
These workers have paid less unemployment taxes and they have less
attachment to the workforce.
Congress has never provided extended benefits without regard to the
duration of State benefits. That is a very dramatic departure that this
amendment holds for the future. A uniform duration means some workers
will be able to collect more Federal benefits than they would State
benefits. Moreover, a uniform duration means some workers will actually
be able to collect benefits for a longer period of time than they
actually worked.
[[Page 1472]]
Current law requires a minimum of 20 weeks of work to qualify for
Federal benefit. Yet this amendment provides up to 33 weeks of
benefits. These 33 weeks of Federal benefits could be paid in addition
to as much as 39 weeks of State benefits. That happens to be a total of
72 weeks of benefits for someone who maybe only worked 20 weeks. This
amendment represents the single largest expansion of Federal
unemployment benefits in the entire history.
That brings me to an issue of how, if this were a legitimate approach
to unemployment compensation, this ought to be handled by committees of
appropriate jurisdiction, not be offered on the floor of the Senate to
an appropriations bill. I am speaking because that appropriate
committee is the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over
unemployment compensation. A departure in Federal responsibility is
very important to consider as a committee--its impact, its costs. More
important, if we are going to have this sort of an impact that is so
different from what States have historically had, it ought to be
considered by the committee of appropriate jurisdiction. We are dealing
with something that is other than just simple extension of unemployment
compensation.
Now, we may need to revisit this issue later this year, depending
upon how the economy performs. But when we do that, we need to do it in
a way that we take into full consideration that this amendment
represents an unprecedented and, at least at this point with 6 percent
unemployment compared to more than 7\1/2\ percent unemployment when it
has been used in the past, an unjustified expansion of the unemployment
program.
I urge my colleagues not to vote for this amendment. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the Finance Committee, for his statement. I hope my
colleagues pay attention to it, especially the last part. The chairman
of the Finance Committee said this has not gone through the Finance
Committee, and pointed out several things that sounded like this is
about what we did in the 1990s, but it is not. It is expensive. This is
a different proposal than what we have seen.
We actually had a similar type of proposal that was debated last
year, to which I objected, I believe the Senator from Iowa objected,
and maybe the Senator from New Hampshire objected, that was a doubling
of the Federal program from 13 to 26 weeks. This is a different
iteration of that. It is different--in some cases maybe better, in some
cases maybe worse. The one we objected to last year was a $17 or $18
billion program. The proposal now, we understand from the authors--I
have not seen this from the Congressional Budget Office, but I respect
them and I assume it is correct--says it costs $6.5 billion. Last week,
we passed a bill that cost $7.2 billion. So this is $6 billion on top
of that.
The Senator from Iowa mentioned that this says there would be a
mandatory 26-week Federal unemployment compensation program. Present
law we passed last week is an extension of up to 13 weeks for all
States. There is a big difference in legislative language when you say
``up to'' rather than mandating 26 weeks. One, you are doubling the
program, and you also do not keep it connected to the State program.
Some States have different durations. We have always been tied to the
State program.
I keep hearing about what we did in 1990; we want to duplicate what
we did in 1990. The chairman of the Finance Committee alluded to the
fact that the 1990 unemployment rate was much higher. It was 7 percent,
7.4 percent, 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate today nationwide is 6
percent. We have a lot of States that are substantially lower. We have
24 States that have unemployment rates at or below 5 percent this
year--now. We have nine States that have unemployment levels between
2.7 and 4 percent. I remember in my private sector days, if you had
unemployment at about 4 percent, you might not be able to hire
somebody.
So there will always be some who are unemployed because people are
changing jobs, they just graduated, they just moved and are temporarily
unemployed. There is always a segment of the population temporarily
unemployed. Almost half of our States have unemployment rates of 5
percent or less.
I mentioned there is a big difference from the language we passed in
1990. In 1990, we did do 26 weeks, but up to 26 weeks. We also had
unemployment rates that were over a full point higher.
Also, sometimes we want to ask: when are we going to pay attention to
the committees of jurisdiction? We are on an appropriations bill, yet
we have an amendment that expands entitlements. Even though we extended
current law last week, agreeing to spend an additional $7 billion plus,
colleagues say: Wait a minute, let's add another $6.5 billion on top of
that. We will just do an amendment that should come out of the Finance
Committee right now. This is the first time that people will have seen
it, and it's different than the proposals we have seen in the past, and
we will see if we cannot pass it.
It does not belong here. Obviously, my colleagues know the budget
point of order lies against this amendment. This proposal has not been
introduced as a bill and a committee hearing has not been held, that I
know of. Maybe different bills have been introduced. If it is the bill
Senator Clinton was talking about introducing, this is not the same
bill. There is a reason we should follow regular order. There is a
reason we should use the committee of jurisdiction. There is a reason
we should have bipartisan cooperation on bills such as this. I am
disappointed we are not.
In this current recession, we have spent up to $26.25 billion since
March of 2001 to help the unemployed. That is almost what we spent in
the 1990s. People say: Well, you are not helping; you do not care about
the people. That is hogwash. The proposal introduced today by Senator
Reed and Senator Durbin is not targeted. Twenty-four States have
unemployment of 5 percent or less, but they will get the same benefits
as everyone else, except the highest unemployment states get an extra 7
weeks.
Then we have the dilemma of, right now, the present requirement is a
person only has to work 20 weeks and they can receive as much as 52
weeks in unemployment compensation. That is not a bad deal, especially
when you consider 72 percent of workers in a household who are eligible
to receive these benefits have another family member who is employed.
Think of that: 52 weeks of paid unemployment compensation while in a
household where, in 72 percent of those households, there is an
employed family member.
This is a crummy way to legislate. It doesn't belong on this
appropriations bill. We need to finish this appropriations process. We
have 11 bills that were not finished last year. We have already
finished one-quarter of this present fiscal year and we haven't passed
these bills and we need to complete them. If colleagues want to do a
change on unemployment compensation, they should introduce a bill, have
it referred to an appropriate committee, and ask the chairman for a
hearing, ask the chairman for a markup. That is the way business is
supposed to be done in the Senate. It is not to try to rewrite
entitlement programs. If you can do unemployment compensation, you can
do Medicare, you can do Social Security, you can do any other bill, but
that is not following the procedure.
Senator Stevens has great expertise, but I doubt that controlling or
managing unemployment compensation is his area of expertise. That is
not what his committee does. That belongs properly in the Finance
Committee. We need to start respecting committees' jurisdictions and we
have not been doing it.
I urge my colleagues, let's not be playing games. Let's not be trying
to pass something they know won't pass and they know it will not come
out of conference even if they are successful. I don't believe they
will be successful. They should not be successful.
[[Page 1473]]
Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by the Senator from
Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, increases mandatory spending and, if adopted,
it would cause an increase in the deficit. Therefore I raise a point of
order against the amendment pursuant to section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68,
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, as
amended by S. Res. 304.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. NICKLES. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I renew my request to vitiate the quorum
call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the leaders set
a time for the budget waiver I am going to be suggesting in just a
second. That is part of the unanimous consent request.
Therefore, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I move to waive
the Budget Act under the requisite rules of the Senate.
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, and I shall object,
because I think somebody in our conference said they would wish to
consult with me so, temporarily, I object.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have some business here to conduct.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield? I have a unanimous consent
request I would like to enter before the 5 o'clock vote.
Order of Procedure
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate considers S.
121, the AMBER Alert bill, Senator Hatch be granted 5 minutes to speak.
Therefore, debate on the bill would commence at 5 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. No objection. Mr. President, I ask the record reflect I do
not waive any of my rights under the motion that the Senator from
Oklahoma offered, and I would renew my motion to waive at a subsequent
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator
from Oklahoma is agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.
Mr. REID. I also made a request. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I
want to make sure the record is reflective that I do not waive any of
my rights on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
Mr. President, while I still have the floor, we have a few minutes
until 5 o'clock when debate on the AMBER Alert matter takes place. We
have two matters. We have the Senator from West Virginia to be heard--I
did see him here. He wanted to speak on the Ridge nomination, which is
going to come up. He wanted to get that debate out of the way.
We also have Senator Nelson here, who has been patiently waiting, who
wishes to offer an amendment on his behalf and that of Senator Inhofe.
We would need consent to set aside the pending amendment to allow him
to do that.
I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for the
Senator from Florida to offer his amendment. He said he would need 25
or 30 minutes to speak, but he said that he could do that this
afternoon in 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Amendment No. 97
(Purpose: To make additional appropriations for emergency
relief activities)
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up amendment No. 97 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), for himself, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment
numbered 97.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec.__. In addition to amounts appropriated by this Act
under the heading ``Public Law 480 Title II Grants'', there
is appropriated, out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $600,000,000 for assistance for emergency
relief activities: Provided, That the amount appropriated
under this section shall remain available through September
30, 2004: Provided further, That the entire amount
appropriated under this section is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address a
humanitarian crisis in the world that has not been getting the
attention its magnitude warrants. The world has focused on the buildup
of forces in the Persian Gulf region for a possible war. We focused on
a very dangerous situation in North Korea, which threatens the U.S.
interests and Asian security. We have a litany of problems plaguing the
Western Hemisphere as well, relating to narcotics trafficking, civil
war, and abject poverty.
But today I call to the Senate's attention, sub-Saharan Africa and
the starvation that is occurring in east Africa, in west Africa,
central Africa and in the southern part of Africa. The droughts in
these areas have caused a massive food shortage which will worsen over
the next few months and threatens the lives of millions of Africans. It
is our responsibility, as a nation of bounty, to demonstrate to the
world that the United States lives up to its commitments and
obligations to those in need.
In that spirit I am offering this amendment. This amendment is not
about politics. If you will recall what President Reagan once said, he
said:
A hungry child knows no politics.
He was correct. This is about people dying. This is about reaching
out and saving lives. We have an opportunity to do the right thing now,
and that is save African children from starving to death.
Congressman Frank Wolf, my good friend, has just returned from
Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his report of his trip be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Trip Report: Ethiopia and Eritrea--December 29, 2002-January 4, 2003
Babies wailing and screeching, desperately trying to get
nourishment from their mothers' breasts.
Two- and three-year-olds so severely malnourished that they
cannot stand, much less crawl or walk, their pencil-thin legs
so frail that they could be snapped like a twig with little
or no effort.
Young boys and girls with bloated bellies. A teenager whose
legs are no thicker than my wrist.
Drinking water almost non-existent--a four-hour walk each
way just to find some. Fields scorched. Crops failed.
River beds dry as a bone. Hand-dug collecting ponds for
rain so sun-baked that the earth has cracked.
Disease. Despair.
These are some of the horrific sites I witnessed last week
in Ethiopia, which once again is facing a famine of
catastrophic proportions.
I spent a week in Ethiopia in 1984--when nearly one million
people died of starvation--including two nights in a feeding
camp. The squalid conditions of the camps and the suffering
faces of the children, mothers and elderly were haunting and
unforgettable. What I saw--and experienced--changed me
forever. I never thought I would see something like that
again. I have. Last week.
By Easter, thousands of Ethiopians could be dead from
starvation. Children living in villages just 90 miles from
the capital city, Addis Ababa, which is easily accessible by
truck, are already near death. Conditions in villages in more
remote areas of the country are significantly worse.
[[Page 1474]]
Dire Situation
While the government of Ethiopia is out in front of trying
to draw attention to the crisis--unlike in 1984 when the
Mengistu government tried to keep the famine secret until a
BBC camera crew broke the story--what makes this year's
crisis more horrific is that the population of Ethiopia has
increased from 45 million in 1984 to 69 million today. In
addition, HIV/AIDS is spreading throughout the country and
Ethiopia's 2\1/2\-year border war with neighboring Eritrea
has drained precious resources and led to thousands of
displaced people and families, particularly in remote areas
of the country.
With each crisis--drought, war, disease--more families
become destitute and completely dependent on others for their
welfare and survival. The repeated droughts have made more
people vulnerable to hunger and hunger-related diseases,
sharply increasing the danger of outright starvation among
groups that may have been able to survive previous crop
failures and livestock losses.
This also is a tough neighborhood, with Sudan bordering to
the west and Somalia to the east. These countries are
struggling to overcome internal turmoil of their own and
refugees from each have crossed into Ethiopia and are living
in refugee camps.
But perhaps the greatest difficulty is getting the world to
respond. The focus in capital cities around the globe is the
war on terror, Iraq and North Korea.
how could this happen?
I do not believe this situation should ever have been
allowed to develop. Does anyone really believe that the world
would turn a blind eye if this crisis were unfolding in
France or Australia? If the photographs in this report were
of Norwegian children wouldn't the world be rushing to help?
Is not the value of an Ethiopian child or Eritrean mother the
same in the eyes of God?
This disaster has been building since last fall, yet there
has been little mention of it in the Western media, let alone
any in depth reports. Without graphic photographs and video-
tape, foreign governments will not feel the pressure to act.
The situation in Ethiopia is dire and many believe if
immediate action is not taken to address the looming crisis,
the number of people who could die from starvation could
surpass those who perished during the 1984-1985 drought. In
1984, 8 million were in need of food aid. Today, more than 11
million people--just slightly less than the combined
population of Maryland and Virginia--are presently at risk
and that number is growing every day.
Last year's crops produced little or nothing, even in parts
of the country that normally provide surpluses of food. The
demand for international food aid is tremendous. I was told
there is enough food in the country to meet January's needs
and part of February's, although at reduced levels.
Incredibly, there is nothing in the pipeline to deal with
March, April, May, or the rest of the year. Even if ships
loaded with grain were to leave today, many would not make it
in time to avert disaster.
Villagers are living on about 900 calories a day. The
average American lives on 2,200 to 2,400 calories a day.
An elderly woman at a feeding station in the northern part
of the country showed me her monthly allotment of wheat: it
would have fit into a bowling ball bag.
A man working under the hot African sun with fellow
villagers to dig a massive rain collecting pond--each
carrying 50-pound bags of dirt up from the bottom of the
pit--told me he had not had a drink of water all day and
didn't know if he would eat that night. It would depend on
whether his children had food.
no water
Water--for drinking and bathing--is almost non-existent,
and what is available, is putrid. There is no medicine--and
even if there was something as simple as an aspirin there is
no water with which to wash it down. Disease is rampant.
During my trip I visited villages in both the north and
south of the country. I went to a food distribution center
and a health clinic. I talked with farmers who had already
begun to sell off their livestock and mothers who did not
know where or when their children would get their next meal.
I met with U.S. State Department officials and NGOs. I also
met with Prime Minister Meles and a number of relief
officials in his government.
The government's decision not to establish feeding camps is
a wise one. The camps only exacerbate the crisis because they
allow diseases to spread much more quickly and take people
away from their homes and albeit limited support systems. In
1984, many families traveled great distances to reach the
camps and by the time they got there were often near death.
Moreover, villagers who left for the camps and somehow
managed to survive had nothing to return to because they had
lost their homes and sold their livestock.
Fortunately, relief organizations, including U.S. AID and
the United Nations World Food Programme, have developed an
early warning system to better predict the effects of the
looming crisis and have been sounding the alarm since the
fall.
Nevertheless, they are facing an uphill battle. Donor
fatigue is a very real problem.
competing world crisis
Getting the world--and the United States, in particular--to
focus on the issue is difficult because of the war on
terrorism, the situation in Iraq and the growing crisis in
North Korea.
Since August 2002, the United States has provided
approximately 430,000 metric tons of food, valued at $179
million. This amount constitutes approximately 25 percent of
the total need in the country. The U.S. government will need
to do more to avert a disaster of biblical proportions.
Before leaving on the trip, a number of well read people in
the Washington area looked at me quizzically when I told them
I was going to Ethiopia. They all asked why? When I told them
that the country was facing another famine along the scale of
1984, they were dumbfounded.
Time is of the essence. A village can slip dramatically in
just a matter of weeks. Many of the children I saw last week
will be dead by early February and those who do somehow
miraculously survive will be severely retarded. The world
cannot afford to wait any longer.
I also visited neighboring Eritrea, where the situation is
not much better. Widespread crop failures are expected as a
result of the drought. Compounding the situation are the
lingering effects of its war with Ethiopia, which ended in
December 2000. While nearly 200,000 refugees and displaced
persons have been reintegrated into society following the
truce, almost 60,000 have been unable to return to their
homes due to the presence of land mines, unexploded ordnance,
insecurity or the simple fact that the infrastructure near
their homes has been completely destroyed.
recommendations
Donors, including the United States, must make prompt and
significant food-aid pledges to help Ethiopia overcome its
current crisis. The food pipeline could break down as early
as next month if donors do not act immediately. There are a
number of countries, Canada and France, for instance, that
can and should do more.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must work to
ensure that the U.S. assistance is released as quickly as
possible.
When President Bush visits Africa, he should consider going
to Ethiopia. I believe he would be moved by what he sees.
The Bush Administration should make an effort to rally
public support similar to what was done during the 1984-85
famine. Perhaps the new director of faith-based initiatives
at USAID should serve as the coordinator for such an effort.
Donor support also must include water, seeds and medicine
as well as veterinary assistance.
The Ethiopian government should take its case to capitals
around the globe, sending representatives to donor nations
armed with photographs of dying children to put a face on the
growing crisis. Regrettably, if they do not ask, they will
not receive.
The Ethiopian government must contribute additional food
aid from its own resources as it did in 2000 and 2002 as a
sign of leadership and commitment to the welfare of its
people.
More must be done to develop long-term strategies to tackle
the root causes of the food shortages in Ethiopia, like
improving irrigation and developing drought-resistant crops.
The government must develop a 10- or 15-year plan designed to
help end the constant cycle of massive food shortages. A well
developed plan would go a long way toward reassuring the
international community that the country wants to end its
dependence on handouts.
The Ethiopian government also should do more to help
diversity its economy. Its largest export--coffee--is subject
to huge price fluctuations in the world market and rather
than exporting hides and leather to Italy and China--only to
come back as belts, purses and shoes--the government should
work to attract business that will make these products on
Ethiopian soil.
The government of Ethiopia also should consider a sweeping
land reform policy that would allow farmers to own their
property rather than the government owning all the country's
land, a vestige of the country's socialist days.
The media needs to more aggressively pursue this looming
crisis. It was responsible for making the world aware of the
terrible famine that was occurring in 1984 and has the
ability to let the world know about the tragedy unfolding
again.
Many of the same issues that apply to Ethiopia apply to
Eritrea. Both countries are in desperate need of assistance.
In closing, I want to thank all the people--from government
officials in both Ethiopia and Eritrea to U.S. officials and
NGOs and missionaries in both countries--who are working
around the clock to deal with this crisis. I also want to
thank U.S. Ambassador to Eritrea Donald McConnell and U.S.
Ambassador to Ethiopia Auzerlia Brazeal and their respective
staffs for all they do. They are outstanding representatives
of the U.S. government. Special thanks go to Jack Doutrich in
Eritrea and Karen Freeman, Jo Raisin and Makeda Tsegaye in
Ethiopia. Roy ``Reb'' Brownell with USAID in Washington also
deserves special recognition.
[[Page 1475]]
Finally, I want to thank Lt. Col. Malcom Shorter, who
accompanied me on the trip, and Dan Scandling, my chief of
staff, who took all the photographs and videotaped the trip.
Available on line at: http://www.house.gov/wolf.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. This report states that thousands of
Ethiopians could be dead of starvation by Easter. Frank Wolf writes:
More than 11 million people, just slightly less than the
combined population of Maryland and Virginia--are presently
at risk--and that number is growing every day. That number
could surpass the number that died in the 1984-85 hunger
crisis in the region.
The U.N. World Food Programme also warned of severe food shortages
this spring, estimating that between 10 million and 14 million
Ethiopians, at risk of starvation, are at risk of starvation in this
year, 2003.
Back in 1985, my wife Grace and I spent 8 days in the feeding camps
in Ethiopia. And every day we carry with us what we experienced.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, since I do not
have the time to read portions, an article that I wrote in January of
1985 about the starvation that occurred there.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Ethiopian Hunger Problem Baffles the Mind
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.--Here in this drought-stricken land
the enormity of the hunger problem baffles the mind. As I
visited the feeding centers where gentle humans are restoring
life to some of the starving, I was bewildered as to how to
solve this crisis.
The problem of famine in Africa is real. Twenty nations
have been affected. Seven are critical. Just in Ethiopia
alone, over 7 million people are threatened by starvation.
A severe drought is a major cause. The rains either did not
come or were less than is required to germinate the seeds in
the fertile soil.
Agricultural techniques are backward. There are few drilled
wells, little irrigation, almost no fertilizer used and
severe topsoil erosion. If there is to be problem-solving, it
will be long-term and it will be painful. Attitudes will have
to be changed to use modern agricultural methods. And in
Marxist countries, the collective farm reduces the farmer's
incentive to produce for himself and only aggravates the
sparse production.
There have been four major droughts in Ethiopia in the last
35 years. People have died of starvation. But this is the
worst drought and death is apparent throughout the land.
My visit to Alamata and Korem, two feeding centers 250
miles north of Addis Ababa, was shocking. The emaciated
bodies of young and old were overwhelming. One's emotions
cannot be controlled as you see the helpless trying to
survive. The huge numbers dulled my sense of hope.
Thousands have died and thousands more died in remote
villages which statistics will not record. But there is
hope--because humankind is responding--and responding well.
The Free World is responding swiftly by sharing its
abundance of food, medicine and blankets. Help from Western
nations, from the private sector and from government, is
pouring in. People are acting out of their best humanitarian
instincts.
The United States is leading the pack. There are not many
``ugly Americans'' in Africa today. We are responding from
our generosity. And America is responding mightily!
Americans are responding as a government. President Reagan
has announced his intention to provide one-half of the food
assistance needed in Africa this year--a $500 million U.S.
contribution. For Ethiopia, a Marxist state, with whom we
have strained relations, $130 million in food is already
planned. This government-supplied grain is distributed by
many private volunteer agencies, such as Catholic Relief and
World Vision, and soon some will be given directly to the
Ethiopian government relief agency. The sacks bear the words:
``Donated by the People of the United States of America.''
The private sector is also responding. For 1985, food
assistance to Ethiopia through private organizations is
estimated to be $125 million, with another $22 million spent
on Ethiopian refugees elsewhere.
The private sector from Florida responded magnificently. A
``flight of mercy'' was organized, funded, loaded, and flown
to Addis Ababa, which bespeaks the generosity of Floridians.
This mission was conceived by my wife, Grace Nelson, as a
needed response to the problems she had seen in Africa last
summer. In Mali, she held a starving child in her arms. She
has not been able to forget it. After organizing some
fundraising activities, the thought of a ``flight of mercy''
came from a discussion with the editor of the Florida Times
Union. He suggested that although people wanted to help, they
needed a concrete mission to respond to and one which could
be tracked to a successful conclusion.
This story is an American success story. A DC-8 was
chartered and loaded with 40 tons of food, medicine and
blankets, in the midst of ongoing fund drives. WCPX-TV in
Orlando collected over $80,000 and two truckloads of
blankets. World Vision, a Christian humanitarian
organization, provided the mechanism for obtaining the two
tons of medicine and thirty-eight tons of fortified food,
eleven tons of which were donated by a former Ethiopian
official in Indiana. This special mixture of oats, powdered
milk and honey, known as ATMIT, is indigenous to Ethiopia.
Another $120,000 was raised before the flight departed
Chicago on January 12th.
The plane was so long you could hardly see from one end of
the cargo bay to the other. During the 24-hour journey, our
group of ``food shepherds'' slept on top of the pallets of
fortified food using some of the donated blankets for warmth.
It was a good feeling to know that our mission was one of
trying to help the starving by actually taking food to them.
Our landing was the first of a stretch-DC-8 on the Addis
Ababa runway. TransAmerican Cargo Airlines and World Vision
soon had the cargo unloaded.
Success does not come easily and indeed we soon had our
problems. Food was being delayed to the feeding centers
because rebel activity in the region interrupted
transportation of supplies. When we finally were cleared for
an old DC-3 to fly us to the camps, we found they were
running dangerously low on food. But our supplies arrived
just in time.
I shall never forget the children, also starved for
affection, clinging to my hands and arms smiling in spit of
their physical deprivation. They were proof that the World
Vision feeding center was successful because only a few weeks
before they had been lifeless and lethargic. Others were in
intensive care, often with their mothers, as nutritional
supplements were administered--sometimes through a tube
because they were too weak to eat.
The staff was loving and kind . . . it showed. The nuns at
the Missionaries of Charity Compound ministered to the dying.
These sisters are sponsored by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who
had just paid a visit, greeting and blessing each person in
the camp--9,000 of them! What a lesson in love.
There are those who say, ``let them die.'' Their theories
of over-population and survival-of-the-fittest are practical,
they say. Besides ``why should we care about a foreign,
strange land?'' Fortunately, most of America does not think
that way. The goodwill, hopes and prayers of Floridians were
obvious in our specific flight of mercy. Many have responded
before, others are following.
This mission was successful because of the spirit and
character of our people. Perhaps it is best summed up in
Matthew Chapter 25: ``When you did it for the least of these,
you were doing it for me.''
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, from my letter, which will be
in the Record, you will see the similarity to what we have here today.
Just in Eritrea, crop failures and the lack of rainfall put about 1.5
million at risk--just less than half the population. But these
grotesque figures only speak to those in the Horn of Africa. For
example, down in Zimbabwe, 49 percent of the population is in need; in
Malawi, approximately 29 percent of the population is in need; in
Zambia, approximately 26 percent of the population; and in Lesotho,
approximately 30 percent of the population. These are just some of the
countries whose populations need food right now.
The World Food Programme estimates that a total of over 38 million
people are at risk of starvation throughout Africa this year. This
figure is almost beyond comprehension, and compels this body to provide
relief.
The toll of this famine threatens to be far worse than anything we
have seen previously for another reason. The terrible epidemic of HIV/
AIDS, which is currently ravaging the continent, destroys the immune
systems of its victims. When further weakened by malnutrition, they are
unable to fight off even the most mild illnesses. If we do not act, the
death toll will rise, and it will rise quickly.
There is also a security aspect to providing this relief. It is well-
known that the Horn of Africa has had its problems with extremism,
particularly in nearby Sudan. As such, crises in this region may pose
significant security threats as we fight the global war on terrorism.
Terrorist organizations and other extremists have frequently used food
as a political weapon in past famines. By controlling the distribution
of food, they can hold entire populations of hungry people hostage, and
thereby gain their unwitting support. We must combat these threats on
all fronts, including providing relief, and with it
[[Page 1476]]
order, to regions that desperately need it.
Now, allow me to explain this amendment in the context of the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations bill we are debating. Because of the Congress'
inability to pass the 2003 appropriations bills on time, food relief is
being undercut by $252 million as we operate at 2002 funding levels.
Moreover, such severe food shortages in Africa were not contemplated in
the president's 2003 request. Simply funding the president's request
will not be enough to stave off a massive starvation crisis in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
I ask that a letter from the Alliance for Food Security to President
Bush dated January 3, 2003 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Alliance for Food Security,
January 3, 2003.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: US charitable, agricultural and
commercial groups have come together to urge additional US
Government funding to provide assistance to 30 million
Africans suffering from severe food shortages, without
diminishing US efforts to address chronic hunger and provide
relief elsewhere. To assure that previously-planned food aid
programs and emergency relief can go forward in fiscal year
(FY) 2003, we urge you to seek full funding of the $1.2
billion appropriations for PL 480 Title II when the current
continuing appropriations bill expires. To provide the
additional commodities needed for urgent emergencies in
Ethiopia, Eritrea and southern Africa, we ask you to seek
emergency supplemental funds for the $603-778 million that
would provide half of the commodities to meet projected needs
for FY 2003.
In FY 2003, US food aid levels are alarmingly insufficient.
There are several reasons for this resource gap.
First, Congress has not yet passed the FY 2003
appropriations bill and is forcing PL 480 Title II to operate
at a level that is $252 million less than the
Administration's FY 2003 budget request. Second, even if the
Administration's FY 2003 budget request for Title II is
approved, because most commodity prices have increased, that
funding level would buy 30% fewer commodities than originally
planned. Third, severe food shortages in southern and eastern
Africa were not anticipated when the Administration prepared
its FY 2003 budget request, and these emergencies require an
additional $600-778 million above the Administration's FY
2003 budget request.
Finally, for FY 2003, the Administration initiated a policy
which precludes the purchase of commodities for food aid
using general Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) authority.
Instead, the Administration stated its intent that it would
seek appropriations to meet legitimate food aid needs.
Although the FY 2003 PL 480 Title II budget request was
increased to make up for the loss of a portion of CCC
commodities, the funding request is insufficient to meet the
needs of both ongoing programs for poor and displaced
persons, as well as people facing emergency food shortages.
Insufficient funding for ongoing Title II programs will
hurt millions of people in regions that are recovering from
war or are vulnerable to crises, such as Afghanistan, West
Africa, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Angola, Somalia and Sudan.
Cuts in these programs could also have negative repercussions
for U.S. foreign policy and national security interests, and
could lead to future emergencies. The more subtle and
insidious effects of chronic under-nutrition must not be
overlooked. Thus, the full appropriations of $1.2 billion is
needed now for FY 2003.
Beyond the FY 2003 appropriations, another $603 to $778
million is needed to meet the historic US commitment of
providing at least half of the commodities required during a
food crisis in poor countries. This funding is needed to
provide a nutritious mix of foods to avoid starvation in
Ethiopia, Eritrea and 6 southern African countries, and to
help people rebuild their strength and take the first steps
towards recovery. People are even more vulnerable to
starvation due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which makes this an
extraordinary crisis and requires immediate response. Even if
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is used to provide up to
500,000 MT (valued at $250 million including delivery costs),
this would only provide one-third of the estimated emergency
needs.
In conjunction with delivering adequate food supplies to
address the emergencies in Africa, charitable organizations
are committed to helping people immediately move into the
recovery phase. Food aid must be integral with investments in
agricultural production, such as seeds, fertilizer and
farming tools, and with expanded HIV/AIDS efforts. This
includes services that improve prevention, enable families to
provide nutritious foods and care for relatives living with
the disease, and ensure the nutritional, educational and
financial needs of orphans are met.
Using food aid to assist people who are impoverished so in
the future they may provide for their own nutritional needs
in the main purpose of the PL 480 Title II program. It is an
equally high calling as helping people who face immediate
famine. To diminish the one in order to care for the other is
not a choice our great country should make. In compassion and
recognition of our urgent needs in Africa while at the same
time maintaining the U.S. commitment to fund the
developmental and other relief programs of Title II in FY
2003.
Sincerely,
ACDI/VOCA.
Africare.
American Maritime Congress.
American Soybean Association.
Astaris LLC.
Bread for the World.
California Wheat Commission.
Chippewa Valley Bean Co., Inc.
Didion Milling, Inc.
Friends of World Food.
Illinois Soybean Association.
Adventist Development & Relief Agency International.
Agricor, Inc.
American Red Cross.
APL Limited.
Bethel Grain Company.
California Association of Wheat Growers.
CARE.
Central Bag Company.
Counterpart International.
Food for the Hungry, Inc.
Global Food & Nutrition, Inc.
International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA,
AFL-CIO.
International Orthodox Christian Charities.
J.R. Short Milling Company.
Land O'Lakes.
Mercy Corps.
National Farmers Union.
North American Millers Association.
Opportunities Industrialization Centers International, Inc.
Project Concern International.
Salvation Army World Service Office.
TechnoServe.
The Manchester Company.
U.S. Dairy Export Council.
U.S. Wheat Associates.
USA Rice Federation.
World Vision.
International Relief & Development.
Jesuit Refugee Service USA.
Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development.
National Dry Bean Council.
National Potato Council.
Northwest Medical Teams.
P&O Nedlloyd Limited.
Salesian Missions.
Save the Children.
The International Rescue Committee.
Transportation Institute.
U.S. Jesuit Conference.
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council.
Washington Wheat Commission.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this letter from a coalition of
over 50 nongovernmental, humanitarian and agricultural groups seeks
between $608 and $778 million above the President's request to meet the
demands of these emergency circumstances. The $600 million my amendment
provides is based on close consultation with these organizations who
know the situation well from their work on the ground in Africa.
This amendment provides resources called for in the African Famine
Relief Act of 2003 introduced by Senator Daschle. It does not
specifically designate the funds for sub-Saharan Africa, to be
consistent with the way we have traditionally appropriated P.L. 480
Title II funds. But I trust that these funds will be used for the
purpose for which they are intended--staving off the imminent threat of
mass starvation in Africa.
It is my hope that this amendment will be acceptable to my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, and to the administration, and I will
explain why. The designation of these funds as ``emergency funds'' is
important. That means the funds do not have to be spent unless the
President likewise designates this crisis as an emergency. If he does
not designate the situation in Africa as an emergency, and most would
agree it is an emergency, but the President would not be required to
provide these funds and it would not affect the topline.
Over the weekend, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios took an
important first step to provide some relief to Ethiopia, by agreeing to
send 262 metric tons of food there at a cost of about $127 million. I
commend Mr. Natsios and Secretary Powell for their attention to this
issue, but we need to do
[[Page 1477]]
more. It is my hope that by speaking about this issue now, increased
attention to the plight of the Africans will spur American and
international action. The U.S. Senate should show leadership on this
without delay. I thank the Chair, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to underscore the importance of
the issue that Senator Nelson has raised today. Some 38 million
Africans are threatened with starvation in the coming months. In a six-
country region encompassing Zambia and Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique,
Swaziland and Lesotho, 25 percent of the population is urgently in need
of assistance. This food crisis is striking a tremendously vulnerable
population that has already been devastated by HIV/AIDS, compounding
the difficulty of African families' struggle for survival. In the Horn
of Africa, almost half of Eritrea's population is at risk, and Ethiopia
stands on the brink of a crisis rivaling that of the mid-1980s.
I have served on the Subcommittee on African Affairs since I came to
the Senate, and spent over half of my tenure here as either the ranking
minority member or chairman of that subcommittee. I have watched this
crisis unfold over the past year with horror. The United States and the
international community must act now to address this crisis; delay will
mean death for too many innocent families. But we must also work in the
months and years ahead to address some of the underlying causes of food
insecurity in Africa, so that we can reduce communities' vulnerability
to natural factors affecting harvests. Certainly we need to join with
the many Africans who want to ensure that misguided policies and
decisions are examined, discarded, and not repeated--from the
tremendously destructive policies pursued by the Zimbabwean government,
to corrupt practices affecting food stocks in Malawi, to the impact of
the government's national service program on the agricultural sector in
Eritrea. And certainly we need to ensure that assistance is distributed
responsibly, fairly, and efficiently. But we also need to help African
societies reinvigorate their agricultural sectors, by working to get
small farmers the technical assistance, infrastructure, and opportunity
that they need to succeed.
In July of last year, I asked the GAO to examine some of the causes
contributing to the southern African food crisis, and to evaluate the
efficacy of our response, so that we can improve our performance and
prevent crises in the future. Unfortunately, the World Food Program has
warned that early indicators suggest drought may continue to plague the
region in the year ahead. I am looking forward to the GAO's final
report, and hope that it can point the way toward proactive steps that
we can take to work with our African partners on this issue.
As another step in this broader, long-term effort, this week I am
introducing a resolution calling on USAID to give adequate attention to
land tenure issues as the agency pursues efforts to bolster
agricultural development and fight hunger, and I hope to work with my
colleagues on other initiatives aimed at addressing underlying causes
of chronic food insecurity in the months ahead. Too often, we think of
Africa only as a troubled continent, full of flood and famine, war and
deadly disease. But I have traveled widely on the continent, and I have
met with energized and committed Africans from government officials to
businessmen to community activists. There is no lack of good partners
on the continent, and there is no absence of promise or potential. Our
commitment to get serious about these issues now can lead to meaningful
success, improving the lives of millions of Africans and bolstering
food security in the region.
These long-term initiatives deserve Congress's support, but we will
be working with profoundly weakened partners in our every effort--be it
counterterrorism initiatives or programs aimed at increasing trade and
investment--if we do not address this immediate emergency. Senator
Nelson is right to sound the alarm about this crisis now, while we have
an opportunity to act and to help those people currently at risk. To
help now is humane, it is right, and it is in our interest.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reed
amendment on unemployment insurance which is before the body be
recalled, and I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act
for the consideration of the Reed amendment. Senator Nickles also
raised a point of order. I just want to move to waive it. Such time as
we vote on it will be the decision of the body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking for regular order on
that amendment?
Mr. REID. I asked that the Reed amendment be recalled. I ask for
regular order and renew my unanimous consent request to waive the
relevant section of the Budget Act for consideration of the Reed
amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. 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 Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it was clearly my intention to
regain the floor so I could yield to my friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the Nelson
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Florida for yielding.
Let me first of all say, to clarify the understanding that I have in
listening to his presentation, that his request would not necessarily
be binding unless the President were to include this as something which
he would interpret as an emergency; that is, the funding that is
requested by the Senator. Is that correct?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. If the President did
not designate the situation in Africa as an emergency, the President
would not be required to provide these funds and it would not affect
the top line.
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield further, I can't quite see the
Senator's map of the continent. My understanding is that most of that
is in sub-Saharan Africa. Is that correct?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. It involves three
countries in east Africa, six countries in west Africa, three countries
in central Africa, and about seven countries in southern Africa.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further, let me
just make a comment. I perhaps have had maybe even a conflict of
interest in this case. But that conflict has made me very sensitive to
the plight they have in sub-Saharan Africa. As the Senator from Florida
knows, I have been there many times. I am very familiar with that whole
region. But in the case of Ethiopia, which seems to be one of the first
areas the Senator is addressing, a drought is taking place there right
now. In fact, I have and I will hold up a picture of a little girl we
found during that drought. She was abandoned. She was 3 days old. We
were able to get her back into good health. I am very proud to say that
this little girl--Zegita Marie Rapert--happens to be my granddaughter.
She is now officially adopted.
By the way, in case you are wondering why she is wearing a crown,
that was her first birthday. She has three older brothers ages 4, 5,
and 6. It is a pretty typical family. Anyone from Ethiopia is
considered royalty: Queen of Sheba--anyone from Ethiopia is royalty. So
they gave her this crown for her first birthday.
[[Page 1478]]
I would suggest that there is no area that is having a more difficult
time right now. I know there is a lot of competition for funds. But I
think the way the junior Senator from Florida has structured this
amendment, that would allow the administration to make some of these
determinations and some of these priorities.
I strongly support the idea of giving some aid to that area because
of the drought that has been unprecedented for about 12 years.
Hopefully, this will happen, and it will become a reality for these
people.
We do a lot of talking around here about poverty; we do a lot of
talking about problems; but until you see some of the poverty and some
of the effects of the drought that has taken place right now in the
sub-Saharan, Africa, it is really one that we don't understand.
I yield the floor.
____________________
NATIONAL AMBER ALERT NETWORK ACT OF 2003
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Under the previous order, the
clerk will report S. 121.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 121) to enhance the operation of the AMBER Alert
communications network in order to facilitate the recovery of
abducted children, to provide for enhanced notification on
highways of alerts and information on such children, and for
other purposes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I have a parliamentary
inquiry. I had asked for the yeas and nays, and there was determined to
be a sufficient second.
Could you inform me, on the Nelson amendment, what is the
parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on that
amendment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could ask the Chair to direct the
Senator's attention to the Senator from Nevada, it is my understanding
we have a vote scheduled for 5:15. There are 15 minutes of debate prior
to that time. The two leaders are trying to figure out what votes are
going to come next. We have a series of amendments that have been
offered today. I ask that my friend from Florida withhold until the two
leaders have determined the time for the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in strong support of S. 121, the
National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003. Specifically, I congratulate
and thank my colleagues who have worked so hard toward the passage of
this needed legislation: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne
Feinstein. Both of them are deserving of the credit for this bill. I am
very proud to align myself with both of them.
Senator Hutchison has been a great leader in this area, and I am very
much appreciative of her. Also, Senator Leahy and others have worked
hard on this bill.
The horrific kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in my home State of Utah
is illustrative of a terrifying wave of recent child abductions that
has swept our Nation. Clearly, there is a tremendous need for
legislation to help communities fight these terrible crimes.
Without question, when it comes to child abductions, time is of the
essence. We are all too aware that child abductors prey on the
youngest, most innocent and vulnerable members of our society--often
for the purpose of committing other serious violent crimes against
them.
Too often, it is only a matter of hours before a kidnapper abuses,
assaults or kills the child victim.
According to figures released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
almost 75 percent of the murders that occur following child abductions
happen within the first 3 hours.
AMBER Alert systems are critical to successful search and recovery
efforts because they enable law enforcement authorities to galvanize
entire communities to assist in the safe recovery of child victims.
We recently witnessed the success of the AMBER Alert system in
California where the system was used to broadcast the disappearance of
Nichole Timmons. After she was recognized, Nichole was safely recovered
in the neighboring State of Nevada.
In another recent California case, the AMBER Alert system was used to
broadcast the disappearances of Tamera Brooks and Jaqueline Marris.
Just hours after their abduction, and minutes before their possible
murder, the two young women were found.
My home State of Utah recently adopted a statewide alert program
aimed at preventing child abduction called the Rachel Alert. The
program was named after young Rachel Runyan who was kidnapped from
behind her home in Sunset, UT, and later found murdered.
I know that law enforcement agencies are working closely with
broadcasters and the public to develop AMBER Alert systems across our
country. Despite these efforts, however, I believe a National AMBER
Alert Coordinator in the Department of Justice is needed to assist
States in developing effective alert plans that can be coordinated
nationwide.
Fortunately, we already have the technology in place to do just
that--the Emergency Broadcast System. For years, broadcasters have been
cooperating with Government officials and reaching Americans across our
country by issuing emergency alerts on our televisions and radios. We
have all experienced an interruption in regular programming so that a
news breaking announcement can be made. With the addition of a National
AMBER Alert Coordinator and continued cooperation between law
enforcement officials and broadcasters, we can create an effective
national AMBER Alert system.
Just now, I walked into the Senate Chamber with Ed Smart, who, as the
country knows, has joined with his wife and family to launch one of the
most brave, concerted, and vigilant efforts ever known to locate their
precious daughter, Elizabeth.
On many occasions, Ed and Lois Smart have educated me about the need
for enhanced efforts to combat child abduction, such as the National
AMBER Alert Network Act.
This measure is overwhelmingly supported by the Smart family and all
the parents who have firsthand experience with the uncertainty, pain,
and trauma that exist while waiting for news about an abducted child.
We have no greater resource than our children, and we need to see to
it that we do all we can to protect them from predators of all types.
So let us pass this legislation for Elizabeth Smart and Rachel Runyon
and, indeed, for all children in our Nation.
Madam President, I yield the remainder of our time to the
distinguished Senator from Texas, who deserves so much credit for being
on top of this bill and bringing it to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes forty-five seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, Senator Feinstein and I introduced
this bill last session. Under the leadership of Senator Leahy and
Senator Hatch, it went through in a remarkably short amount of time.
Everyone could see the need for this bill, something that could be done
on a volunteer basis, but with that Coordinator in the Department of
Justice, we could really make a difference when a child is abducted in
this country.
Unfortunately, the bill died in the House. So we have introduced the
bill again. And this time, once again, through the leadership of
Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, it has gone through the committee in
record time. I hope we can pass this bill and give the House plenty of
time to also pass this legislation and send it to the President.
The President has asked for this bill. He knows we need legislation
on the books to create this Coordinator and to help every abducted
child have a chance to live.
A Department of Justice study shows that 75 percent of child
homicides
[[Page 1479]]
occur within 3 hours of abduction. AMBER Alerts have gone out within 17
minutes of an abduction. That means we are giving law enforcement
personnel the help they need to find this person who takes a child and
wants to do harm to this child.
Forty-three abducted children have been recovered with the assistance
of AMBER Alerts. We now have 85 regional AMBER Alerts in this country,
up from 53 when we introduced the bill last summer.
People like Joann Donnellan are running the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children and have provided the technical
assistance to States and local governments to help us find these
children quickly.
In fact, this bill is named for Amber Hagerman of Arlington, TX, who
was abducted in 1996 and found murdered. Her death had such an impact
on the community that it was determined that if we could get the word
out and try to find someone who had taken a child, that it would help
save these children.
In fact, we have found that AMBER Alerts have been so effective that
an abductor who saw an AMBER Alert sign in California went to the side
of the road and let the child out because he knew he was going to be
caught and that he was in trouble. So it is very effective.
What we want to do is have a Coordinator in the Justice Department
who a local law enforcement official can call and not have to make 10
calls to contiguous States. He or she can make that one call to the
AMBER Alert Coordinator in the Justice Department. That person will
then be able to put the word out in contiguous States, without having
to go through different call lists and wasting time.
We know that time saves lives in AMBER Alerts. When a child is
abducted, if we can save time, we can give that child the chance to not
be harmed or horribly murdered, as we have seen in so many instances
with child abductions.
It is hard for me to understand how someone could prey on a
defenseless child. It is the worst nightmare a parent would have to
hear, that her child or his child has been taken by a stranger and you
don't know what has happened. I have met with the parents of Elizabeth
Smart, the wonderful couple from Utah, who have lost their child to an
abductor and still have not heard from her. The agony they must go
through every day is something no parent can imagine.
With this bill, we will put the coordinator in place. We will help
set criteria for when an AMBER Alert would go out. We thank the
National Association of Broadcasters and the local broadcasters
associations because they voluntarily put the word out through radio
and television in a community where this has occurred.
We want to make that go further and wider. We also want to try to
help States with signage and help them know what works. For instance,
the blinking signs on highways have been very effective.
This is a bill that will make a difference. We know that if we can
find a child within 24 hours, we have the best chance for them to be
recovered safely.
I thank Senator Feinstein, my cosponsor of this bill, and thank again
Senators Hatch and Leahy for pushing this bill through the Judiciary
Committee in record time because we know this bill needs to be on the
books.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am very pleased the Senate is again
taking up and passing the AMBER Alert Network Act. I remember last year
when Senator Hutchison would meet me coming in one door of the Senate
and she would say: This bill is extremely important. Can we get it up
and pass it.
And before I would get to the other door, Senator Feinstein would
grab me saying the same thing.
I went to the Judiciary Committee with it. I must say with the strong
help and support of the then-ranking member, now chairman of the
committee, Senator Hatch. In the course of just 1 week after we
introduced this, we held a hearing on the AMBER Alert bill. We passed
it in the Judiciary Committee, and we passed it in the full Senate.
That is almost unheard of.
This is a case of what can happen in the Senate when people set aside
political or partisan labels, work together and make sure something can
pass.
It was unfortunate that the House did not pass it but now we will
give them a chance. I am proud to join Senator Hutchison and Senator
Feinstein as an original cosponsor of the legislation.
Senator Hutchison said it very well, the reasons for the legislation,
as did Senator Hatch. I commend those Senators for their leadership.
Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein have been absolutely dynamic in
this case. Because of their support, they made it possible for Senator
Hatch and I to get the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee to
move this bill.
It has been credited with recovering 43 children nationwide; 84
modified versions have been adopted in local, regional and Statewide
locations. And 33 States have a Statewide plan.
My home State of Vermont is not yet one of them, but this bill would
help towns and counties in States such as mine to build and maintain
the AMBER Alert.
We spoke about how parents feel. I can imagine, when my children were
growing up, the terrible fear that my wife and I would have had at the
disappearance of any one of them. I don't know how a parent or
grandparent gets through that. I don't know how members of the family
get through it. The most vulnerable and most trusting part of our
society is our children. Because they are the most vulnerable and the
most trusting, we, not only as legislators but as parents, as family
members, owe a particular duty to them.
I know President Bush is ready to sign this bill as soon as it is
passed by both bodies and goes to his desk. I urge all Senators to vote
for it to send a very clear message to the other body that we support
it. It is a bipartisan bill. They would then pass it. The President
will sign it.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support the National
Amber Alert Network Act of 2003. I urge the House of Representatives to
take prompt action to pass this critical legislation and for the
President to support it.
We have all heard the stories of parents who have found themselves
trying to find a child who has been abducted, while fearing serious
injury or even death. While local law enforcement officials work
tirelessly to locate these children, the reality is that they are not
always able to find a child in time without the help of the public.
What has made the difference around the country in many communities
is the Amber program, a system designed to get critical information to
the general public that might lead to locating a child and his or her
abductor before the worst can happen.
The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 builds upon successful
local programs and encourages other communities to develop Amber
programs. The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 would enhance
local programs by giving State and local communities help in
apprehending an abductor who takes a child and then crosses State
lines. In Wisconsin, there are three Amber programs in effect, in
Madison, in La Crosse and in Green Bay. But, if a child is taken from
Wisconsin and brought across State lines to another State, the local
Amber programs have no uniform way to get critical information from one
State to another.
The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 would allow communities
the flexibility to develop Amber programs that are responsive to the
needs of their areas and provide Federal assistance and coordination
for local programs. The National Amber Alert Network Act would have the
Department of Justice create a national coordinator to work on
interstate issues, develop voluntary minimum standards for the issuance
and dissemination of Amber alerts, and provide matching grants for the
development and enhancement of local Amber alert plans.
The cost of implementing the National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003
[[Page 1480]]
is small when we consider the price every parent and community must pay
when children are not protected. I am hopeful the National Amber Alert
Network Act will help local programs continue to reunite families and
apprehend their abductors.
(At the request of Mr. Leahy, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today, the Senate will vote
on a bill that will save children's lives by expanding the existing
AMBER Alert program nationwide.
I want to commend Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her continued
leadership on this legislation. Her work on this bill has been
extraordinary.
I also want give a special thanks to Senator Hatch, Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, and to Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member, for
putting the National Amber Alert Network Act on the fast track to the
Senate Floor.
Senator Hutchison and I introduced the bill on January 9th, 2003.
Now, just a couple of weeks later, we are voting on Senate passage. I
am hopeful that this tidal wave of Senate support will carry over to
the House and we soon will have a national AMBER Alert law.
So what are AMBER Alerts? AMBER Alerts are official bulletins
transmitted over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking
down child abductors fleeing a crime scene.
AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued
within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience.
Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases
have precious little time until their safety is compromised.
According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of
children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the
first hours after being taken.
Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best
tool law enforcement has to save kidnaped children facing imminent
danger.
The National AMBER Alert Network Act has three key components.
First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department
of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY
2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems,
electronic message boards, and training and education programs in
states that do not have AMBER Alerts.
To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 34 states and a total of 85
local, regional and state jurisdictions. This bill would help the
expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions.
Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by
authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department
of Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to
coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts.
Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to
establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER
alerts. The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with
expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently
in place.
The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious
use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the
warnings.
Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere
with the operation of the 85 AMBER plans that are working today.
Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that
wishes to go it alone may still do so.
I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a
proven track record.
Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the
safe return of 43 children to their families, including one case in
which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert
himself.
I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of
10-year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year-old Jessica
Cortez from Los Angeles.
Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing
of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and
Government Information on the AMBER Alert program.
In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from
their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought
her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction.
In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in
Nevada as well.
After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada
spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours
of the abduction.
He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe. The AMBER Alert was the
only reason that Nichole was able to return home to her mother--safe.
I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful
than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought
might be gone forever.
The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica
disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002.
But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care,
receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from the AMBER Alert and
notified law enforcement.
Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been
lost to her parents forever.
Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the
nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children.
This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will
return to his or her family safely.
But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a
child in the first place.
As Marc Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last fall, this
legislation will ``save kid's lives.''
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield back whatever time remains on
this side.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield back whatever time we have, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Hollings), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) would vote ``Aye''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
[[Page 1481]]
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Bingaman
Brownback
Daschle
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Lincoln
The bill (S. 121) was passed, as follows:
S. 121
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 ``National AMBER Alert Network
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL COORDINATION OF AMBER ALERT COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK.
(a) Coordination Within Department of Justice.--The
Attorney General shall assign an officer of the Department of
Justice to act as the national coordinator of the AMBER Alert
communications network regarding abducted children. The
officer so designated shall be known as the AMBER Alert
Coordinator of the Department of Justice.
(b) Duties.--In acting as the national coordinator of the
AMBER Alert communications network, the Coordinator shall--
(1) seek to eliminate gaps in the network, including gaps
in areas of interstate travel;
(2) work with States to encourage the development of
additional elements (known as local AMBER plans) in the
network;
(3) work with States to ensure appropriate regional
coordination of various elements of the network; and
(4) act as the nationwide point of contact for--
(A) the development of the network; and
(B) regional coordination of alerts on abducted children
through the network.
(c) Consultation With Federal Bureau of Investigation.--In
carrying out duties under subsection (b), the Coordinator
shall notify and consult with the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation concerning each child abduction for
which an alert is issued through the AMBER Alert
communications network.
(d) Cooperation.--The Coordinator shall cooperate with the
Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Communications
Commission in carrying out activities under this section.
SEC. 3. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE AND DISSEMINATION OF
ALERTS THROUGH AMBER ALERT COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK.
(a) Establishment of Minimum Standards.--Subject to
subsection (b), the AMBER Alert Coordinator of the Department
of Justice shall establish minimum standards for--
(1) the issuance of alerts through the AMBER Alert
communications network; and
(2) the extent of the dissemination of alerts issued
through the network.
(b) Limitations.--(1) The minimum standards established
under subsection (a) shall be adoptable on a voluntary basis
only.
(2) The minimum standards shall, to the maximum extent
practicable (as determined by the Coordinator in consultation
with State and local law enforcement agencies), provide that
the dissemination of an alert through the AMBER Alert
communications network be limited to the geographic areas
most likely to facilitate the recovery of the abducted child
concerned.
(3) In carrying out activities under subsection (a), the
Coordinator may not interfere with the current system of
voluntary coordination between local broadcasters and State
and local law enforcement agencies for purposes of the AMBER
Alert communications network.
(c) Cooperation.--(1) The Coordinator shall cooperate with
the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal
Communications Commission in carrying out activities under
this section.
(2) The Coordinator shall also cooperate with local
broadcasters and State and local law enforcement agencies in
establishing minimum standards under this section.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM FOR NOTIFICATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS ALONG HIGHWAYS FOR RECOVERY OF ABDUCTED
CHILDREN.
(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall carry out a program to provide grants to States for the
development or enhancement of notification or communications
systems along highways for alerts and other information for
the recovery of abducted children.
(b) Activities.--Activities funded by grants under the
program under subsection (a) may include--
(1) the development or enhancement of electronic message
boards along highways and the placement of additional signage
along highways; and
(2) the development or enhancement of other means of
disseminating along highways alerts and other information for
the recovery of abducted children.
(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activities funded by a grant under the program under
subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent.
(d) Distribution of Grant Amounts on Geographic Basis.--The
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure
the distribution of grants under the program under subsection
(a) on an equitable basis throughout the various regions of
the United States.
(e) Administration.--The Secretary shall prescribe
requirements, including application requirements, for grants
under the program under subsection (a).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of
Transportation $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry out
this section.
(2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM FOR SUPPORT OF AMBER ALERT
COMMUNICATIONS PLANS.
(a) Program Required.--The Attorney General shall carry out
a program to provide grants to States for the development or
enhancement of programs and activities for the support of
AMBER Alert communications plans.
(b) Activities.--Activities funded by grants under the
program under subsection (a) may include--
(1) the development and implementation of education and
training programs, and associated materials, relating to
AMBER Alert communications plans;
(2) the development and implementation of law enforcement
programs, and associated equipment, relating to AMBER Alert
communications plans; and
(3) such other activities as the Secretary considers
appropriate for supporting the AMBER Alert communications
program.
(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activities funded by a grant under the program under
subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent.
(d) Distribution of Grant Amounts on Geographic Basis.--The
Attorney General shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
ensure the distribution of grants under the program under
subsection (a) on an equitable basis throughout the various
regions of the United States.
(e) Administration.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
requirements, including application requirements, for grants
under the program under subsection (a).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Justice
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry out this section.
(2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain available until
expended.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--
Continued
Amendment No. 27
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask for regular order on amendment
No. 27, the LIHEAP amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
now pending.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. For the information of the Senate, this is the LIHEAP
amendment. The statements concerning the amendment will be after--
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1
minute for myself and Senator Collins to explain the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, that would be in order. I have no
problem with that. I ask for 1 minute on each side to explain this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Madam President, this amendment would direct the President
to release $300 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program. It will be offset by using unexpended emergency LIHEAP funds
which were already appropriated in the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations
Act. Today, as the temperatures freeze, people throughout the country--
people in the Northeast, the Midwest, many parts of the country--are
freezing. This includes low-income seniors. With rising oil prices, a
declining economy, and
[[Page 1482]]
cold temperatures, it is the ``perfect storm'' for those people. We can
help them with this amendment.
The amendment will also provide assistance to address the scorching
heats of summer in other parts of the country. I urge passing.
I yield the remaining time to my colleague Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, when I left Maine earlier today, the
forecast was for temperatures with a wind chill of 40 below zero
tonight. We are facing a ``perfect storm'' of exceedingly cold winter
weather, high energy prices, and a difficult economy.
This amendment is a modest amendment with very little budget impact.
But it is an amendment that will make a real difference in the lives of
low-income families in Maine and States across the Nation.
No one should have to choose between being warm in the winter, buying
prescription drugs, or buying the food they need to remain healthy.
This amendment will address the needs of thousands of low-income
families across this Nation so that they will not be faced with those
choices.
Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept this amendment, but I think
the sponsors wish a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode
Island, Mr. Reed.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Hollings), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs.
Lincoln) would each vote ``aye''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--4
Ensign
Kyl
Nickles
Sessions
NOT VOTING--8
Bingaman
Brownback
Daschle
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Lincoln
The amendment (No. 27) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it was my hope that we could debate and
vote on the confirmation of the Ridge nomination during today's
session. It is my understanding that the other side of the aisle will
require approximately an hour and 40 minutes for debate. In a
discussion a few minutes ago, we agreed that we would at least begin
that debate tonight.
Shortly, I will be asking for unanimous consent to outline what the
proposal is.
It is an important nomination. I believe all of us would like to
address and vote on the nomination as soon as possible. We will be
conducting that vote tomorrow.
I encourage our colleagues who have statements to make those tonight,
if at all possible.
As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that following the
stacked votes on Wednesday morning, the Senate proceed to executive
session for the consideration of Calendar No. 1, the nomination of Tom
Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Further, I ask that the
debate time be limited as follows: Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes; Senator
Byrd, 15 minutes; Senator Carper, 15 minutes; Senator Feinstein, 10
minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 20 minutes; Senator Lieberman, 15 minutes;
Senator Daschle, 10 minutes; and Senator Collins to be in control of 1
hour and 40 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following the
use or yielding back of the debate time the Senate proceed to a vote on
the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or
debate; further, that following the vote, the President be immediately
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative
session.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I could,
through the Chair, direct a question to the majority leader, it is my
understanding that the majority leader is contemplating two votes in
the morning.
Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
Mr. REID. And once that consent is done, it is my understanding we
would have a couple votes, is that right, at 9:15 or 9:30 in the
morning. Following that, this debate would take place, and we would
vote on this matter prior to the normal party caucuses; is that right?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct. I understand that Senator Carper may be
willing to use his time tonight. I would encourage others to do so,
once the unanimous consent request is agreed to. Shortly, we will enter
into an agreement for two stacked votes for tomorrow morning at
approximately 9:30. Following those votes, we will begin consideration
of the Ridge nomination. I expect the vote will occur prior to the
policy luncheons tomorrow afternoon, as outlined.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second
vote tomorrow morning be a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that late nights are
to be expected for the remainder of this week as we continue to work
through amendments to the appropriations bill. I believe the amendments
have been filed at this juncture. I look forward to having the
opportunity of looking through the amendments so we can give our
colleagues a better idea of the schedule over the course of this week.
It is my hope we will be able to complete the bill this week as early
as possible. I think after looking over the amendments that have been
given to the managers we will have a much better idea in that regard.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be
yielded 10 minutes at this juncture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
[[Page 1483]]
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be added as cosponsors to the LIHEAP amendment just
adopted: Senators Grassley, Specter, Lieberman, Kohl, Baucus, and
Lincoln.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, Senator Jack Reed and I have offered an amendment that
provides for the immediate release of $300 million in funds for the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, also known as LIHEAP.
I thank the chair and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations
Subcommittee, Senators Specter and Harkin, for their efforts in support
of this critical program. Despite the extremely difficult fiscal
constraints facing our Nation, Senators Specter and Harkin have managed
to provide $1.7 billion in regular-year LIHEAP funds in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act. This is $300 million more than the administration's
request.
Unfortunately, while the bill before us provides more regular LIHEAP
funds than the administration requested, the total funding, which
includes both regular funding and emergency funding, is considerably
less than was provided in fiscal year 2002. In fact, total LIHEAP
funding in this bill falls $300 million below the total funding
provided in fiscal year 2002. It is also $300 million below the total
funds provided in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill which passed the
Senate Appropriations Committee on July 18, 2002, by a vote of 29 to 0.
Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Reed of Rhode Island and I
have offered would provide for the immediate release of an additional
$300 million for low-income heating assistance by designating emergency
funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 as
regular-year funds for fiscal year 2003.
For that reason, our amendment is fiscally responsible. Because these
funds were already made available, our amendment does not increase
total spending in the omnibus appropriations bill. These are funds that
were already approved. The effect of our amendment is for this $300
million to be released immediately.
Some might argue that these funds should not be released unless the
President declares an emergency. Anyone who thinks that we don't
currently have an emergency in home heating assistance should visit
with a low-income family in Houlton, ME. Houlton recently experienced
the coldest temperature of any place in the lower 48 States. A few days
ago, temperatures in Houlton were 19 degrees below zero. Tonight, the
forecast, with windchill, is for the temperature range to be from 20 to
40 below in some parts of my home State. When the temperature is that
cold, and you do not have money in your budget to heat your home, that
is an emergency.
Adding to the problem of exceptionally cold winter weather, energy
prices have escalated dramatically. The cessation of oil exports from
Venezuela, as well as the prospect of a war in the Middle East, have
pushed the price of crude oil up by nearly $6 per barrel in the last
month. Home heating oil inventories are near 5-year lows, and prices
are 20 percent higher than last winter. The Energy Information
Administration predicts that home heating oil prices could rise 45
percent by the time winter is over. The price of natural gas, kerosene,
and other fuels are facing similar pressures.
In addition to a cold winter and high energy prices, we are also
facing difficult economic times. Unemployment has reached an 8-year
high. In Maine, as in many States, low-income and unemployed workers
are struggling. Just last week, Great Northern Paper, the largest
employer in northern Maine, filed for bankruptcy and laid off its
workforce of more than 1,000 employees.
In short, we are facing a ``perfect storm'' of high energy prices,
exceedingly cold weather, and a difficult economy. With little prospect
for a quick resolution of the crises in Iraq and Venezuela, continued
forecasts for a cold winter, and the dubious prospects for a very quick
economic rebound, all of us living in cold weather climates will face
challenges in order to heat our homes this winter.
This combination of factors strains everyone's pocketbook, but, of
course, it places a particular burden on seniors living on limited
incomes and on our low-income families. These families already carry a
higher energy burden than most Americans. They can spend up to 20 or 25
percent of their entire income just paying their home energy bills. No
one should have to choose between heating their homes or putting food
on the table, having prescriptions in the medicine cabinet, or even
staying in their homes altogether.
Experience has shown, however, that pressures to pay energy bills and
the inability to pay have resulted in increased medical expenses for
our elderly, malnutrition for our children, and even homelessness. As
an indicator of just how difficult this winter has been in my home
State, let me tell you that 10,000 more people in Maine have applied
for low-income heating assistance this year compared to last year.
Unfortunately, even as the need has increased, the amount of
assistance has declined. In Maine, the average household benefit has
seen a steady decline over the last four winters. In the winter of 1999
to 2000, the average LIHEAP benefit for a Maine family was $491. The
next year, it had fallen to $433. By last winter, the number had
further declined to $358. Fortunately, with the approval of the Reed-
Collins amendment, we can reverse this decline or at least ensure that
more Maine families will be helped; otherwise, low-income Maine
families struggling to heat their homes will only receive between $330
and $350 this winter, not nearly enough to help.
I would like to say a word about the history of the LIHEAP funds that
our amendment addresses. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001
provided an extra $300 million in LIHEAP funds in order to help low
income families deal with high energy prices. Report language
specifically directed that at least $150 million of these funds were to
be used to address unmet needs resulting from high energy prices. The
other half of the money was directed to be used to meet the most
critical needs arising from energy cost increases and increases in
unemployment, among other things.
I have been working for the better part of 2 years to secure the
release of these funds. On August 13, 2001, I joined Senator Reed,
Senator Kennedy, and a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to
the President requesting the release of the very same $300 million in
emergency funds from the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations
bill. On September 10, 2001, I again joined many of my colleagues in
sending a letter to OMB director Mitch Daniels requesting the immediate
release of these funds. On October 26, 2001, 17 Senators joined Senator
Reed and me in a letter to the Senate Minority and Majority leader
requesting legislative language to require the release of these funds.
On October 30, 2001, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2002
Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill expressing the
sense of the Senate that these funds should be released immediately.
That amendment was supported by Senators Specter and Harkin and passed
the Senate as part of the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS bill.
On February 12, 2002, I joined my colleague Senator Snowe in sending
a letter to the President again requesting the release of these same
funds. On September 23, 2002, Senator Reed and I were joined by Senator
Specter, Senator Harkin, and 35 of our colleagues in a letter to the
President requesting the release of $200 million in emergency funds
that were made available as part of the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS
Appropriations Bill. These funds expired without ever being spent.
Finally, on December 23, 2002, half of our colleagues joined Senator
Reed and me in sending a letter to the administration requesting a
total of $2 billion in fiscal year 2003 funding--which is the same
amount made available by combining the $300 million in my amendment
with the $1.7 billion already in the bill.
The LIHEAP program is essential in helping many low-income families
get
[[Page 1484]]
through the winter months. This has been an unusually cold winter. This
has been a year where home heating prices have soared. This has been a
year where the economy has been difficult. The combination of those
three factors calls out for us to provide this additional assistance.
I am very pleased that our colleagues have joined together with an
overwhelming vote. I hope very much this provision will be retained in
the final conference report.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the HUD/VA appropriations bill contained in the omnibus package
currently under consideration by the Senate. I want to commend Senators
Mikulski and Bond for recognizing the importance of providing Americans
with the opportunity to live in decent, safe, and affordable housing.
However, despite their efforts, housing programs suffer from a lack of
adequate funding in this bill.
The Appropriations Committee faced tough choices in revising their
fiscal year 2003 bills, due to the decision to cut domestic programs
substantially across the board. Senate appropriations were forced to
cut almost $10 billion from their earlier spending decisions for fiscal
year 2003. More than $1 billion of this cut comes from critical housing
programs. While the Senate bill before us today is far superior to the
House appropriations bill, it does not provide adequate resources. Now
is not the time to cut $1 billion from the social safety net. Over
100,000 people lost their jobs last month, and unemployment continues
to be high. Working families deserve our support, and instead of
providing it to them, we continue to cut programs that help people
provide for their families.
While the administration is asking us to provide a tax cut of $674
billion, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, over $1 billion in
funding is being cut from programs that help low-income families afford
housing. The problem of affordable housing has become a crisis for many
working families all across America. According to a recent study, 14
percent of families pay over half of their income in rent or live in
substandard housing. The significant gap between the wages of low-
income workers and housing costs makes evident that housing assistance
is necessary for many working families. On average, a family in this
country needs to earn almost $15 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom
apartment. This is almost three times the minimum wage.
When millions of American families are unable to afford decent and
safe housing, the consequences are serious and far-reaching. When
children do not have stable home environments, their health suffers as
does their educational attainment. In addition, housing assistance can
help people transition from welfare to work. Recent studies have found
that people leaving welfare who receive housing assistance retain
employment for longer and make more than those who do not receive such
assistance. Unfortunately, this bill does not do enough to ensure that
working and elderly families in this country can afford safe and decent
housing.
Just last week, HUD announced that housing authorities around the
country will be facing drastic cuts in their operating funding. These
cuts are due to HUD's error in estimating public housing needs. Because
of HUD's mistake, there was a $250 million shortfall in the operating
fund in fiscal year 2002. Upon learning of this shortfall, HUD
indicated that it would seek additional funding from Congress.
Unfortunately, HUD never asked for these funds. Instead, HUD will use
fiscal year 2003 funds; to make up for the shortfall. This means that
we are starting out with a $250 million cut in the program this year.
This cut will leave housing authorities with no choice but to scale
back their programs, lay off staff and put off needed repairs.
HUD should request, and we should provide additional funding to make
sure that families in public housing are adequately housed. In
addition, HUD must provide as much funding as possible to PHAs under
the current budget situation. Housing authorities are currently
receiving only 70 percent of their funding. This is an unnecessary and
irresponsible cut. Even assuming a loss of $250 million from fiscal
year 2003 funds, HUD should be able to provide at least 90 percent of
operating costs to public house authorities. If HUD intends to fund
public housing at higher levels later in the year, as they have
announced, they should do so now, thereby helping PHAs avoid
unnecessarily cutting off assistance to needy families.
In addition to under-funding the public housing operating account,
the HUD appropriations bill cuts $160 million from the Public Housing
Capital Fund, which is used to repair and modernize public housing.
Over 1.5 million families reside in public housing, housing that is
generally safe and decent. However, this older housing stock is in need
of constant maintenance. Capital needs in public housing grow by $2.3
billion every year, and the backlog of needed capital repairs is over
$20 billion. If we do not adequately fund the Public Housing Capital
Fund, this backlog will continue to grow, threatening the homes of 1.5
million American families and the Federal Government's substantial
investment in this housing.
While I strongly oppose the cuts in the public housing program, there
are some important provisions contained in this bill that I
wholeheartedly support. This bill fixes a serious problem created by
the House Committee and ensures that Section 8 housing vouchers, a
critical housing resource, are not lost. The House appropriations bill,
H.R. 5605, will result in the immediate loss of over 125,000 vouchers
and will lead to the continued loss of housing vouchers over time.
Though the bill before us today cuts funding from the voucher program,
it does so in a way that guarantees that all vouchers in use will be
funded, and ensures that housing authorities can serve as many families
as possible with the vouchers they are allocated. This is an important
provision, and I want to commend Senators Bond and Mikulski for
including this in the HUD/VA appropriations bill.
I am also pleased that the Senate retains $100 million in interest
reduction payments for housing uses. Unfortunately, the House bill
complies with the administration's request to rescind this $100 million
which should be used to rehabilitate affordable housing. Given the
great need for housing around the country, it is remarkable that we
would rescind funding which could be used to increase housing
opportunities. The Senate bill rightly requires that HUD use these
funds to modernize affordable housing. Unfortunately, HUD has refused
to take any action to use these IRP funds for their intended purpose,
and I urge HUD to quickly comply with congressional intent and
distribute these needed dollars.
Affordable, stable housing is the bedrock of stable, vibrant
communities. Unfortunately, too many Americans find themselves in
precarious housing situations in neighborhoods of despair. The
continued cuts to housing programs supported by the current
administration will hurt the millions of Americans who live in public
housing or received housing vouchers, and the millions more Americans
who are in need of housing assistance. These cuts will be felt all
around the country. I hope that the administration will recognize this
and the growing housing needs around the country and I urge them to
fully fund Federal housing programs in the fiscal year 2004 budget. I
am also hopeful that the Senate bill, which ensures the viability of
the housing voucher program, prevails at conference with the House.
democracy programs
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the ranking member of the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee and I intended to include the following section
in the report accompanying the FY 2003 Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs appropriations bill. I ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the Record following the remarks of the
Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 1485]]
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. My friend from Kentucky and I agreed to include this
section in the report, but we regret that it was not included before
the report hit the printing presses. It is our hope and expectation
that it be considered as if included in the fiscal year 2003 Foreign
Operations report, as originally printed in the Record last week.
Exhibit 1
Democracy Oversight and Coordination
The Committee strongly supports programs and activities
that advance democracy and freedom abroad, and has included
funding in this Act for specific democracy programs it
believes are important to United States security interests.
The Committee believes that democracy promotion abroad can be
an effective bulwark against terrorism, if properly
established and implemented.
However, the Committee remains concerned with the
inconsistent application of democracy programs by State and
USAID, and the apparent lack of coordination of these
programs within, and between, the agencies. For example,
while the Committee applauds State's comprehensive review of
Middle East democracy programs, it is perplexed by its lack
of leadership and support for the advancement of democracy in
Burma.
In order to address these concerns, the Committee
recommends that State and USAID jointly conduct a
comprehensive review of democracy programs, and consider
centralizing oversight and coordination within the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Committee will review
the progress made in this endeavor as it considers action on
the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill.
____________________
NOMINATION OF GOVERNOR RIDGE
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, apparently within the next 24 hours we
will have the opportunity to vote on the President's nominee to head
our new Department of Homeland Security. The President has made an
excellent choice. It is hard for me to imagine a better choice to
undertake this responsibility than Governor Ridge.
Twenty years ago this month, Governor Ridge and I stood with about 80
other freshmen Congressmen and women at the other end of this building
and raised our right hand and took an oath of office to defend our
Constitution and country. He and I then served together in the House
for the next 10 years and actually helped to lead one of the Banking
Committee subcommittees as ranking Democrat and Republican.
Later we served as Governors in the neighboring States of
Pennsylvania and Delaware. Even before we came to Washington, we served
in the Armed Forces of our country where he served with real
distinction in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war.
I will always be especially grateful for a breakfast Governor Ridge
came to almost 20 years ago. I had just been elected the at large
Congressman from Delaware and ended the campaign with a little bit of
debt. We decided to have a fundraising breakfast to help take care of
the debt, and Senator Biden, then the junior Senator from Delaware, was
good enough to come and speak at our breakfast. We had a whole host of
Democratic colleagues from the House, new freshmen who wanted to show
their support for their new colleague. One Republican stopped by that
breakfast, and it was the freshman Congressman from Erie, PA.
I will always be grateful for that appearance and for the friendship
that has spanned some 20 years. I will be pleased to vote with my
colleagues and join, I suspect all of them, in making him a unanimous
choice for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
While I believe Governor Ridge is more than qualified for the job,
the task he faces is daunting. Congress has given him a Department that
at least on paper should be able to prevent and respond to terrorist
attacks more effectively than Federal Government and State governments
can today. We have authorized the transfers of literally dozens of
agencies and tens of thousands of workers. We have outlined a skeleton
organization that should be able to pull together under one roof
information on threats and vulnerabilities and to use that information
to improve security and better prepare our first responders.
Very little of what we have outlined, though, will be in place on day
1, and day 1 is tomorrow for all intents and purposes. A number of
outstanding questions remain. Both in the Committee on Governmental
Affairs where I serve and on the Senate floor, we have had a healthy
debate over the details of how the transition to a new Department of
Homeland Security should work. I know some of my colleagues are
uncomfortable with what we have. I have a few concerns of my own.
That being said, I think it is important now that we put aside our
disagreements and do what we need to do to enable this Department to do
what it needs to do, to protect American lives.
Let me take a few minutes to discuss a couple of the issues I hope
Governor Ridge will address early on during his tenure as Secretary of
this Department.
First, let me touch on the subject of rail security. Now that the
Transportation Security Administration has for the most part achieved
the goals we set for them, it is time for them and for the Department
of Homeland Security to focus on other modes that have received less
attention, especially rail. As I said before, our failure more than a
year after September 11 to act to improve the security of our rail
infrastructure is an Achilles' heel in our Nation's effort to secure
our total transportation system.
In New York City today, hundreds of thousands of people on their way
to work pass through tunnels that are badly lit, poorly ventilated, and
from which escape is very difficult. In fact, there is even a rail
tunnel that goes under the Supreme Court and congressional offices just
a couple of hundred yards from where we are gathered this evening.
Every day thousands of people pass through that tunnel under this
Capitol on their way to work or to home.
Passenger safety demands a real investment, but to ask Amtrak to do
more with respect to security without providing more resources is, in
my view, an unfunded mandate, not a solution. I thank Governor Ridge
for understanding the importance of improving rail security, not just
for passenger rail but for freight rail as well.
I also thank Governor Ridge for acknowledging at our hearing last
week that Amtrak is likely to need some additional financial
assistance, if it is expected to make the security enhancements that
need to be made.
Let me also touch on the matter of first responders. States and
localities are in desperate need of additional new resources to help
prepare their police, their fire, and emergency personnel for any
future terrorist attacks. At the same time, most State and local
governments are suffering through extraordinary fiscal crises that are
forcing some to raise taxes or cut services. We see that in Delaware,
in Tennessee, and a host of other States as well.
I am disappointed that the omnibus appropriations bill on the floor
this evening and today and again tomorrow probably does not provide
State and localities with the level of first responder aid that they
need. In the future, I hope Governor Ridge, soon to be Secretary Ridge,
and our colleagues in Congress and the President will heed the calls
from back home for more first responder aid.
I also hope Governor Ridge works quickly in the coming weeks to set
up a communications link between the new Department and first
responders so their needs can be heard and information on what they
need to do to protect their communities makes its way down to them.
When the Committee on Governmental Affairs first marked up the
Homeland Security Act and again when a modified version of the bill
reached the floor, Senators Collins and Feingold and I offered an
amendment to create an office of State and local coordination within
the new Department. That would place a homeland security liaison office
within each State. Our language, unfortunately, was not included in the
final bill, but I do hope Governor Ridge will consider setting up
something like what we recommended once this new Department is in place
and he and his employees have gotten their sea legs.
I want to close with some comments on relations with employees. A
matter
[[Page 1486]]
that held up final passage of this legislation when we created the new
Department last month was really relations with employees, what kinds
of rights they have under the collective bargaining laws and under the
merit rules of the civil service rules of our country.
Recently, ADM James Loy, head of the Transportation Security
Administration--I am told a very able person--used the authority
Congress granted him under the airline security legislation we passed
after September 11 to forbid airport screeners from joining unions. He
cited his view that the screeners perform sensitive national security
work as the reason for his decision.
The admiral's decision may or may not have been the right one.
Whether it was or not, it has not done much to improve relations
between the administration and thousands of unionized employees who are
being transferred to this new Department, who perform work just as
sensitive as--or in some cases even more sensitive than--that performed
by the screeners.
As he works with the Office of Personnel Management to develop a
human resources management system for this new Department, I urge
Governor Ridge to work swiftly to repair the strained relationship
between the administration and the public employees' union. He will
benefit by doing that, the employees of that Department will benefit,
and I believe our Nation will, too.
Mr. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.J. RES. 2
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:20
a.m. on Wednesday, the Senate resume consideration of the Inhofe
amendment No. 86, and it be modified in order to be a first-degree
amendment; further, I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes
for debate equally divided between Senators Inhofe and Edwards; I
further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time,
the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment, to be
followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Edwards amendment No.
67, with no amendments in order to either amendment prior to that vote.
Mr. REID. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
be in a period of morning business and that Senators be permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress Senator Kennedy and I
introduced the Local Law Enforcement Act, a bill that would add new
categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence
of any kind is unacceptable in our society.
I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred May 3, 2001
in Los Angeles, CA. An African-American man was shot by an Hispanic
man, Carlos Garcia. Garcia shot and critically wounded the victim after
telling him that he ``did not like black men associating with Hispanic
women,'' according to police. After the incident, the gunman hijacked a
bus and caused a deadly crash as he was fleeing from police.
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 is a symbol that can become substance. I
believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we
can change hearts and minds as well.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JENNIFER CHARTRAND
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Jennifer
Chartrand, who is leaving the Republican staff of the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee.
Jennifer hails from Brooklyn and graduated from Fordham University.
She began her career in the Senate with the Ethics Committee and went
on to become a legislative assistant for Senator Conrad Burns.
Jennifer's next move was to join the Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
where my staff members got to know her well. She served both in the
majority and the minority and was a valuable source of institutional
knowledge on a range of issues.
While she was a tenacious fighter for Republican priorities, she
always worked for good ideas, irrespective of which Senator came up
with it. Perhaps most importantly, she always fought for the
institutional prerogatives of both the Appropriations Committee and the
Senate as a whole. Jennifer also recently staffed a congressional
delegation to Europe which I was a part of. I truly appreciate all of
her hard work in putting together that trip.
While I hate to see Jennifer leave, the good news is that she is only
moving across the hall to the Defense Subcommittee. I hope that
Senators Stevens and Inouye will not mind if we borrow her from time to
time.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO UCONN HUSKIES WOMEN'S BASKETBALL RECORD-BREAKING STREAK
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise in
tribute to the University of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball
team, which on Saturday, January 18th made Division I history by
winning their 55th consecutive game. In doing so, they surpassed the
54-game streak set by Virginia Tech between 1980 and 1982 and delighted
fans all across my state.
Fifty-five straight wins would be an incredible accomplishment in any
sport at any time. But it's especially impressive in women's college
basketball today because this is an era of true parity in the sport.
There are so many strong teams able to compete with and, on any given
night, beat a great team like the Huskies. But the Huskies keep on
working, and they keep on winning, at home and on the road, in blowouts
and in squeakers. Sometimes they win with defense. Sometimes with
three-point shooting. Sometimes with pure hustle. But they always find
a way.
It's no wonder the Huskies have an admirer in legendary UCLA coach
John Wooden, whose UCLA men's basketball teams in the early 1970's set
an all-time Division I record with 88 straight wins. Coach Wooden said
of what the Huskies have accomplished, ``It's a tremendous feat in any
era. I think they play the pure game, more so than the men. The best
college basketball in my opinion is played by the better women's
teams.''
Of course, last year the very best team in the nation was UConn,
which racked up a perfect 39-0 season en route to the national
championship. The players on that team--led by All-American seniors Sue
Bird, Tamika Williams, Swin Cash and Asjha Jones--built the bulk of
this record streak.
And this season, a team led by All-American junior Diana Taurasi and
many terrific young players is in the hunt for the championship again.
There will be tons of tough games to play. Just this Monday, January
20th, they matched up against Notre Dame and extended the streak to 56.
And on February 1st, they will play Duke, now ranked first in the
country.
Mr. President, competition isn't about perfection. It's about
perseverance. I'm reminded of the words of Michael Jordan, who said,
``I have missed
[[Page 1487]]
more than 9,000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26
occasions I have been entrusted to take the game winning shot . . . and
I missed. I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And
that's precisely why I succeed.'' So even if--if--the team should lose
someday, the real measure of their character will be how they bounce
back, what they learn, how they become an even better team because of
it.
So much of the credit for this team's success goes to coach Geno
Auriemma, who has built the best program in the Nation during his 18
years in Storrs. Assistant Coach Chris Dailey has also played a pivotal
part in the remarkable run. The Huskies have won three national
championships over the last 7 years. They have made 14 straight NCAA
tournament appearances and won a combined 23 Big East regular and
tournament championships. Over the last 3 years, they've amassed an
astounding 123-4 record.
I wish them luck in the weeks and months to come as they seek to
extend the streak further. This has been a month of history in women's
college basketball. Tennessee coach Pat Summit just won her 800th
game--and the Huskies won their 55th straight victory. It is a golden
time for the sport, and for all the fans who love it.
____________________
BILL ROSENDAHL'S 15TH ANNIVERSARY AS A HOST AND PRODUCER AT ADELPHIA
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Bill
Rosendahl, who has just marked his 15th anniversary of producing a
variety of shows for Adelphia Communications. I would like to take a
few moments to recognize Bill's many successes.
I have been a guest on Bill's shows many times. Recently I appeared
on his ``One-on-One'' interview program and enjoyed a discussion with
Bill ranging from the possible war in Iraq to our Nation's environment
and energy policies. Bill is extremely knowledgeable about issues
facing our Nation and world. His questions are intelligent, insightful,
and penetrating.
Since 1987, Bill has produced 2,600 shows. For 15 years, viewers have
tuned in to watch interviews with leaders including former Vice
President Al Gore, my colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein, California
Governor Gray Davis, Prince El Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan, and former
Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak.
In addition to his role at Adelphia, Bill serves as Chairman of the
California Cable Telecommunications Association, Chairman of the
California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy, and on boards
of the California Channel and Cable Positive.
Prior to his career in the cable industry, Bill Rosendahl was a White
House appointee to the State Department as Chief of Operations for the
U.S. Trade and Development Program and an associate in philanthropic
work for John D. Rockefeller III. He has been involved in many
presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial campaigns. Bill has also
traveled to more than 50 countries throughout the world.
It is clear that Bill Rosendahl deserves our warmest wishes on this
special occasion. Because of Bill's work, Californians are more
informed about issues facing our State, Nation and world. He provides a
forum for an engaging exchange of ideas, perspectives and outlooks on
the future. I am certain that the next 15 years will be just as
exciting as the first.
____________________
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.)
____________________
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-570. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Maryland; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program--Request for Delay in the Incorporation of On-Board
Diagnostics Testing (FRL7436-9)'' received on January 10,
2003; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-571. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida:
Approval of Revisions to the Florida State Implementation
Plan (FRL7439-2)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-572. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purpose: Idaho
(FRL7422-3)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-573. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds From Solvent Cleaning Operations (FRL7437-
5)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-574. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Maryland; Revision to the Control of Volatile Organic
Compound emissions from Screen Printing and Digital Imaging
(FRL7420-8)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-575. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Pennsylvania; Sulfur Dioxide attainment Demonstration
for the Warren county Nonattainment Area Permit Emission
Limitations for Two Individual Sources in Warren County
(FRL7421-1)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-576. A communication from the Acting Principle Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon
(FRL7429-5)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-577. A communication from the Chairman, Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report entitled ``Eliminating the Category
National Defense Property, Plant and Equipment''; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-578. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report entitled ``Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Report--2002''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-579. A communication from the Chairman, Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report relative to the compliance of the
Commission with the Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act)
and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA); to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-580. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer,
Corporation for National & Community Service, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of the Inspector General's Semi-
Annual Report to Congress covering the six month period from
April 1, 2002 through September 30, 2002 along with the
Corporation's Report on the Final Action; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-581. A communication from the Secretary of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semiannual Report of the
Office of the Inspector General for the Department of
Interior covering the 6-month period of April 1, 2002 through
September 30, 2002; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-582. A communication from the Attorney General,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Attorney General's
Semiannual Management Report to Congress: April 1, 2002 to
[[Page 1488]]
September 30, 2002 and the Office of the Inspector General
Semiannual Report to Congress for April 1, 2002 to September
30, 2002; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-583. A communication from the District of Columbia
Auditor, transmitting, the report entitled ``Certification of
the Fiscal Year 2003 Revenue Estimate in Support of the
District's $374,200,000 Multimodal General Obligation Bonds
(Series 2002A and 2002B)''; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-584. A communication from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the twenty-
seventh Semiannual Report to Congress on Audit Follow-Up,
covering the period from April 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-585. A communication from the Inspector General,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report relative to the inventory of
commercial activities for the year 2002; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-586. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report relative to the plan describing the new strategic
goals, objectives, strategies and measures for fiscal years
2002-2007; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-587. A communication from the administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of the Semiannual Report of the Inspector
General of NASA for the period ending September 30, 2002; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-588. A communication from the Chairman, National
Mediation Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
the National Mediation Board Documentation of Management
Control Plan; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-589. A communication from the Chief Judge, Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report on the District of Columbia Courts' Master
Plan for Facilities, including the Family Court and on the
Family Court's use of Newly appointed magistrate judges in
child abuse and neglect matters; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-590. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Kentucky
Regulatory Program (KY-234-FOR)'' received on January 11,
2003; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-591. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Kentucky
Regulatory Program (KY-240-FOR)'' received on January 11,
2003; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-592. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Oklahoma
Regulatory Program (OK-028-FOR)'' received on January 11,
2003; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-593. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management, Department of Labor,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Department
of Labor's Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) Reports for Fiscal
Years 1999-2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-594. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report relative to
the intent of the President to add Afghanistan to the list of
least-developed beneficiary developing countries under the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP); to the Committee on
Finance .
EC-595. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revenue Ruling 2003-9--Bureau of Labor Statistics Price
Indexes for Department Stores--November 2002'' received on
January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-596. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Implementation of section 644 of EGTRRA--procedure for
waiver of 60 day rollover requirement (Rev. Proc. 2003-7)''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-597. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Private Foundation Transfer of Assets (Rev. Rul. 2003-13)''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-598. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Qualified Census Tracts--2003 (Rev. Proc. 2003-15)''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-599. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Indian Tribal Government Trusts for Minors (Rev. Proc.
2003-14)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-600. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``1259 Reestablished Positions (Rev. Rul. 2003-1, 2003-3
I.R.B._,(01-21-2003)[RR-144425-02]'' received on January 10,
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-601. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Bureau of
the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``31 CFR parts 321, 351, 352, 353, 359, 360, Offerings of
United States Savings Bonds, Series EE, HH and I; Regulations
Governing United States Savings Bonds, Series EE, HH, and I;
Payments by Banks and Other Financial Institutions of the
United States Savings Bonds and United States Savings Notes
(Freedom Shares)'' received on January 14, 2003; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-602. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare and
Medicaid Programs; Fire and Safety Requirements for Certain
Health Care Facilities (RIN0938-AK35)'' received on January
11, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-603. A communication from the Chairman, Medicare Payment
Advisory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report relative to Medicare+Choice organizations; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-604. A communication from the Secretary of the Navy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report relative to the
Cessation of Training at Vieques Naval Training Range; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-605. A communication from the Principle Deputy,
Personnel and Readiness, Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the annual report describing host nation laws and treaty
obligations of the United States, and the conditions within
host nations, that necessitate restrictions on purchases in
overseas commissaries and exchange stores; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-606. A communication from the Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Extension of DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program (DFARS Case
2002-DO29)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-607. A communication from the Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Trade Agreements Act--Exception for U.S.-Made End Products
(DFARS Case 2002-D008)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-608. A communication from the Assistant Director,
Executive & Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination
confirmed for the position of Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel & Readiness, received on January 9,
2003; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-609. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Policy and Management, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Medical Devices; Classification for Medical
Washers and Medical Washer-Disinfector (Doc. No. 01N-0339)''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-610. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Policy and Management, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Medical Devices, Reclassification of the Cutaneous
Carbon Dioxide and the Cutaneous Oxygen Monitor (Doc. No.
01N-0576)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-611. A communication from the Acting Assistant General
Counsel for Regulations, Office of the General Counsel,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Rehabilitative Training:
Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program--Vocational
Rehabilitation Counseling (RIN1820-ZA16)'' received on
January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-612. A communication from the Acting Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitle ``Extension of
Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemical)
(FRL7284-8)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-613. A communication from the Finance Specialist, Rural
Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rural
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (RIN0503-AA20)''
received on January 11, 2003; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-614. A communication from the Acting Director, Office of
Regulatory Law, Veterans
[[Page 1489]]
Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Extension of the Presumptive Period for Compensation for
Gulf War Veterans' Undiagnosed Illnesses (RIN2900-AK98)''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-615. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel,
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs , transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Health Care for Certain Children of Vietnam
Veterans--Covered Birth Defects and Spina Bifida (RIN2900-
AK88)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
EC-616. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Univair Aircraft Corp Models
415c, cd, d, e, g, and f-1, f-1A airplanes docket no. 2000-
CE-79 (RIN2120-AA64) (2003-0070)'' received on January 14,
2003; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-617. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Surface Area at Indian Springs Air
Force Auxiliary Field: Indian Springs, NV; Docket no. 02-AWP-
2 (2120-AA66)'' received on January 14, 2003; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-618. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Withdrawal--Modification of Class E Airspace; Zanesville,
OH; Docket no. 01-AGL-21 (2120-AA66)'' received on January
14, 2003; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-619. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; and Amendment of Class
E5 Airspace; Greenville, SC: Docket No. 02-ASO-4 (2120-
AA66)'' received on January 14, 2003; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-620. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 757-200, 200CB, and
300 Series; Docket no. 2000-NM-392; Docket No. 2000-NM-392
(2120-AA64)'' received on January 14, 2003; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-621. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier Rotax GmbH 912 F and
912 S Series Reciprocating Engines; Docket No. 2002-NE-18
(2120-AA64)'' received on January 14, 2003; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-622. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; Henderson Airport; Las
Vegas, NV; Doc. No. 02-AWP-4 (2120-AA66)(2003-0016)''
received on January 14 , 2003; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
____________________
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 Mr. SMITH (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr.
Santorum):
S. 198. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow an income tax credit for the provision of
homeownership and community development, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 199. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to carry out certain authorities relating to the
importation of municipal solid waste under the Agreement
Concerning the Trans-
boundary Movement of Hazardous Waste between the United
States and Canada; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 200. A bill for the Relief of Ashley Ross Fuller; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. Res. 24. A resolution designating the week beginning May
4, 2003, as ``National Correctional Officers and Employees
Week''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 16
At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 16, a bill to protect the
civil rights of all Americans, and for other purposes.
S. 35
At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 35, a bill to provide economic
security for America's workers.
S. 54
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 54, a bill to amend the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to
affordable pharmaceuticals.
S. 87
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 87, a bill to provide for
homeland security block grants.
S. 121
At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 121, a bill to enhance the operation of the AMBER Alert
communications network in order to facilitate the recovery of abducted
children, to provide for enhanced notification on highways of alerts
and information on such children, and for other purposes.
S. 121
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the names of the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the Senator from
Ohio (Mr. DeWine), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the
Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Campbell) were added as cosponsors of S. 121, supra.
S. 121
At the request of Mr. Pryor, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
121, supra.
S. 138
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 138, a bill to
temporarily increase the Federal medical assistance percentage for the
medicaid program.
S. 144
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 144, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance
through States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land.
S. 173
At the request of Mr. Daschle, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 173, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the
financing of the Superfund.
AMENDMENT NO. 26
At the request of Mr. Lott, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 26 intended to be
proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Chafee, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Schumer, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Harkin, his name was added as a cosponsor of
[[Page 1490]]
amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, his name was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, his name was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
At the request of Mr. Reed, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Grassley), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 27 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 40
At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 40 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 40
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 40 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 40
At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 40 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 51
At the request of Mr. Fitzgerald, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
51 intended to be proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 55
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 55 intended to be
proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 55
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 55 intended to be proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 61
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 61 intended to be proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint
resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 198. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an
income tax credit for the provision of homeownership and community
development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Stabenow and
Santorum to introduce the New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act. This
legislation will create a single-family housing tax credit for
developers who build in low income areas, and allow more Americans to
reach their dreams of homeownership. It will also encourage developers
of single family units to invest in low income areas and improve our
communities.
Currently, there are no tax credits available to developers of new or
rehabilitated, affordable single-family housing. The low-income housing
tax credit provides tax credits to owners of low-income rental units,
but does not provide a solution to the problem of a lack of affordable
homes. The quality of life in distressed neighborhoods can be improved
dramatically by increasing home ownership. Existing buildings in these
neighborhoods often need extensive renovation before they can provide
decent owner-occupied housing. It is also difficult for renovations to
occur because the costs involved exceed the prices at which the housing
units could be sold. Similarly, the costs of new construction may
exceed its market value. Properties sit vacant and neighborhoods remain
devastated. The New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act bridges the gap
between development costs and market prices and will revitalize these
areas.
Our legislation will create a single-family housing tax credit of
$1.75 per resident which will be made available annually to States. In
my home State of Oregon, the most recent Census estimates State or
local housing credit agencies will award these credits to housing
units, including condominiums and cooperatives planned for development
of single-family housing in census tracts with median incomes of 80
percent or less of area median income. The value of the credits could
not exceed 50 percent of the qualifying cost of the unit. Rules similar
to the current law rules for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit will
apply to determine eligible costs of individual units.
The owner of the housing unit being sold to a qualified buyer will be
eligible to claim the single-family housing tax credit over a 5-year
period beginning on that date. Eligible home buyers must have incomes
at 80 percent or less of applicable median family income. They would
not have to be first time homebuyers, and rules similar to the mortgage
revenue bond provisions will apply to determine applicable median
family income.
In Oregon, rising housing costs are prohibiting working families from
being able to afford homes. With a lack of affordable housing, costs
are rising, and families are unable to gain the stability and equity
homeownership provides. In its first year, the New Homestead Economic
Opportunity Act would support more than 360 new affordable homes,
probably more if credits are used in connection with less costly
rehabilitations. A family of three or more with an income of $30,000
will be a qualified buyer in Oregon. This legislation will affect real
working Americans.
I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will further the dream of
so many Americans through homeownership. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting the New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the New Homestead Economic Opportunity
Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 198
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``New
Homestead Economic Opportunity Act''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act 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. 2. COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERSHIP CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 42 the
following new section:
``SEC. 42A. HOMEOWNERSHIP CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
amount of the homeownership credit determined under this
section for
[[Page 1491]]
any taxable year in the credit period shall be an amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the eligible basis of
each qualified residence.
``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means
the appropriate percentage prescribed by the Secretary for
the month in which the taxpayer and the homeownership credit
agency enter into an agreement with respect to such residence
(which is binding on such agency, the taxpayer, and all
successors in interest) as to the homeownership credit dollar
amount to be allocated to such residence.
``(2) Method of prescribing percentage.--The percentage
prescribed by the Secretary for any month shall be the
percentage which will yield over a 5-year period amounts of
credit under subsection (a) which have a present value equal
to 50 percent of the eligible basis of a qualified residence.
``(3) Method of discounting.--The present value under
paragraph (2) shall be determined--
``(A) as of the last day of the 1st year of the 5-year
period referred to in paragraph (2),
``(B) by using a discount rate equal to 72 percent of the
annual Federal mid-term rate applicable under section
1274(d)(1) to the month applicable under paragraph (1) and
compounded annually, and
``(C) by assuming that the credit allowable under this
section for any year is received on the last day of such
year.
``(c) Qualified Residence.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified residence' means any
residence--
``(A) which is located--
``(i) in a census tract which has a median gross income
which does not exceed 80 percent of the greater of area or
state-wide median gross income, or
``(ii) in an area of chronic economic distress, and
``(B) which is purchased by a qualified buyer.
For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an area is
an area of chronic economic distress if it is approved for
designation as such under section 143(j)(3), except that such
designation shall not require the approval of the Secretary
and shall cease to apply after the end of the 5th calendar
year after the calendar year in which the designation is
made.
``(2) Residence.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
`residence' means--
``(A) a single-family home containing 1 to 4 housing units,
``(B) a condominium unit,
``(C) stock in a cooperative housing corporation (as
defined in section 216(b)), or
``(D) any factory-made housing which is permanently affixed
to real property.
In the case of a single-family home described in subparagraph
(A) which contains more than 1 housing unit, the term
`residence' shall not include any new residence and shall
include only the portion of such home which is to be occupied
by the owner thereof (based on the percentage of the total
area of such home which is to be occupied by the owner).
``(3) Timing of determination.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the determination of whether a residence is a qualified
residence shall be made at the time a binding commitment for
an allocation of credit is awarded by the homeownership
credit agency, except that the determination of whether a
buyer is a qualified buyer shall be made at the time the
residence is sold.
``(4) Median gross income.--For purposes of this section,
median gross income shall be determined consistent with
section 143(f)(2).
``(d) Eligible Basis.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) New qualified residences.--
``(A) In general.--The eligible basis of a new qualified
residence is--
``(i) in the case of a qualified residence which is sold in
a transaction which meets the requirements of subparagraph
(B), its adjusted basis (excluding land) immediately before
such sale, and
``(ii) zero in any other case.
``(B) Requirements.--A sale of a qualified residence meets
the requirements of this subparagraph if--
``(i) the buyer acquires the qualified residence by
purchase (as defined in section 179(d)(2)),
``(ii) the buyer of the qualified residence is not a
related person with respect to the seller, and
``(iii) the buyer's debt financing is originated by a 3rd
party who is not a related person with respect to the seller.
``(2) Existing qualified residences.--
``(A) In general.--The eligible basis of an existing
qualified residence is--
``(i) in the case of a qualified residence which is sold in
a transaction which meets the requirements of subparagraph
(B), the adjusted basis of the rehabilitation expenditures
with respect to the qualified residence which are paid or
incurred in connection with such sale, and
``(ii) zero in any other case.
``(B) Requirements.--A sale of a qualified residence meets
the requirements of this subparagraph if--
``(i) the buyer acquires the qualified residence by
purchase (as defined in section 179(d)(2)),
``(ii) the qualified residence has undergone substantial
rehabilitation in connection with the sale described in
clause (i),
``(iii) the buyer of the qualified residence is not a
related person with respect to the seller, and
``(iv) the buyer's debt financing is originated by a 3rd
party who is not a related person with respect to the seller.
``(C) Substantial rehabilitation.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (B),
substantial rehabilitation means rehabilitation expenditures
paid or incurred with respect to a qualified residence which
are at least $25,000.
``(ii) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of a calendar
year after 2003, the dollar amount contained in clause (i)
shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2002' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
Any increase under this clause which is not a multiple of
$1,000 shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of
$1,000.
``(3) Effect of subsequent sale, etc.--A subsequent sale,
assignment, rental, or refinancing of the qualified residence
by the buyer or the subsequent sale, assignment, or pooling
of the buyer's financing by the originator shall not be
considered in determining whether or not the prior sales
transaction satisfied the requirements of subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1) or (2).
``(4) Special rules relating to determination of adjusted
basis.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the adjusted basis of any qualified residence (or any
rehabilitation expenditures in respect thereof)--
``(i) shall not include so much of the basis of such
qualified residence (or rehabilitation expenditures) as is
determined by reference to the basis of other property held
at any time by the person acquiring the residence, and
``(ii) shall be determined without regard to the adjusted
basis of any property which is not part of such qualified
residence.
``(B) Basis of property in common areas, etc., included.--
The adjusted basis of any qualified residence shall be
determined by taking into account (on a pro rata basis) the
adjusted basis of property (of a character subject to the
allowance for depreciation) used in common areas or provided
as comparable amenities to all residences within a project.
``(5) Special rules for determining eligible basis.--
``(A) Related person, etc.--For purposes of this section, a
person (in this clause referred to as the `related person')
is related to any person if the related person bears a
relationship to such person specified in section 267(b) or
707(b)(1), or the related person and such person are engaged
in trades or businesses under common control (within the
meaning of subsections (a) and (b) of section 52). For
purposes of the preceding sentence, in applying section
267(b) or 707(b)(1), `10 percent' shall be substituted for
`50 percent'.
``(B) Nonresidential space excluded.--No portion of the
eligible basis of a qualified residence shall include costs
attributable to nonresidential space.
``(C) Limitation.--The eligible basis of any residence may
not exceed the mortgage limit for Federal Housing
Administration insured mortgages in the area in which such
residence is located.
``(e) Definition and Special Rules Relating To Credit
Period.--
``(1) Credit period defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term `credit period' means, with respect to any qualified
residence, the period of 5 taxable years beginning with the
taxable year in which the sale of the qualified residence
occurs satisfying the requirements of subsection (d)(1)(B) or
(d)(2)(B).
``(2) Special rule for 1st year of credit period.--
``(A) In general.--The credit allowable under subsection
(a) with respect to any qualified residence for the 1st
taxable year of the credit period shall be determined by
multiplying the eligible basis under subsection (d) by the
fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the sum of the number of
remaining whole months in such 1st taxable year after the
sale of the qualified residence, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is 12.
``(B) Disallowed 1st year credit allowed in 6th year.--Any
reduction by reason of subparagraph (A) in the credit
allowable (without regard to subparagraph (A)) for the 1st
taxable year of the credit period shall be allowable under
subsection (a) for the 1st taxable year following the credit
period.
``(f) Limitation on Aggregate Credit Allowable With Respect
to Qualified Residences Located in a State.--
``(1) Credit may not exceed credit dollar amount allocated
to qualified residence.--
``(A) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this section for any taxable year with respect to any
qualified residence shall not exceed the homeownership
[[Page 1492]]
credit dollar amount allocated to such qualified residence
under this subsection.
``(B) Time for making allocation.--
``(i) General rule.--An allocation shall be taken into
account under subparagraph (A) only if it is made not later
than the close of the calendar year in which the qualified
residence is sold, and only if the qualified residence is
sold within 1 year after the residence (or the rehabilitation
expenditures, as applicable) is completed.
``(ii) Earlier allocation by agency.--A homeownership
credit agency may allocate available homeownership credit
dollar amounts to a qualified residence prior to the year of
sale of such qualified residence if--
``(I) the taxpayer owns fee title or a leasehold interest
of not less than 50 years in the site of the qualified
residence as of the later of the date which is 6 months after
the date that the allocation was made or the close of the
calendar year in which the allocation is made, and
``(II) such qualified residence is completed not later than
the close of the 2nd calendar year following the calendar
year in which the allocation was made.
``(C) Vested right to credit dollar amount.--Once a
homeownership credit allocation is received by a taxpayer,
the right to such credit is vested in such taxpayer and is
not subject to recapture, except as provided in paragraph
(4)(B).
``(2) Homeownership credit dollar amount for agencies.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate homeownership credit
dollar amount which a homeownership credit agency may
allocate for any calendar year is the portion of the State
homeownership credit ceiling allocated under this paragraph
for such calendar year to such agency.
``(B) State ceiling initially allocated to state
homeownership credit agencies.--Except as provided in
subparagraphs (D) and (E), the State homeownership credit
ceiling for each calendar year shall be allocated to the
homeownership credit agency of such State. If there is more
than 1 homeownership credit agency of a State, all such
agencies shall be treated as a single agency.
``(C) State homeownership credit ceiling.--The State
homeownership credit ceiling applicable to any State for any
calendar year before 2003 shall be zero and for any calendar
year after 2002 shall be an amount equal to the sum of--
``(i) the unused State homeownership credit ceiling (if
any) of such State for the preceding calendar year,
``(ii) the greater of--
``(I) $1.75 multiplied by the State population, or
``(II) $2,000,000,
``(iii) the amount of State homeownership credit ceiling
returned in the calendar year, plus
``(iv) the amount (if any) allocated under subparagraph (D)
to such State by the Secretary.
For purposes of clause (i), the unused State homeownership
credit ceiling for any calendar year is the excess (if any)
of the sum of the amounts described in clauses (ii) through
(iv) over the aggregate homeownership credit dollar amount
allocated for such year, except that such amount shall be
zero for 2003. For purposes of clause (iii), the amount of
State homeownership credit ceiling returned in the calendar
year equals the homeownership credit dollar amount previously
allocated within the State to any qualified residence with
respect to which an allocation is canceled by mutual consent
of the homeownership credit agency and the allocation
recipient.
``(D) Unused homeownership credit carryovers allocated
among certain states.--
``(i) In general.--The unused homeownership credit
carryover of a State for any calendar year shall be assigned
to the Secretary for allocation among qualified States for
the succeeding calendar year.
``(ii) Unused homeownership credit carryover.--For purposes
of this subparagraph, the unused homeownership credit
carryover of a State for any calendar year is the excess (if
any) of the unused State homeownership credit ceiling for
such year (as defined in subparagraph (C)(i)) over the excess
(if any) of--
``(I) the unused State homeownership credit ceiling for the
year preceding such year, over
``(II) the aggregate homeownership credit dollar amount
allocated for such year.
``(iii) Formula for allocation of unused homeownership
credit carryovers among qualified states.--The amount
allocated under this subparagraph to a qualified State for
any calendar year shall be the amount determined by the
Secretary to bear the same ratio to the aggregate unused
homeownership credit carryovers of all States for the
preceding calendar year as such State's population for the
calendar year bears to the population of all qualified States
for the calendar year.
``(iv) Qualified state.--For purposes of this subparagraph,
the term `qualified State' means, with respect to a calendar
year, any State--
``(I) which allocated its entire State homeownership credit
ceiling for the preceding calendar year, and
``(II) for which a request is made (not later than May 1 of
the calendar year) to receive an allocation under clause
(iii).
``(E) State may provide for different allocation.--Rules
similar to the rules of section 146(e) (other than paragraph
(2)(B) thereof) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(F) Population.--For purposes of this paragraph,
population shall be determined in accordance with section
146(j).
``(G) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after
2003, the $2,000,000 and $1.75 amounts in subparagraph (C)
shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2002' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding.--
``(I) In the case of the $2,000,000 amount, any increase
under clause (i) which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
``(II) In the case of the $1.75 amount, any increase under
clause (i) which is not a multiple of 5 cents shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of 5 cents.
``(3) Limitation on allocations to areas of chronic
economic distress.--Not more than 50 percent of a
homeownership credit agency's portion of the State
homeownership credit ceiling for a calendar year may be
allocated to residences located in areas which are designated
as areas of chronic economic distress in accordance with
paragraph (1) of subsection (c).
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Residence must be located within jurisdiction of
credit agency.--A homeownership credit agency may allocate
its aggregate homeownership credit dollar amount only to
qualified residences located in the jurisdiction of the
governmental unit of which such agency is a part.
``(B) Agency allocations in excess of limit.--If the
aggregate homeownership credit dollar amounts allocated by a
homeownership credit agency for any calendar year exceed the
portion of the State homeownership credit ceiling allocated
to such agency for such calendar year, the homeownership
credit dollar amounts so allocated shall be reduced (to the
extent of such excess) for residences in the reverse of the
order in which the allocations of such amounts were made.
``(g) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Completed.--The term `completed' means the point in
time where a qualified residence is first placed in a
condition or state of readiness and availability for
occupancy.
``(2) Project.--The term `project' means 1 or more
residences together with functionally related and subordinate
facilities developed and made available to inhabitants of
such residences, including recreational facilities and
parking areas. To constitute a project, each residence must--
``(A) be developed by the same taxpayer pursuant to common
planning and feasibility studies,
``(B) be financed through a common plan of construction
financing, and
``(C) have common ownership prior to sale.
For purposes of this paragraph, it is not necessary that all
residences within a project be contiguous or that all
residences consist only of either new residences or existing
residences and it is not necessary that each residence within
a project be a qualified residence.
``(3) Qualified buyer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified buyer' means a buyer
if at the time of the acquisition of the qualified residence,
the buyer--
``(i) is 1 or more individuals whose income does not exceed
80 percent of the area median gross income (70 percent for
families of less than 3 members), and
``(ii) intends to occupy the residence as the buyer's
principal residence (within the meaning of section 121).
``(B) Special rules in qualified census tracts.--With
respect to residences located in qualified census tracts (as
defined in section 42), subparagraph (A) shall be applied by
substituting `100 percent' for `80 percent' and `90 percent'
for `70 percent'.
``(C) Determination of income.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a buyer's income shall be determined in accordance
with section 143(f)(4).
``(4) New qualified residence.--The term `new qualified
residence' means a qualified residence the original ownership
of which begins with the taxpayer.
``(5) Existing qualified residence.--The term `existing
qualified residence' means any qualified residence which is
not a new qualified residence.
``(6) Homeownership credit agency.--The term `homeownership
credit agency' means any agency authorized to carry out this
section.
``(7) Possessions treated as states.--The term `State'
includes the District of Columbia and a possession of the
United States.
``(8) Application to estates and trusts.--In the case of an
estate or trust, the amount of the credit determined under
subsection (a)
[[Page 1493]]
shall be apportioned between the estate or trust and the
beneficiaries on the basis of the income of the estate or
trust allocable to each.
``(h) Reduction in Tax Benefits.--
``(1) Recapture of credit.--If within the first 3 years
after the original purchase of a qualified residence, the
residence is sold by the qualified buyer to a buyer who does
not qualify as a qualified buyer, the qualified buyer--
``(A) shall deduct and withhold an amount equal to the
recapture amount from the amount realized on such sale, and
``(B) shall transfer such amount to the homeownership
credit agency which allocated the homeownership credit dollar
amount to such residence.
``(2) Recapture amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
recapture amount is an amount equal to 50 percent of the gain
resulting from such resale, reduced by 1/36th for each month
the resale occurs after the original purchase.
``(3) Denial of deductions if converted to rental
housing.--If a qualified residence is converted to rental
housing within the first 3 years after the original purchase,
no deduction under this chapter shall be permitted to offset
rental income with respect to such residence during such
period.
``(i) Application of At-Risk Rules.--For purposes of this
section, rules of section 465 shall not apply in determining
the eligible basis of any qualified residence.
``(j) Reports to the Secretary.--
``(1) From the taxpayer.--The Secretary may require
taxpayers to submit an information return (at such time and
in such form and manner as the Secretary prescribes) for each
taxable year setting forth--
``(A) the eligible basis for the taxable year of each
qualified residence with respect to which the taxpayer is
claiming a credit under this section,
``(B) the amount of all homeownership credit allocations
received by the taxpayer from any and all State homeownership
credit agencies, and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
The penalty under section 6652(j) shall apply to any failure
to submit the return required by the Secretary under the
preceding sentence on the date prescribed therefor.
``(2) From homeownership credit agencies.--Each agency
which allocates any homeownership credit dollar amount to any
residence for any calendar year shall submit to the Secretary
(at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe) an annual report specifying--
``(A) the amount of the homeownership credit dollar amount
allocated to each residence for such year,
``(B) sufficient information to identify each such
residence and the taxpayer initially entitled to claim the
credit under this section with respect thereto, and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
``(k) Responsibilities of Homeownership Credit Agencies.--
``(1) Plans for allocation of credit among residences.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the homeownership credit dollar amount with
respect to any qualified residence shall be zero unless such
amount was allocated pursuant to a qualified allocation plan
of the homeownership credit agency which is approved by the
governmental unit (in accordance with rules similar to the
rules of section 147(f)(2) (other than subparagraph (B)(ii)
thereof)) of which such agency is a part.
``(B) Qualified allocation plan.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified allocation plan' means any
plan which sets forth the homeownership development
priorities of the homeownership credit agency.
``(C) Certain homeownership development priorities must be
used.--The development priorities set forth in a qualified
allocation plan must include--
``(i) contribution of the development to community
stability and revitalization,
``(ii) community and local government support for the
development,
``(iii) need for homeownership development within the area,
``(iv) sponsor capability, and
``(v) long-term sustainability of the project as owner-
occupied residences.
``(2) Credit allocated to residence not to exceed amount
necessary to assure feasibility.--
``(A) In general.--The homeownership credit dollar amount
allocated to a residence shall not exceed the amount the
homeownership credit agency determines is necessary for the
feasibility of the residence.
``(B) Agency evaluation.--In making the determination under
subparagraph (A), the homeownership credit agency shall
consider--
``(i) the sources and uses of funds and the total financing
planned for the residence,
``(ii) any proceeds or receipts expected to be generated by
reason of tax benefits,
``(iii) the anticipated appraised value of the residence,
and
``(iv) the reasonableness of the developmental costs of the
residence.
``(C) Determination made when credit dollar amount applied
for.--A determination under subparagraph (A) shall be made as
of each of the following times:
``(i) The application for the homeownership credit dollar
amount.
``(ii) The allocation of the homeownership credit dollar
amount.
``(3) Lien for recapture amount.--A homeownership credit
dollar amount may be allocated by a homeownership credit
agency to a residence only if such agency has a lien on such
residence for the payment of any amount potentially required
to be paid under subsection (h) to such agency.
``(l) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations--
``(1) dealing with--
``(A) projects which include more than 1 residence or only
a portion of a residence, and
``(B) buildings which are completed in portions,
``(2) providing for the application of this section to
short taxable years,
``(3) preventing the avoidance of the rules of this
section, and
``(4) providing the opportunity for homeownership credit
agencies to correct administrative errors and omissions with
respect to allocations and record keeping within a reasonable
period after their discovery, taking into account the
availability of regulations and other administrative guidance
from the Secretary.''.
(b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section
38(b) (relating to current year business credit) is amended
by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (14), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(16) the homeownership credit determined under section
42A(a).''.
(c) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
(relating to carryback and carryforward of unused credits) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) No carryback of homeownership credit before
effective date.--No amount of unused business credit
available under section 42A may be carried back to a taxable
year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this
paragraph.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 55(c)(1) is amended by inserting ``or
subsection (h) or (i) of section 42A'' after ``section 42''.
(2) Subsections (i)(3)(D), (i)(6)(B)(i), and (k)(1) of
section 469 are each amended by inserting ``or 42A'' after
``section 42''.
(3) Section 772(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (10), by redesignating paragraph (11) as
paragraph (12), and by inserting after paragraph (10) the
following:
``(11) the homeownership credit determined under section
42A, and''.
(4) Section 774(b)(4) is amended by inserting ``, 42A(h),''
after ``section 42(j)''.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 42 the
following:
``Sec. 42A. Homeownership credit.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified residences sold after December 31,
2002.
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 199. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out
certain authorities relating to the importation of municipal solid
waste under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Canadian
Waste bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 199
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CANADIAN TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 4011. CANADIAN TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agreement.--The term `Agreement' means--
``(A) the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement
of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada,
signed at Ottawa on October 28, 1986 (TIAS 11099); and
``(B) any regulations promulgated to implement and enforce
that Agreement.
``(2) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid
waste' has the meaning given the term in the Agreement.
[[Page 1494]]
``(b) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
import, transport, or export municipal solid waste, for final
disposal or incineration, in violation of the Agreement.
``(c) Authority of Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning immediately after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
``(A) perform the functions of the Designated Authority of
the United States described in the Agreement with respect to
the importation and exportation of municipal solid waste
under the Agreement; and
``(B) implement and enforce the Agreement (including notice
and consent provisions of the Agreement).
``(2) Consent to importation.--In considering whether to
consent to the importation of municipal solid waste under
article 3(c) of the Agreement, the Administrator shall--
``(A) give substantial weight to the views of each State
into which the municipal solid waste is to be imported; and
``(B) consider the impact of the importation on--
``(i) continued public support for, and adherence to, State
and local recycling programs;
``(ii) landfill capacity, as provided in comprehensive
waste management plans;
``(iii) air emissions resulting from increased vehicular
traffic;
``(iv) road deterioration resulting from increased
vehicular traffic; and
``(v) public health and the environment.
``(d) Compliance Orders.--
``(1) In general.--If, on the basis of any information, the
Administrator determines that a person has violated or is in
violation of this section, the Administrator may--
``(A) issue an order that--
``(i) assesses a civil penalty against the person for any
past or current violation of the person; or
``(ii) requires compliance by the person with this section
immediately or by a specified date; or
``(B) bring a civil action against the person for
appropriate relief (including a temporary or permanent
injunction) in the United States district court for the
district in which the violation occurred.
``(2) Specificity.--
``(A) In general.--Any order issued under paragraph (1) for
a violation of this subsection shall state with reasonable
specificity the nature of the violation.
``(B) Penalties.--
``(i) Maximum penalty.--Any penalty assessed by an order
issued under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $25,000 per day
of noncompliance for each violation.
``(ii) Considerations.--In assessing a penalty under this
section, the Administrator shall take into account--
``(I) the seriousness of the violation for which the
penalty is assessed; and
``(II) any good faith efforts of the person against which
the penalty is assessed to comply with applicable
requirements.
``(e) Public Hearing.--
``(1) In general.--Any order issued under this section
shall become final unless, not later than 30 days after the
date of issuance of the order, the person or persons against
which the order is issued submit to the Administrator a
request for a public hearing.
``(2) Hearing.--On receipt of a request under paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall promptly conduct a public
hearing.
``(3) Subpoenas.--In connection with any hearing under this
subsection, the Administrator may--
``(A) issue subpoenas for--
``(i) the attendance and testimony of witnesses; and
``(ii) the production of relevant papers, books, and
documents; and
``(B) promulgate regulations that provide for procedures
for discovery.
``(f) Violation of Compliance Orders.--If a person against
which an order is issued fails to take corrective action as
specified in the order, the Administrator may assess a civil
penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day of continued
noncompliance with the order.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by
adding at the end of the items relating to subtitle D the
following:
``Sec. 4011. Canadian transboundary movement of municipal solid
waste.''.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Levin
in reintroducing this bill to address the growing problem of Canadian
waste shipments to Michigan.
In 2001, Michigan imported almost 3.6 million tons of municipal solid
waste, more than double the amount that was imported in 1999. This
gives Michigan the unwelcome distinction of being the third largest
importer of waste in the United States.
My colleagues may be surprised to know that the biggest source of
this waste was not another state, but our neighbor to the north,
Canada. More than half the waste that was shipped to Michigan in 2001
was from Ontario, Canada, and these imports are growing rapidly. On
January 1, 2003, as another Ontario landfill closed its doors, the city
of Toronto switched from shipping two-thirds of its trash, to shipping
all of its trash, 1.1 million tons, to Michigan landfills. Experts
predict that soon there will be virtually no local disposal capacity in
Ontario, which could mean even more waste being shipped across the
border to Michigan.
Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own
landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on
Michigan's environment and the public health of its citizens. The
Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's State and
local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law
requiring recycling.
Currently, 110-130 truckloads of waste come into Michigan each day
from Canada. These trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge and Blue Water
Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit, causing
traffic delays, and filling our air with the stench of exhaust and
garbage. These trucks also present a security risk at our Michigan-
Canadian border, since by their nature trucks full of garbage are
harder for Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo.
Michigan already has protections contained in an international
agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being
ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste
across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government
notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the
designated authority for the United States would receive the
notification and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the
shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been
enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the
municipal waste shipments.
This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are
entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would give EPA the
authority to implement and enforce this treaty, and would create civil
penalties for those who ship waste in violation of the treaty. In
addition, it would create criteria for the EPA's determination of
whether or not to consent to a shipment, such as the State's views on
the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air
emissions, public health and the environment. These waste shipments
should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will
affect the health and welfare of Michigan families.
Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for introducing this bill
and I look forward to working with him to move it through the Senate.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 24--DESIGNATING THE WEEK BEGINNING MAY 4, 2003, AS
``NATIONAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WEEK''
Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 24
Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents
a crucial component of the criminal justice system of the
United States;
Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in
protecting the rights of the public to be safeguarded from
criminal activity;
Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the
care, custody, and dignity of the human beings charged to
their care; and
Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding
circumstances and face danger in their daily work lives: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES WEEK.
That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning May 4, 2003, as
``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week''; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe the
week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
[[Page 1495]]
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 67. Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Daschle, and Mr.
Schumer) proposed an amendment to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
SA 68. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 69. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 70. Mr. FRIST submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 71. Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Dayton, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Schumer) proposed an amendment
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra.
SA 72. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 73. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 74. Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 75. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 76. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 77. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 78. Mr. GREGG proposed an amendment to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra.
SA 79. Mr. DASCHLE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 80. Mr. DAYTON (for himself and Mr. Johnson) proposed an
amendment to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra.
SA 81. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 82. Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Reid) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 83. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 84. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 85. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 86. Mr. INHOFE proposed an amendment to amendment SA 67
proposed by Mr. Edwards (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Daschle, and Mr.
Schumer) to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra.
SA 87. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 88. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 89. Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Bingaman, and Ms. Mikulski) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 90. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 91. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 92. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 93. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 94. Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 95. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 96. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 97. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Biden) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, supra.
SA 98. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 99. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 100. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 101. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 102. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 103. Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Ms.
Stabenow) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 104. Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Ms. Stabenow) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 105. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 106. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 107. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 108. Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mr. Nelson, of
Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 109. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 110. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 111. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 112. Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. Santorum)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 113. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 114. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Schumer)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 115. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Schumer)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 116. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 117. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 118. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 119. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 120. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 121. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 122. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 123. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him
[[Page 1496]]
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 124. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 125. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 126. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 127. Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Lautenberg)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 128. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Schumer) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 129. Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 130. Mr. CONRAD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 131. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu,
and Mr. Breaux) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 132. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Dodd) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 133. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 134. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 135. Mr. TALENT (for himself and Mr. Lugar) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 136. Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. Clinton) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 137. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Hollings, and Mr. Graham, of Florida) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 138. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 139. Mr. GRAHAM, of Florida (for himself, Mr. Nelson, of
Florida, and Mr. Voinovich) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 140. Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Harkin, and Mr. Crapo) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 141. Mrs. MURRAY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 142. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 143. Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Kyl) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 144. Mr. SANTORUM submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 145. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 146. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 147. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 148. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 149. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 150. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 151. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 152. Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 153. Mr. VOINOVICH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 154. Mr. VOINOVICH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 155. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 156. Mr. DOMENICI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 157. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 158. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 159. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 160. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 161. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 162. Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs.
Dole) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 163. Mr. FITZGERALD submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 164. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 165. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 166. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 167. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 168. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 169. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 170. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 171. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 172. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Ms. Snowe) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 173. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 174. Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 175. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 176. Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Graham, of Florida,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Leahy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 177. Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms.
Cantwell, and Mrs. Clinton) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
[[Page 1497]]
SA 178. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Daschle,
and Mr. Leahy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 179. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 180. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 181. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 182. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 183. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 184. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 185. Mr. BOND submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 186. Mr. BOND submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 187. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 188. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 189. Mr. INOUYE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 190. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Dorgan) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 191. Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 192. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Kennedy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 193. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 194. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 195. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 196. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 197. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Schumer)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 198. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy , and Mr. Schumer)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 199. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 200. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 201. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 202. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 203. Mr. ALLEN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 204. Mr. COCHRAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 205. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 206. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 207. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 208. Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 209. Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 210. Mr. NICKLES submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 211. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 212. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 213. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 214. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 215. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 216. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 217. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 218. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 219. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 220. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Ensign, and Mr.
Specter) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 221. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 222. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 223. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 224. Mr. BOND submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 225. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 226. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 227. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 228. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 229. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 230. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 231. Mr. GRAHAM, of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Kennedy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 232. Mr. GRAHAM, of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Kennedy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 233. Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mrs. Clinton)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 234. Mr. CORZINE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 235. Mr. CORZINE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
[[Page 1498]]
SA 236. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 237. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 238. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 239. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 240. Mr. SMITH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 241. Mr. CHAFEE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 242. Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 243. Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 244. Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 245. Mr. DOMENICI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
______
SA 67. Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Schumer) proposed an amendment
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; as
follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. NEW SOURCE REVIEW FINAL RULE.
(a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to determine, not later than September 1, 2003, whether and
to what extent the final rule relating to prevention of
significant deterioration and nonattainment new source
review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31, 2002),
would allow or could result in--
(1) any increase in air pollution (in the aggregate or at
any specific site); or
(2) any adverse effect on human health.
(b) Delayed Effective Date.--The final rule described in
subsection (a) shall not take effect before September 15,
2003.
______
SA 68. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN
PLANS.
(a) Funding Rules for Certain Plans.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, the minimum funding rules under
paragraph (2) shall apply for any plan year beginning after
December 31, 2002, in the case of a defined benefit plan
which--
(A) was established by an air carrier which was granted a
conditional loan guarantee by the Air Transport Stabilization
Board on July 10, 2002, and which filed for protection under
chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, on August 11,
2002, and
(B) is maintained for the benefit of such carrier's
employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
(2) Special funding rule.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a plan described in
paragraph (1), the minimum funding requirements under this
paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury
Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-3 (as in effect on the date of
the enactment of this section).
(B) Rules of special application.--In applying the
requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-3 for
purposes of paragraph (1)--
(i) the plan shall be treated as having met the
requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-
3(a)(2),
(ii) the payment schedules shall be determined--
(I) by using the maximum amortization period permitted
under section 1.412(c)(1)-3, and
(II) on the basis of the actuarial valuation of the accrued
liability and the current liability of the plan as of January
1, 2003, less the actuarial value of the plan assets on that
date,
(iii) the payments under a restoration payment schedule
shall be made in level amounts over the payment period, and
(iv) the actuarial value of assets shall be the fair market
value of such assets as of January 1, 2003, with prospective
investment returns in excess of or less than the assumed
return phased in over 5 years.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2002.
______
SA 69. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1014, after line 13, insert the following new
section:
``SEC. 423. From amounts previously appropriated under the
heading ``Emergency Response Fund'' in Public Law 107-038,
$90,000,000 shall be made ava lable, until expended, for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to administer baseline
and follow-up screening and clinical examinations and long-
term health monitoring and analysis for emergency services
personnel and rescue and recovery personnel, of which not
less that $25,000,000 shall be made available for such
services for current and retired firefighters.''.
______
SA 70. Mr. FRIST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
At the appropriate place add the following:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is required under
Title 5, Chapter 83 United States Code, to fund civil service
Retirement System benefits attributable to USPS employment
since 1971;
The Office of Personnel Management has reviewed the USPS
financing of the civil Service Retirement System and
determined current law payments overfund USPS liability;
Therefore, It is the Sense of the Senate that the Congress
should address the USPS funding of the Civil Service
Retirement System pension benefits.
______
SA 71. Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Schumer) proposed an amendment to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes; as follows:
On page 1052, line 25, strike ``budget).'' and insert the
following: ``budget).
TITLE __--FUNDING EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
SEC. __. HELPING CHILDREN SUCCEED BY FUNDING THE INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA).
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) All children deserve a quality education.
(2) In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (334 F. Supp. 1247)(E. Dist. Pa.
1971), and Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of
Columbia (348 F. Supp. 866)(Dist. D.C. 1972), the courts
found that children with disabilities are entitled to an
equal opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment of
the Constitution.
(3) In 1975, Congress passed what is now known as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (referred to in
this section as ``IDEA'') (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to help
States provide all children with disabilities a free,
appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment. At full funding, Congress contributes 40 percent
of the average per pupil expenditure for each child with a
disability served.
(4) Before 1975, only \1/5\ of the children with
disabilities received a formal education. At that time, many
States had laws that specifically excluded many children with
disabilities, including children who were blind, deaf, or
emotionally disturbed, from receiving such an education.
(5) IDEA currently serves an estimated 200,000 infants and
toddlers, 600,000 preschoolers, and 5,400,000 children 6 to
21 years of age.
(6) IDEA enables children with disabilities to be educated
in their communities, and thus, has assisted in dramatically
reducing the number of children with disabilities who must
live in State institutions away from their families.
(7) The number of children with disabilities who complete
high school has grown significantly since the enactment of
IDEA.
[[Page 1499]]
(8) The number of children with disabilities who enroll in
college as freshmen has more than tripled since the enactment
of IDEA.
(9) The overall effectiveness of IDEA depends upon well
trained special education and general education teachers,
related services personnel, and other school personnel.
Congress recognizes concerns about the nationwide shortage of
personnel serving students with disabilities and the need for
improvement in the qualifications of such personnel.
(10) IDEA has raised the Nation's awareness about the
abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities.
(11) Improvements to IDEA in the 1997 amendments increased
the academic achievement of children with disabilities and
helped them to lead productive, independent lives.
(12) Changes made in 1997 also addressed the needs of those
children whose behavior impedes learning by implementing
behavioral assessments and intervention strategies to ensure
that they receive appropriate supports in order to receive a
quality education.
(13) IDEA requires a full partnership between parents of
children with disabilities and education professionals in the
design and implementation of the educational services
provided to children with disabilities.
(14) While the Federal Government has more than doubled
funding for part B of IDEA since 1995, the Federal Government
has never provided more than 17 percent of the maximum State
grant allocation for educating children with disabilities.
(15) By fully funding IDEA, Congress will strengthen the
ability of States and localities to implement the
requirements of IDEA.
SEC. __. FUNDING FOR PART B OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, in addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act for part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, other than section 619 of such
part, the following sums are appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000 for carrying
out such part, other than section 619 of such part, to remain
available through September 30, 2004.
(b) Across-the-Board Rescission.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, funds provided under subsection (a)
shall not result in a further across-the-board rescission
under section 601 of Division N.''.
______
SA 72. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the joint resolution, insert
the following:
Sec. __. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in
this joint resolution, the following sums are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for fiscal year 2003: $10,000,000 to provide for grants as
authorized by section 11027 of Public Law 107-273, to
implement the Crime-free Rural States Program.
(b) The amount made available under the account for
buildings and facilities of the Federal Prison System in this
joint resolution is reduced by $10,000,000.
______
SA 73. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the joint resolution, insert
the following:
Sec. __. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in
this joint resolution, the following sums are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for fiscal year 2003: $10,000,000 to provide for grants as
authorized by section 11027 of Public Law 107-273, to
implement the Crime-free Rural States Program.
______
SA 74. Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
In Division L, Homeland Security Act of 2002 Amendments, in
Section 101(1)(b)(2)(c), strike the first sentence and insert
in lieu thereof:
``To the extent that exercising such discretion is in the
interest of Homeland Security, and with respect to the
designation of any given university-based center for homeland
security, the Security may except certain criteria as
specified in 308(b)(2)(B) and consider additional criteria
beyond those specified in 308(b)(2)(B).''
______
SA 75. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1037, strike lines 7 through 12 and insert the
following:
SEC. 206. SPECIALTY CROPS.
(a) Definition of Specialty Crop.--In this section, the
term ``specialty crop'' means any agricultural commodity,
other than wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice,
peanuts, or tobacco.
(b) Assistance.--The Secretary shall use $500,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
emergency financial assistance for each of crop years 2001
and 2002 to producers of specialty crops for losses incurred
as a result of damaging weather or related condition.
______
SA 76. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
In Division A, at the appropriate place, insert the
following new section:
``Sec. . There is hereby appropriated $6,000,000 for
grants made available in accordance with section 7412 of
Public Law 107-171.''
______
SA 77. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
In Division A, at the appropriate place, insert the
following new section:
``SEC. . SUMMER FOOD PILOT PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Section 18(f) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``means a State'' and all
that follows and inserting ``means each State.'';
(2) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``pilot project'' and
inserting ``pilot projects carried out in eligible States
that participated in the pilot project during fiscal year
2001''; and
(3) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ``in eligible States
that participated in the pilot project during fiscal year
2001'' after ``carried out''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect immediately upon enactment of this Act.''
______
SA 78. Mr. GREGG proposed an amendment to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003; and for other purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
``SEC. . FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
ACT.
In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act for support of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act the following sum is appropriated out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for this
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000, which
is to remain available through September 30, 2004, provided
that, unless there is a separate and specific offset for any
amounts that are appropriated under Title III of Division G
for support of special education in excess of $9,691,424,000
for the individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the
percentage amount of any across-the-board rescission provided
under section 601 of Division N of this Act shall be
increased by the percentage amount necessary to rescind an
amount of funds equal to the total amounts appropriated in
excess of $9,691,424,000 for special education in Title III
of Division G.''
______
SA 79. Mr. DASCHLE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 1032, strike line 21 and all that follows
through page 1040, line 25, and insert the following:
TITLE II--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Agricultural
Disaster Assistance Act of 2003''.
SEC. 202. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to
in this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use such sums as
are necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make emergency financial assistance authorized under this
section available to producers on a farm that have incurred
qualifying crop losses for the 2001 or 2002 crop, or both,
due to damaging weather
[[Page 1500]]
or related condition, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-55),
including using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and
quality losses as were used in administering that section.
(c) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize
producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
SEC. 203. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation as are
necessary to make and administer payments for livestock
losses to producers for 2001 or 2002 losses, or both, in a
county that has received a corresponding emergency
designation by the President or the Secretary, of which an
amount determined by the Secretary shall be made available
for the American Indian livestock program under section 806
of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-51).
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-51).
SEC. 204. FUNDING.
Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the
Secretary shall--
(1) use such sums as are necessary to carry out this title,
to remain available until expended; and
(2) transfer to the fund established by section 32 of the
Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to remain available
until expended, an amount equal to the amount of funds under
section 32 of that Act that--
(A) were made available before the date of enactment of
this Act to provide assistance to livestock producers under
the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program announced by the
Secretary on October 10, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 63070); and
(B) were not otherwise reimbursed from another account used
by the Secretary or the Commodity Credit Corporation.
SEC. 205. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.
(a) In General.--The entire amount made available under
this title shall be available only to the extent that the
President submits to Congress an official budget request for
a specific dollar amount that includes designation of the
entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement for
the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.).
(b) Designation.--The entire amount made available under
this section is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement under sections 251(b)(2)(A) and 252(e) of that
Act (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A), 902(e)).
SEC. 206. BUDGETARY TREATMENT.
Notwithstanding Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping
Guidelines set forth in the Joint Explanatory Statement of
the Committee of Conference accompanying Conference Report
No. 105-217, the provisions of this title that would have
been estimated by the Office of Management and Budget as
changing direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 902) were it included in an Act other than an
appropriation Act shall be treated as direct spending or
receipts legislation, as appropriate, under section 252 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(2 U.S.C. 902).
______
SA 80. Mr. DAYTON (for himself and Mr. Johnson,) proposed an
amendment to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Senator Paul Wellstone Corporate Patriotism Act of 2003''.
(b) Limitation on Waivers.--Section 835 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Waivers.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to any specific contract if the President certifies
to Congress that the waiver is essential to the national
security.''.
(c) Expanded Coverage of Entities.--Section 835(a) of such
Act is amended by inserting ``nor any directly or indirectly
held subsidiary of such entity'' after ``subsection (b)''.
(d)Section 835(b)(1) of such act is amended by inserting
``before, on, or'' after ``completes''.
______
SA 81. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Senator Paul Wellstone Corporate Patriotism Act of 2003''.
(b) Limitation on Waivers.--Section 835 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Waivers.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to any specific contract if the President certifies
to Congress that the waiver is essential to the national
security.''.
(c) Expanded Coverage of Entities.--Section 835(a) of such
Act is amended by inserting ``nor any directly or indirectly
held subsidiary of such entity'' after ``subsection (b)''.
(d) Section 835(b)(1) of such act is amended by inserting
``before, on, or'' after ``completes''.
Sec. . This provision shall take effect 1 day after
enactment.
______
SA 82. Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs.
Clinton, and Mr. Reid) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. NEW SOURCE REVIEW FINAL RULE.
(a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to determine, not later than September 1, 2003, whether and
to what extent the final rule relating to prevention of
significant deterioration and nonattainment new source
review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31, 2002),
would allow or could result in--
(1) any increase in air pollution (in the aggregate or at
any specific site); or
(2) any adverse effect on human health.
(b) Delayed Effective Date.--The final rule described in
subsection (a) shall not take effect before September 16,
2003.
______
SA 83. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
National Nuclear Security Administration is prohibited from
taking any actions adversely affecting employment at its
Nevada Operations Office for a period of not less than 365
days. During this period, the National Nuclear Security
Administration is directed to establish a Financial Services
Center of Excellence to be maintained and operated in its
offices in Las Vegas, Nevada.
______
SA 84. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
SEC. . NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE PROJECT.
(a) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the appropriate local authorities, may
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the
North Las Vegas Water Reuse Project (hereinafter referred to
as the `Project') to reclaim and reuse water in the service
area of the North Las Vegas Utility Division Service Area of
the city North Las Vegas and country of Clark, Nevada.
(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
Project shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.
(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall not
be used for the operation or maintenance of the Project.
(d) Funding.--Funds appropriated pursuant to section 1631
of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) may be used for the
Project.
Sec. . Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act.--Design, planning, and construction of the
Project authorized by this Act shall be in accordance with,
and subject to the limitations
[[Page 1501]]
contained in, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (106 Stat. 4663-4669, 43 U.S.C.
390th et seq.), as amended.
______
SA. 85. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . The Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of
other participating Federal agencies, may participate in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Authority established by the California Bay-
Delta Act (2002 Cal. Stat. Chap. 812), to the extent not
inconsistent with other law. The Secretary of the Interior,
in carrying out CALFED activities, may undertake feasibility
studies for Sites Reservoir, Los Vaqueros Enlargement, In-
Delta Storage, and Upper San Joaquin Storage Projects.
______
SA 86. Mr. INHOFE proposed an amendment to amendment SA 67 proposed
by Mr. Edwards (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Schumer) to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; as follows:
On page 1, strike all after ``Sec.'' and insert the
following:
`` . (a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to evaluate the impact of the final rule relating to
prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment new
source review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31,
2002). The study shall include--
(1) increases or decreases in emissions of pollutants
regulated under the New Source Review program;
(2) impacts on human health;
(3) pollution control and prevention technologies installed
after the effective date of the rule at facilities covered
under the rulemaking;
(4) increases or decreases in efficiency of operations,
including energy efficiency, at covered facilities; and
(5) other relevant data.
(b) Deadline.--The NAS shall submit an interim report to
Congress no later than March 3, 2004, and shall submit a
final report on implementation of the rules.
______
SA 87. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Section 218(d)(6)(C) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 418(d)(6)(C)) is amended by inserting
``Kentucky,'' after ``Illinois,''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect on
January 1, 2003.
______
SA 88. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. __. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.
(a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) is
replaced, in the maps depicting the Coastal Barrier Resources
System that are referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), by the map
entitled ``Plum Tree Island Unit VA-59P, Long Creek Unit VA-
60/VA-60P'' and dated May 1, 2002.
(b) Description of Replaced Map.--The map referred to in
subsection (a) is the map that--
(1) relates to Plum Island Unit VA-59P and Long Creek Unit
VA-60/VA-60P located in Poquoson and Hampton, Virginia; and
(2) is included in a set of maps entitled `Coastal Barrier
Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, revised on
October 23, 1992, and referred to in section 4(a) of the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
(c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep
the replacement map described in subsection (b) on file and
available for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
______
SA 89. Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms.
Mikulski) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations
for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
DIVISION O--MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT;
REFERENCES TO BIPA; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``Health Care Improvement Act of 2003''.
(b) Amendments to Social Security Act.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided, whenever in this division an amendment
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 that section or other provision of the Social
Security Act.
(c) BIPA.--In this division, the term ``BIPA'' means the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000, as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554.
(d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this
division is as follows:
DIVISION O--MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PROVISIONS
Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Social Security Act; references to
BIPA; table of contents.
TITLE I--MEDICARE PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Revision of acute care hospital payment updates.
Sec. 102. Extension of level of adjustment for Indirect Costs of
Medical Education (IME).
Sec. 103. Hospital outpatient department outlier payments.
Sec. 104. Hospital outpatient department transitional payments.
Sec. 105. Application of rules for determining provider-based status
for certain entities.
Sec. 106. Extension of treatment of certain physician pathology
services.
Sec. 107. Extension of the authorization for appropriations for
Medicare Rural Grant Program.
Sec. 108. Extension of enhanced payments for psychiatric hospitals.
Sec. 109. Additional delay in application of 15 percent reduction on
payment limits for home health services.
Sec. 110. Extension of temporary increase for home health services
furnished in a rural area.
Sec. 111. Extension of temporary increase in adjusted Federal per diem
rate under PPS for skilled nursing facilities.
Sec. 112. Extension of increase in nursing component of PPS Federal
rate under PPS for skilled nursing facilities.
Sec. 113. Increase in renal dialysis composite rate for services
furnished in 2003.
Sec. 114. Extension of the authorization for appropriations for
vaccines outreach expansion.
Sec. 115. Extension of moratorium on therapy caps.
Sec. 116. Increase in the conversion factor for payments under the
medicare physician fee schedule.
Sec. 117. Revision of Medicare+Choice minimum percentage increase.
TITLE II--MEDICAID PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Extension of medicare cost-sharing for part B premium for
certain additional low-income medicare beneficiaries.
Sec. 202. Medicaid DSH allotments.
TITLE III--APPLICATION AND BUDGET SCOREKEEPING
Sec. 301. Application of provisions of division.
Sec. 302. Budget Scorekeeping.
TITLE I--MEDICARE PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. REVISION OF ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL PAYMENT UPDATES.
Subclause (XVIII) of section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``minus 0.55
percentage points''.
SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF LEVEL OF ADJUSTMENT FOR INDIRECT COSTS
OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (IME).
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (VI) by inserting ``and fiscal year 2003''
after ``2002''; and
(2) in subclause (VII), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2003''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Determination of
Standardized Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1999 or'' and inserting ``1999,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or of section 102 of the Health Care
Improvement Act of 2003'' after ``2000''.
SEC. 103. HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT OUTLIER PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(5) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(5))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``exceed the applicable''
and inserting ``exceed a percentage specified by the
Secretary that is not
[[Page 1502]]
less than the applicable minimum percentage or greater than
the applicable maximum''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(ii) Applicable percentages.--For purposes of clause
(i)--
``(I) the term `applicable minimum percentage' for a year
means zero percent for years before 2003 and 2.0 percent for
years after 2002; and
``(II) the term `applicable maximum percentage' for a year
means 2.5 percent for years before 2003 and 3.0 percent for
years after 2002.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Transitional authority''
and inserting ``Flexibility''; and
(B) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``for
covered OPD services furnished before January 1, 2002,''.
SEC. 104. HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT TRANSITIONAL
PAYMENTS.
Section 1833(t)(7) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and 2003'' after
``2002''; and
(B) by inserting ``and 2003'' after ``furnished during
2002'' in the matter preceding clause (i); and
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2004''; and
(B) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2004'' in the
matter preceding clause (i); and
(3) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``2004'' and
inserting ``2005''.
SEC. 105. APPLICATION OF RULES FOR DETERMINING PROVIDER-BASED
STATUS FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES.
Section 404 of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A-506) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003'' each place it
appears.
SEC. 106. EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PHYSICIAN
PATHOLOGY SERVICES.
Section 542(c) of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A-550) is amended by
striking ``2-year period'' and inserting ``3-year period''.
SEC. 107. EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS
FOR MEDICARE RURAL GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 1820(j) (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(j)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 108. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED PAYMENTS FOR PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITALS.
Section 1886(b)(2)(E)(i) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(2)(E)(i)) is
amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(III) only in the case of a hospital or unit described in
clause (ii)(I), for a cost reporting period beginning on or
after October 1, 2002, and before September 30, 2003, 2
percent.''.
SEC. 109. ADDITIONAL DELAY IN APPLICATION OF 15 PERCENT
REDUCTION ON PAYMENT LIMITS FOR HOME HEALTH
SERVICES.
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 1395fff(b)(3)(A)(i)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subclause (III) as subclause (IV);
(2) in subclause (IV), as redesignated, by striking
``described in subclause (II)'' and inserting ``described in
subclause (III)''; and
(3) by inserting after subclause (II) the following new
subclause:
``(III) For the 12-month period beginning after the period
described in subclause (II), such amount (or amounts) shall
be equal to the amount (or amounts) determined under
subclause (II), updated under subparagraph (B).''.
SEC. 110. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE FOR HOME HEALTH
SERVICES FURNISHED IN A RURAL AREA.
(a) In General.--Section 508(a) BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A-533)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``24-Month Increase Beginning April 1,
2001'' and inserting ``In General''; and
(2) by striking ``April 1, 2003'' and inserting ``October
1, 2003''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 547(c)(2) of BIPA (114
Stat. 2763A-553) is amended by striking ``the period
beginning on April 1, 2001, and ending on September 30,
2002,'' and inserting ``a period under such section''.
SEC. 111. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE IN ADJUSTED FEDERAL
PER DIEM RATE UNDER PPS FOR SKILLED NURSING
FACILITIES.
Section 101(d)(1) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Appendix F, 113 Stat.
1501A-325), as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(6) of
Public Law 106-113, is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``and 2002'' and inserting
``, 2002, and 2003''; and
(2) by striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``, 2002, and
2003''.
SEC. 112. EXTENSION OF INCREASE IN NURSING COMPONENT OF PPS
FEDERAL RATE UNDER PPS FOR SKILLED NURSING
FACILITIES.
Section 312(a) of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A-498) is amended by
striking ``October 1, 2002'' and inserting ``October 1,
2003''.
SEC. 113. INCREASE IN RENAL DIALYSIS COMPOSITE RATE FOR
SERVICES FURNISHED IN 2003.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to
payment under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act for renal dialysis services furnished in 2003, the
composite payment rate otherwise established under section
1881(b)(7) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395rr(b)(7)) shall be
increased by 1.2 percent.
SEC. 114. EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS
FOR VACCINES OUTREACH EXPANSION.
Section 4107(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 1395x note) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 115. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON THERAPY CAPS.
Section 1833(g)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(g)(4)) is amended by
striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``2002, and 2003''.
SEC. 116. INCREASE IN THE CONVERSION FACTOR FOR PAYMENTS
UNDER THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.
(a) In General.--Section 1848(d)(5)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(d)(5)(A)), as added by
section 402 of title IV of division N of this Act, is amended
by inserting ``increased by 2 percent'' after ``2002''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of such
section 402.
SEC. 117. REVISION OF MEDICARE+CHOICE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE
INCREASE.
Section 1853(c)(1)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)(1)(C)) is
amended by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
``(iv) For 2002, 102 percent of the annual Medicare+Choice
capitation rate under this paragraph for the area for 2001.
``(v) For 2003, 104 percent of the annual Medicare+Choice
capitation rate under this paragraph for the area for 2002.
``(vi) For 2004 and each succeeding year, 102 percent of
the annual Medicare+Choice capitation rate under this
paragraph for the area for the previous year.''.
TITLE II--MEDICAID PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE COST-SHARING FOR PART B
PREMIUM FOR CERTAIN ADDITIONAL LOW-INCOME
MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
Section 136 of Public Law 107-229, as added by section 5 of
Public Law 107-240, is amended by striking ``60 days after
the date specified in section 107(c) of Public Law 107-229,
as amended'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
SEC. 202. MEDICAID DSH ALLOTMENTS.
(a) Continuation of BIPA Rule for Determination of
Allotments for Fiscal Year 2003.--
(1) In general.--Section 1923(f)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
4(f)(4)) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``and 2002'' and
inserting ``through 2003'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) fiscal year 2003, shall be the DSH allotment
determined under clause (ii) increased, subject to
subparagraph (B) and paragraph (5), by the percentage change
in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (all
items; U.S. city average) for fiscal year 2002.''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2003''; and
(ii) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2004''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 1923(f)(3) (42 U.S.C.
1396r-4(f)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2003'' and
inserting ``2004''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The DSH allotment for any State--
``(i) for fiscal year 2004, is equal to the DSH allotment
determined for the State for fiscal year 2002 under the table
set forth in paragraph (2), increased, subject to
subparagraph (B) and paragraph (5), by the percentage change
in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (all
items; U.S. city average), for fiscal year 2004; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 2005 and each succeeding fiscal
year, is equal to the DSH allotment determined for the State
for the preceding fiscal year under this paragraph,
increased, subject to subparagraph (B) and paragraph (5), by
the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all
urban consumers (all items; U.S. city average), for the
previous fiscal year.''.
(b) Increase in Floor for Treatment as an Extremely Low DSH
State to 3 Percent in Fiscal Year 2003.--Section 1923(f)(5)
(42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``fiscal
year 2001'';
(2) by striking ``Health Care Financing Administration''
and inserting ``Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services'';
(3) by striking ``August 31, 2000'' and inserting ``August
31, 2002'';
(4) by striking ``1 percent'' each place it appears and
inserting ``3 percent''; and
(5) by striking ``fiscal year 2001'' and inserting ``fiscal
year 2003 (as determined under paragraph (4)(A)(iii))''.
[[Page 1503]]
TITLE III--APPLICATION AND BUDGET SCOREKEEPING
SEC. 301. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF DIVISION.
(a) Application Only To Last 6 Months of Fiscal Year
2003.--Except for the amendments made by sections 116 and
201, the provisions of, and amendments made by, this division
shall only apply to the Social Security Act, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Appendix F, 113 Stat.
1501A-321), as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(6) of
Public Law 106-113, and BIPA during the period that begins on
April 1, 2003, and ends on September 30, 2003.
(b) No Effect on Periods Beyond September 30, 2003.--All
provisions of, and amendments made by, this division shall
not apply after September 30, 2003, and, after such date, the
Social Security Act, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act
of 1999 (Appendix F, 113 Stat. 1501A-321), as enacted into
law by section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106-113, and BIPA
shall be applied and administered as if the provisions of,
and amendments made by, this division had not been enacted.
SEC. 302. BUDGET SCOREKEEPING.
Notwithstanding Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping
Guidelines set forth in the joint explanatory statement of
the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report
105-217, the provisions of this division that would have been
estimated by the Office of Management and Budget as changing
direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 were they
included in an Act other than an appropriations Act shall be
treated as direct spending or receipts legislation, as
appropriate, under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and by the Chairmen of
the House and Senate Budget Committees, as appropriate, under
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
______
SA 90. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 506, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert the
following:
``servation activities, $936,593,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That $322,300,000 shall be for use
in energy conservation grant programs as defined in section
3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507(3)): Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public
Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4502(d)(2)), such sums shall be
allocated to the eligible programs as follows: $277,300,000
for weath-''.
______
SA 91. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland
Security Block Grant Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Grants to States, units of general local government and Indian
tribes; authorizations.
Sec. 5. Statement of activities and review.
Sec. 6. Activities eligible for assistance.
Sec. 7. Allocation and distribution of funds.
Sec. 8. State and regional planning communication systems.
Sec. 9. Nondiscrimination in programs and activities.
Sec. 10. Remedies for noncompliance with requirements.
Sec. 11. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 12. Consultation by Secretary.
Sec. 13. Interstate agreements or compacts; purposes.
Sec. 14. Matching requirements; suspension of requirements for
economically distressed areas.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on our country, communities all across American now
find themselves on the front lines in the war against
terrorism on United States soil.
(2) We recognize that these communities will be forced to
shoulder a significant portion of the burden that goes along
with that responsibility. We believe that local governments
should not have to bear that responsibility alone.
(3) Our homeland defense will only be as strong as the
weakest link at the State and local level. By providing our
communities with the resources and tools they need to bolster
emergency response efforts and provide for other emergency
response initiatives, we will have a better-prepared home
front and a stronger America.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security.
(2) City.--The term ``city'' means--
(A) any unit of general local government that is classified
as a municipality by the United States Bureau of the Census;
or
(B) any other unit of general local government that is a
town or township and which, in the determination of the
Secretary--
(i) possesses powers and performs functions comparable to
those associated with municipalities;
(ii) is closely settled; and
(iii) contains within its boundaries no incorporated places
as defined by the United States Bureau of the Census that
have not entered into cooperation agreements with such town
or township to undertake or to assist in the performance of
homeland security objectives.
(3) Federal grant-in-aid program.--The term ``Federal
grant-in-aid program'' means a program of Federal financial
assistance other than loans and other than the assistance
provided by this Act.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, group, and nation, including Alaska
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any Alaskan Native Village,
of the United States, which is considered an eligible
recipient under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638) or was considered an
eligible recipient under chapter 67 of title 31, United
States Code, prior to the repeal of such chapter.
(5) Metropolitan area.--The term ``metropolitan area''
means a standard metropolitan statistical area as established
by the Office of Management and Budget.
(6) Metropolitan city.--
(A) In general.--The term ``metropolitan city'' means--
(i) a city within a metropolitan area that is the central
city of such area, as defined and used by the Office of
Management and Budget; or
(ii) any other city, within a metropolitan area, which has
a population of not less than 50,000.
(B) Period of classification.--Any city that was classified
as a metropolitan city for at least 2 years pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall remain classified as a metropolitan
city. Any unit of general local government that becomes
eligible to be classified as a metropolitan city, and was not
classified as a metropolitan city in the immediately
preceding fiscal year, may, upon submission of written
notification to the Secretary, defer its classification as a
metropolitan city for all purposes under this Act, if it
elects to have its population included in an urban county
under subsection (d).
(C) Election by a city.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (B),
a city may elect not to retain its classification as a
metropolitan city. Any unit of general local government that
was classified as a metropolitan city in any year, may, upon
submission of written notification to the Secretary,
relinquish such classification for all purposes under this
Act if it elects to have its population included with the
population of a county for purposes of qualifying for
assistance (for such following fiscal year) under section
5(e) as an urban county.
(7) Nonqualifying community.--The term ``nonqualifying
community'' means an area that is not a metropolitan city or
part of an urban county and does not include Indian tribes.
(8) Population.--The term ``population'' means total
resident population based on data compiled by the United
States Bureau of the Census and referable to the same point
or period of time.
(9) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, or any instrumentality thereof approved by the
Governor; and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United
States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern
Mariana Islands.
(10) Unit of general local government.--The term ``unit of
general local government'' means any city, county, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State; a combination of such political
subdivisions is recognized by the Secretary; and the District
of Columbia.
(11) Urban county.--The term ``urban county'' means any
county within a metropolitan area.
(b) Basis and Modification of Definitions.--Where
appropriate, the definitions in subsection (a) shall be
based, with respect to any fiscal year, on the most recent
data compiled by the United States Bureau of the Census and
the latest published reports of the Office of Management and
Budget available ninety days prior to the beginning of such
fiscal year. The Secretary may by regulation change or
otherwise modify the meaning of the terms defined in
subsection (a) in order to reflect any technical change or
modification thereof made subsequent to such date by the
United States Bureau of the Census or the Office of
Management and Budget.
(c) Designation of Public Agencies.--One or more public
agencies, including existing
[[Page 1504]]
local public agencies, may be designated by the chief
executive officer of a State or a unit of general local
government to undertake activities assisted under this Act.
(d) Local Governments, Inclusion in Urban County
Population.--With respect to program years beginning with the
program year for which grants are made available from amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section 4, the
population of any unit of general local government which is
included in that of an urban county as provided in subsection
(a)(11) shall be included in the population of such urban
county for three program years beginning with the program
year in which its population was first so included and shall
not otherwise be eligible for a grant as a separate entity,
unless the urban county does not receive a grant for any year
during such three-year period.
(e) Urban County.--Any county seeking qualification as an
urban county, including any urban county seeking to continue
such qualification, shall notify, as provided in this
subsection, each unit of general local government, which is
included therein and is eligible to elect to have its
population excluded from that of an urban county, of its
opportunity to make such an election. Such notification
shall, at a time and in a manner prescribed by the Secretary,
be provided so as to provide a reasonable period for response
prior to the period for which such qualification is sought.
The population of any unit of general local government which
is provided such notification and which does not inform, at a
time and in a manner prescribed by the Secretary, the county
of its election to exclude its population from that of the
county shall, if the county qualifies as an urban county, be
included in the population of such urban county as provided
in subsection (d).
SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES, UNITS OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND INDIAN TRIBES; AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to make
grants to States, units of general local government, and
Indian tribes to carry out activities in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$3,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006,
and such sums as may be necessary thereafter, for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions under section 7.
(2) State, regional, and local planning, training, and
communication systems.--There are authorized to be
appropriated $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2006, and such sums as may be necessary thereafter,
for the purpose of carrying out the provisions under section
8.
SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES AND REVIEW.
(a) Application.--
(1) In general.--Prior to the receipt in any fiscal year of
a grant under section 7(b) by any metropolitan city or urban
county, section 7(i) by any State, or section 7(i)(3) by any
unit of general local government, the grantee shall--
(i) indicate its interest in receiving funds by preparing a
statement of homeland security objectives and projected use
of funds; and
(ii) provide the Secretary with the certifications required
under paragraph (2) and, where appropriate, subsection (b).
(2) Grantee statement.--
(A) Contents.--
(i) Local government.--In the case of metropolitan cities
or urban counties receiving grants under section 7(b) and
units of general local government receiving grants under
section 7(i)(3), the statement of projected use of funds
shall consist of proposed homeland security activities.
(ii) States.--In the case of States receiving grants under
section 7(d), the statement of projected use of funds shall
consist of the method by which the States will distribute
funds to units of general local government.
(B) Consultation.--In preparing the statement, the grantee
shall consult with appropriate law enforcement agencies and
emergency response authorities.
(C) Final statement.--A copy of the final statement and the
certifications required under paragraph (3) and, where
appropriate, subsection (b) shall be furnished to the
Secretary and the Attorney General.
(D) Modifications.--Any final statement of activities may
be modified or amended from time to time by the grantee in
accordance with the same procedures required in this
paragraph for the preparation and submission of such
statement.
(3) Certification of enumerated criteria by grantee to
secretary.--Any grant under section 7 shall be made only if
the grantee certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that--
(A) it has developed a homeland security plan pursuant to
section 6(a)(8) that identifies both short- and long-term
homeland security needs that have been developed in
accordance with the primary objective and requirements of
this Act; and
(B) the grantee will comply with the other provisions of
this Act and with other applicable laws.
(b) Submission of Annual Performance Reports, Audits and
Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--Each grantee shall submit to the
Secretary, at a time determined by the Secretary, a
performance and evaluation report concerning the use of funds
made available under section 7, together with an assessment
by the grantee of the relationship of such use to the
objectives identified in the grantee's statement under
subsection (a)(2).
(2) Uniform reporting requirements.--
(A) Recommendations by national associations.--The
Secretary shall encourage and assist national associations of
grantees eligible under section 7, national associations of
States, and national associations of units of general local
government in nonqualifying areas to develop and recommend to
the Secretary, within 1 year after the effective date of this
Act, uniform recordkeeping, performance reporting, evaluation
reporting, and auditing requirements for such grantees,
States, and units of general local government, respectively.
(B) Establishment of uniform reporting requirements.--Based
on the Secretary's approval of the recommendations submitted
pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall establish
uniform reporting requirements for grantees, States, and
units of general local government.
(3) Reviews and audits.--The Secretary shall, at least on
an annual basis, make such reviews and audits as may be
necessary or appropriate to determine--
(A) in the case of grants made under section 7(b), whether
the grantee has carried out its activities and, where
applicable, whether the grantee has carried out those
activities and its certifications in accordance with the
requirements and the primary objectives of this Act and with
other applicable laws, and whether the grantee has a
continuing capacity to carry out those activities in a timely
manner; and
(B) in the case of grants to States made under section
7(i), whether the State has distributed funds to units of
general local government in a timely manner and in
conformance to the method of distribution described in its
statement, whether the State has carried out its
certifications in compliance with the requirements of this
Act and other applicable laws, and whether the State has made
such reviews and audits of the units of general local
government as may be necessary or appropriate to determine
whether they have satisfied the applicable performance
criteria described in subparagraph (A).
(4) Adjustments.--The Secretary may make appropriate
adjustments in the amount of the annual grants in accordance
with the Secretary's findings under this subsection. With
respect to assistance made available to units of general
local government under section 7(i)(3), the Secretary may
adjust, reduce, or withdraw such assistance, or take other
action as appropriate in accordance with the Secretary's
reviews and audits under this subsection, except that funds
already expended on eligible activities under this Act shall
not be recaptured or deducted from future assistance to such
units of general local government.
(c) Audits.--Insofar as they relate to funds provided under
this Act, the financial transactions of recipients of such
funds may be audited by the General Accounting Office under
such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the
Comptroller General of the United States. The representatives
of the General Accounting Office shall have access to all
books, accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers,
things, or property belonging to or in use by such recipients
pertaining to such financial transactions and necessary to
facilitate the audit.
(d) Metropolitan City as Part of Urban County.--In any case
in which a metropolitan city is located, in whole or in part,
within an urban county, the Secretary may, upon the joint
request of such city and county, approve the inclusion of the
metropolitan city as part of the urban county for purposes of
submitting a statement under section 5 and carrying out
activities under this Act.
SEC. 6. ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Activities assisted under this Act may
include--
(1) funding additional law enforcement, fire, and emergency
resources, including covering overtime expenses;
(2) purchasing and refurbishing personal protective
equipment for fire, police, and emergency personnel and
acquire state-of-the-art technology to improve communication
and streamline efforts;
(3) improving cyber and infrastructure security by
improving--
(A) security for water treatment plants, distribution
systems, other water infrastructure, nuclear power plants,
and other power infrastructure;
(B) security for tunnels and bridges;
(C) security for oil and gas pipelines and storage
facilities; and
(D) security for chemical plants and transportation of
hazardous substances;
(4) assisting Local Emergency Planning Committees so that
local public agencies can design, review, and improve
disaster response systems;
(5) assisting communities in coordinating their efforts and
sharing information with all relevant agencies involved in
responding to terrorist attacks;
(6) establishing timely notification systems that enable
communities to communicate with each other when a threat
emerges;
[[Page 1505]]
(7) improving communication systems to provide information
to the public in a timely manner about the facts of any
threat and the precautions the public should take; and
(8) devising a homeland security plan, including
determining long-term goals and short-term objectives,
evaluating the progress of the plan, and carrying out the
management, coordination, and monitoring of activities
necessary for effective planning implementation.
(b) Costs Covered.--Grants received under section 7 may be
used to cover any costs related to the eligible activities
listed in this section that were incurred on or after
September 11, 2001.
SEC. 7. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
(a) Set-Aside for Indian Tribes.--
(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, of the amount
appropriated for grants pursuant to section 4(b)(1)
(excluding the amounts provided for use in accordance with
section 6), the Secretary shall reserve 1 percent of the
amount so appropriated for grants to Indian tribes.
(2) Selection of indian tribes.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for
distribution of amounts under this paragraph to Indian tribes
on the basis of a competition conducted pursuant to specific
criteria for the selection of Indian tribes to receive such
amounts.
(B) Rulemaking.--The criteria shall be contained in a
regulation promulgated by the Secretary after notice and
public comment.
(b) Allocation to Metropolitan Cities and Urban Counties.--
(1) Allocation percentage.--Of the amount remaining after
allocations have been made to Indian tribes pursuant to
subsection (a), 70 percent shall be allocated by the
Secretary to metropolitan cities and urban counties.
(2) Entitlement.--Except as otherwise specifically
authorized, each metropolitan city and urban county shall be
entitled to an annual grant, to the extent authorized beyond
fiscal year 2006, from such allocation in an amount not
exceeding its basic amount computed pursuant to this
subsections (c) and (d).
(c) Computation of Amount Allocated to Metropolitan
Cities.--
(1) Computation ratios.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount to be allocated to each metropolitan city, which shall
bear the same ratio to the allocation for all metropolitan
cities as the weighted average of--
(A) the population of the metropolitan city divided by the
population of all metropolitan cities;
(B) the potential risk, as it pertains to chemical
security, of the metropolitan city divided by the potential
risk, as it pertains to chemical security, of all
metropolitan cities;
(C) the proximity of the metropolitan city to the nearest
operating nuclear power plant and the proximity of all
metropolitan cities to the nearest operating nuclear power
plant to each such city;
(D) the proximity of the metropolitan city to the nearest
United States land or water port and the proximity of all
metropolitan cities to the nearest United States land or
water port to each such city;
(E) the proximity of the metropolitan city to the nearest
international border and the proximity of all metropolitan
cities to the nearest international border to each such city;
and
(F) the proximity of the metropolitan city to the nearest
Disaster Medical Assistance Team (referred to in this
subsection as ``DMAT'') and the proximity of all metropolitan
cities to the nearest DMAT to each such city.
(2) Clarification of computation ratios.--
(A) Relative weight of factors.--In determining the average
of the ratios under paragraph (1), the ratio involving
population shall constitute 50 percent of the formula in
calculating the allocation and the remaining factors shall be
equally weighted.
(B) Potential risk as it pertains to chemical security.--If
a metropolitan city is within the vulnerable zone of a worst-
case chemical release, as specified in the most recent risk
management plans filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency or another instrument developed by the Environmental
Protection Agency or the Homeland Security Department that
captures the same information for the same facilities, the
ratio under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 1 divided by the total
number of metropolitan cities that are within such a zone.
(C) Proximity as it pertains to nuclear security.--If a
metropolitan city is located within 50 miles of an operating
nuclear power plant, as identified by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the ratio under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 1
divided by the total number of metropolitan cities, not to
exceed 100, which are located within 50 miles of an operating
nuclear power plant.
(D) Proximity as it pertains to port security.--If a
metropolitan city is located within 50 miles of 1 of the 100
largest United States ports, as stated by the Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United
States Port Report by All Land Modes, or within 50 miles of
one of the 30 largest United States water ports by metric
tons and value, as stated by the Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, United States
Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics, the ratio under
paragraph (1)(D) shall be 1 divided by the total number of
metropolitan cities that are located within 50 miles of a
United States land or water port.
(E) Proximity to International Borders.--If a metropolitan
city is located within 50 miles of an international border,
the ratio under paragraph (1)(E) shall be 1 divided by the
total number of metropolitan cities that are located within
50 miles of an international border.
(F) Proximity to disaster medical assistance teams.--If a
metropolitan city is located within 50 miles of a DMAT, as
organized by the National Disaster Medical System through the
Department of Public Health, the ratio under paragraph (1)(F)
shall be 1 divided by the total number of metropolitan cities
that are located within 50 miles of a DMAT.
(d) Computation of Amount Allocated to Urban Counties.--
(1) Computation ratios.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount to be allocated to each urban county, which shall bear
the same ratio to the allocation for all urban counties as
the weighted average of--
(A) the population of the urban county divided by the
population of all urban counties;
(B) the potential risk, as it pertains to chemical
security, of the urban county divided by the potential risk,
as it pertains to chemical security, of all urban counties;
(C) the proximity of the urban county to the nearest
operating nuclear power plant and the proximity of all urban
counties to the nearest operating nuclear power plant to each
such city;
(D) the proximity of the urban county to the nearest United
States land or water port and the proximity of all urban
counties to the nearest United States land or water port to
each such city;
(E) the proximity of the urban county to the nearest
international border and the proximity of all urban counties
to the nearest international border to each such city; and
(F) the proximity of the urban county to the nearest
Disaster Medical Assistance Team (referred to in this
subsection as ``DMAT'') and the proximity of all urban
counties to the nearest DMAT to each such city.
(3) Clarification of computation ratios.--
(A) Relative weight of factors.--In determining the average
of the ratios under paragraph (1), the ratio involving
population shall constitute 50 percent of the formula in
calculating the allocation and the remaining factors shall be
equally weighted.
(B) Potential risk as it pertains to chemical security.--If
a urban county is within the vulnerable zone of a worst-case
chemical release, as specified in the most recent risk
management plans filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency or another instrument developed by the Environmental
Protection Agency or the Homeland Security Department that
captures the same information for the same facilities, the
ratio under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 1 divided by the total
number of urban counties that are within such a zone.
(C) Proximity as it pertains to nuclear security.--If a
urban county is located within 50 miles of an operating
nuclear power plant, as identified by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the ratio under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 1
divided by the total number of urban counties, not to exceed
100, which are located within 50 miles of an operating
nuclear power plant.
(D) Proximity as it pertains to port security.--If a urban
county is located within 50 miles of 1 of the 100 largest
United States ports, as stated by the Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United
States Port Report by All Land Modes, or within 50 miles of
one of the 30 largest United States water ports by metric
tons and value, as stated by the Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, United States
Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics, the ratio under
paragraph (1)(D) shall be 1 divided by the total number of
urban counties that are located within 50 miles of a United
States land or water port.
(E) Proximity to International Borders.--If a urban county
is located within 50 miles of an international border, the
ratio under paragraph (1)(E) shall be 1 divided by the total
number of urban counties that are located within 50 miles of
an international border.
(F) Proximity to disaster medical assistance teams.--If a
urban county is located within 50 miles of a DMAT, as
organized by the National Disaster Medical System through the
Department of Public Health, the ratio under paragraph (1)(F)
shall be 1 divided by the total number of urban counties that
are located within 50 miles of a DMAT.
(e) Exclusions.--
(1) In general.--In computing amounts or exclusions under
subsection (d) with respect to any urban county, there shall
be excluded units of general local government located in the
county the populations that are not counted in determining
the eligibility of the urban county to receive a grant under
this
[[Page 1506]]
subsection, except that there shall be included any
independent city (as defined by the Bureau of the Census)
which--
(A) is not part of any county;
(B) is not eligible for a grant;
(C) is contiguous to the urban county;
(D) has entered into cooperation agreements with the urban
county which provide that the urban county is to undertake or
to assist in the undertaking of essential community
development and housing assistance activities with respect to
such independent city; and
(E) is not included as a part of any other unit of general
local government for purposes of this section.
(2) Independent cities.--Any independent city that is
included in any fiscal year for purposes of computing amounts
pursuant to the preceding sentence shall not be eligible to
receive assistance under subsection (i) with respect to such
fiscal year.
(f) Inclusions.--
(1) Local government straddling county line.--In computing
amounts under subsection (d) with respect to any urban
county, there shall be included all of the area of any unit
of local government which is part of, but is not located
entirely within the boundaries of, such urban county if--
(A) the part of such unit of local government that is
within the boundaries of such urban county would otherwise be
included in computing the amount for such urban county under
this section; and
(B) the part of such unit of local government that is not
within the boundaries of such urban county is not included as
a part of any other unit of local government for the purpose
of this section.
(2) Use of grant funds outside urban county.--Any amount
received under this section by an urban county described
under paragraph (1) may be used with respect to the part of
such unit of local government that is outside the boundaries
of such urban county.
(g) Population.--
(1) Effect of consolidation.--Where data are available, the
amount to be allocated to a metropolitan city that has been
formed by the consolidation of 1 or more metropolitan cities
within an urban county shall be equal to the sum of the
amounts that would have been allocated to the urban county or
cities and the balance of the consolidated government, if
such consolidation had not occurred.
(2) Limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only to a
consolidation that--
(A) included all metropolitan cities that received grants
under this section for the fiscal year preceding such
consolidation and that were located within the urban county;
(B) included the entire urban county that received a grant
under this section for the fiscal year preceding such
consolidation; and
(C) took place on or after January 1, 2003.
(3) Growth rate.--The population growth rate of all
metropolitan cities defined in section 3(a)(6) shall be based
on the population of--
(A) metropolitan cities other than consolidated governments
the grant for which is determined under this paragraph; and
(B) cities that were metropolitan cities before their
incorporation into consolidated governments.
(4) Entitlement share.--For purposes of calculating the
entitlement share for the balance of the consolidated
government under this subsection, the entire balance shall be
considered to have been an urban county.
(h) Reallocation.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
amounts allocated to a metropolitan city or an urban county
pursuant to this section that are not received by the city or
county for a fiscal year because of failure to meet the
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 5, or that
otherwise became available, shall be reallocated in the
succeeding fiscal year to the other metropolitan cities and
urban counties in the same metropolitan area that certify to
the satisfaction of the Secretary that they would be
adversely affected by the loss of such amounts from the
metropolitan area.
(2) Ratio.--The amount of the share of funds reallocated
under this paragraph for any metropolitan city or urban
county shall bear the same ratio to the total of such
reallocated funds in the metropolitan area as the amount of
funds awarded to the city or county for the fiscal year in
which the reallocated funds become available bears to the
total amount of funds awarded to all metropolitan cities and
urban counties in the same metropolitan area for that fiscal
year.
(3) Transfer.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the
Secretary may upon request transfer responsibility to any
metropolitan city for the administration of any amounts
received, but not obligated, by the urban county in which
such city is located if--
(A) such city was an included unit of general local
government in such county prior to the qualification of such
city as a metropolitan city;
(B) such amounts were designated and received by such
county for use in such city prior to the qualification of
such city as a metropolitan city; and
(C) such city and county agree to such transfer of
responsibility for the administration of such amounts.
(i) Allocation to States on Behalf of Non-qualifying
Communities.--
(1) In general.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to
section 4 that remains after allocations pursuant to
subsections (a) and (b), 30 percent shall be allocated among
the States for use in nonqualifying communities.
(2) Allocation ratio.--
(A) Population-based.--The allocation for each State shall
be based on the population of that State, relative to the
populations of all States, excluding the population of
qualifying communities.
(B) Pro-rata reduction.--The Secretary shall make a pro
rata reduction of each amount allocated to the nonqualifying
communities in each State under subparagraph (A) so that the
nonqualifying communities in each State will receive the same
percentage of the total amount available under this
subsection as the percentage that such communities would have
received if the total amount available had equaled the total
amount allocated under subparagraph (A).
(3) Distribution.--
(A) In general.--Amounts allocated under this subsection
shall be distributed to units of general local government
located in nonqualifying areas of the State to carry out
activities in accordance with the provisions of this Act--
(i) by a State that has elected, in such manner and at such
time as the Secretary shall prescribe, to distribute such
amounts consistent with the statement submitted under section
5(a); or
(ii) by the Secretary, if the State has not elected to
distribute such amounts.
(B) Certification.--Before a State may receive or
distribute amounts allocated under this subsection, the State
must certify that--
(i) with respect to units of general local government in
nonqualifying areas, the State--
(I) provides, or will provide, technical assistance to
units of general local government in connection with homeland
security initiatives;
(II) will not refuse to distribute such amounts to any unit
of general local government on the basis of the particular
eligible activity selected by such unit of general local
government to meet its homeland security objectives, except
that this clause may not be considered to prevent a State
from establishing priorities in distributing such amounts on
the basis of the activities selected; and
(III) has consulted with local elected officials from among
units of general local government located in nonqualifying
areas of that State in determining the method of distribution
of funds required by subparagraph (A); and
(ii) each unit of general local government to be
distributed funds will be required to identify its homeland
security objectives, and the activities to be undertaken to
meet such objectives.
(4) Minimum amount.--Each State shall be allocated in each
fiscal year authorized under this Act and under this section
not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount appropriated
in one fiscal year for grants made available to States under
this section, except that the American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands shall each be allocated 0.25
percent.
(5) Administration.--
(A) In general.--If a State receives and distributes
amounts under paragraph (1), the State shall be responsible
for the administration of funds so distributed. The State
shall pay for all administrative expenses incurred by the
State in carrying out its responsibilities under this Act,
except that from the amounts received for distribution in
nonqualifying areas, the State may deduct an amount to cover
such expenses and its administrative expenses not to exceed
the sum of $150,000 plus 50 percent of any such expenses
under this Act in excess of $150,000. Amounts deducted in
excess of $150,000 shall not exceed 2 percent of the amount
received under paragraph (1).
(B) Distribution.--If the Secretary distributes amounts
under paragraph (1), the distribution shall be made in
accordance with determinations of the Secretary pursuant to
statements submitted and the other requirements of section 5
(other than subsection (c)) and in accordance with
regulations and procedures prescribed by the Secretary.
(C) Reallocation.--
(i) Failure to comply.--Any amounts allocated for use in a
State under paragraph (1) that are not received by the State
for any fiscal year because of failure to meet the
requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section 5 shall be
added to amounts allocated to all States under paragraph (1)
for the succeeding fiscal year.
(ii) Closeout.--Any amounts allocated for use in a State
under paragraph (1) that become available as a result of the
closeout of a grant made by the Secretary under this section
in nonqualifying areas of the State shall be added to amounts
allocated to the State under paragraph (1) for the fiscal
year in which such amounts become available.
(6) Single unit.--Any combination of units of general local
governments may not be required to obtain recognition by the
Secretary pursuant to section 3(2) to be treated
[[Page 1507]]
as a single unit of general local government for purposes of
this subsection.
(7) Deduction.--From the amounts received under paragraph
(1) for distribution in nonqualifying areas, the State may
deduct an amount, not to exceed 1 percent of the amount so
received, to provide technical assistance to local
governments.
(8) Applicability.--Any activities conducted with amounts
received by a unit of general local government under this
subsection shall be subject to the applicable provisions of
this Act and other Federal law in the same manner and to the
same extent as activities conducted with amounts received by
a unit of general local government under subsection (a).
(j) Qualifications and Determinations.--The Secretary may
fix such qualification or submission dates as he determines
are necessary to permit the computations and determinations
required by this section to be made in a timely manner, and
all such computations and determinations shall be final and
conclusive.
(k) Pro Rata Reduction and Increase.--
(1) Reduction.--If the total amount available for
distribution in any fiscal year to metropolitan cities and
urban counties under this section is insufficient to provide
the amounts to which metropolitan cities and urban counties
would be entitled under this section, and funds are not
otherwise appropriated to meet the deficiency, the Secretary
shall meet the deficiency through a pro rata reduction of all
amounts determined under this section.
(2) Increase.--If the total amount available for
distribution in any fiscal year to metropolitan cities and
urban counties under this section exceeds the amounts to
which metropolitan cities and urban counties would be
entitled under this section, the Secretary shall distribute
the excess through a pro rata increase of all amounts
determined under this section.
SEC. 8. STATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING; COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
(a) Allocations.--Subject to appropriations authorized
under section 4(b)(2), $500,000,000 shall be allocated to
States, regional cooperations, and local communities, in
accordance with subsection (b) for--
(1) homeland defense planning within the States;
(2) homeland defense planning within the regions;
(3) the development and maintenance of Statewide training
facilities and homeland security best-practices
clearinghouses; and
(4) the development and maintenance of communications
systems that can be used between and among first responders,
including law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical
personnel.
(b) Use of funds.--Of the amount allocated under subsection
(a)--
(1) $325,000,000 shall be used by the States for homeland
defense planning and coordination within each State;
(2) $50,000,000 shall be used by regional cooperations and
regional, multistate, or intrastate authorities for homeland
defense planning and coordination within each region;
(3) $50,000,000 shall be used by the States to develop and
maintain Statewide training facilities and best-practices
clearinghouses; and
(4) $75,000,000 shall be used by the States and local
communities to develop and maintain communications systems
that can be used between and among first responders at the
State and local level, including law enforcement, fire, and
emergency personnel.
(c) Allocations to States.--
(1) In general.--Funds under this section to be awarded to
States shall be allocated among the States based upon the
population for each State relative to the populations of all
States.
(2) Minimum amount provision.--The provision in section
7(i)(4) relating to a minimum amount shall apply to funds
awarded under this section to States.
(3) Local communications systems.--Not less than 30 percent
of the funds awarded under subsection (b)(4) shall be used
for the development and maintenance of local communications
systems.
(d) Allocations to Regional Cooperations.--Funds under this
section to be awarded to regional cooperations and regional,
multistate, or intrastate authorities, shall be allocated
among the regional cooperations based upon the population of
the areas covered by the cooperations.
SEC. 9. NONDISCRIMINATION IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.
No person in the United States shall on the ground of race,
color, national origin, religion, or sex be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity funded in
whole or in part with funds made available under this Act.
Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age
under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et
seq.) or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped
individual as provided in section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) shall also apply to any such
program or activity.
SEC. 10. REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.
If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under
this Act has failed to comply substantially with any
provision of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(1) terminate payments to the recipient under this Act;
(2) reduce payments to the recipient under this Act by an
amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not
expended in accordance with this Act; or
(3) limit the availability of payments under this Act to
programs, projects, or activities not affected by such
failure to comply.
SEC. 11. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the end of
each fiscal year in which assistance is awarded under this
Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report which
shall contain--
(1) a description of the progress made in accomplishing the
objectives of this Act;
(2) a summary of the use of such funds during the preceding
fiscal year; and
(3) a description of the activities carried out under
section 7.
(b) Reports to Secretary.--The Secretary is authorized to
require recipients of assistance under this Act to submit to
such reports and other information as may be necessary in
order for the Secretary to comply with subsection (a).
SEC. 12. CONSULTATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
In carrying out the provisions of this Act including the
issuance of regulations, the Secretary shall consult with the
Attorney General and other Federal departments and agencies
administering Federal grant-in-aid programs.
SEC. 13. INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS OR COMPACTS; PURPOSES.
The consent of the Congress is hereby given to any 2 or
more States to enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative
effort and mutual assistance in support of homeland security
planning and programs carried out under this Act as they
pertain to interstate areas and to localities within such
States, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise,
as they may deem desirable for making such agreements and
compacts effective.
SEC. 14. MATCHING REQUIREMENTS; SUSPENSION OF REQUIREMENTS
FOR ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS.
(a) Requirement.--Grant recipients shall contribute from
funds, other than those received under this Act, 10 percent
of the total funds received under this Act. Such funds shall
be used in accordance with the grantee's statement of
homeland security objectives.
(b) Economic Distress.--Grant recipients that are deemed
economically distressed shall be waived from the matching
requirement set forth in this section.
______
SA 92. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 772, strike lines 10 through 23.
______
SA 93. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1037, line 8, insert ``(a) Fruits and Vegetables.--
'' before ``The''.
On page 1037, between lines 12 and 13, insert the
following:
(b) Avocado and Citrus Producers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use $80,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments,
as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this
Act, to avocado and citrus producers that suffered economic
losses, including quality losses, as the result of the
imposition of quarantines to prevent the introduction of
fruit flies from Mexico into the State of California during
the 2002 or 2003 crop year, or both.
(2) Amount.--The amount of payments for which producers are
eligible to receive payments under this subsection shall be
based an the value of avocados and citrus, as determined by
the Secretary.
(3) Limitations.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary shall not establish a payment limitation, or
income eligibility limitation, with respect to payments made
under this subsection.
(B) Payment quantities.--The Secretary may establish a
limitation on the maximum quantity of avocados or citrus for
which a producer may receive payments under this subsection.
(4) Other federal assistance.--A producer shall be
ineligible for a payment under this subsection to the extent
that the producer received compensation or assistance for the
loss under any other Federal program, other than the Federal
crop insurance program established under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
[[Page 1508]]
______
SA 94. Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MORGANZA, LOUISIANA, TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES.
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River
and Tributaries, is authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary of the Army substantially in accordance with the
plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, at a total
cost of $680,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$442,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$238,000,000.
______
SA 95. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 313, line 14, strike the period and insert a colon
and the following: ``Provided, That, of the funds made
available pursuant to this section, not less than $6,000,000
shall be made available for the United States Agency for
International Development to use in support of programs
that--
``(1) promote the inclusion of a significant number of
women in future legislative bodies to ensure that women's
full range of human rights are included and upheld in any
constitution or legal structures of Afghanistan;
``(2) promote the continuation and strengthening of the
Ministry for Women's Affairs as the Government of Afghanistan
makes the transition to a long-term government structure, and
encourage the appointment of women to high-level positions
within the ministries of the Government of Afghanistan;
``(3) ensure that a significant portion of United States
development, humanitarian, and relief assistance is channeled
to local and United States-based Afghan women's
organizations;
``(4) provide technical assistance, training, and capacity-
building for local women-based organizations to ensure that
United States funded efforts will be both effective and
sustainable;
``(5) promote multiyear women-centered economic development
programs, including programs to assist widows, female heads
of household, women in rural areas, and disabled women;
``(6) increase women's access to or ownership of productive
assets such as land, water, agricultural inputs, credit, and
property;
``(7) provide long-term financial assistance for primary,
secondary, higher, nontraditional, and vocational education
for Afghan girls, women, boys, and men;
``(8) provide financial assistance to build the health
infrastructure and to deliver high-quality comprehensive
health care programs, including primary, maternal, child,
reproductive, and mental health care; and
``(9) provide, in close consultation with women's
organizations in Afghanistan, training for the military and
police forces on the protection, rights, and the particular
needs of women, and emphasize that violations of women's
rights are intolerable and should be prosecuted:
``Provided further, That one year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator of the United States Agency
for International Development shall submit a report to
Congress that contains--
``(A) a detailed description of programs funded by the
United States Agency for International Development that are
carried out under the preceding proviso;
``(B) other programs of the United States Agency for
International Development that directly or indirectly benefit
women; and
``(C) barriers that remain for women in Afghanistan,
specifically in the protection of basic human rights,
education, reproductive health, legal rights, political
participation, and economic opportunity, and what types of
foreign assistance is necessary to ensure that these barriers
might be eliminated.''.
______
SA 96. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 852, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. DESIGNATION OF NATHANIEL R. JONES FEDERAL BUILDING
AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.
(a) In General.--The Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown,
Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ``Nathaniel R.
Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Federal building and United States courthouse referred to in
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United States
Courthouse.
______
SA 97. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Biden) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec.__. In addition to amounts appropriated by this Act
under the heading ``Public Law 480 Title II Grants'', there
is appropriated, out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $600,000,000 for assistance for emergency
relief activities: Provided, That the amount appropriated
under this section shall remain available through September
30, 2004: Provided further, That the entire amount
appropriated under this section is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
______
SA 98. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 366, line 26, strike ``this heading'' and insert in
lieu thereof: the heading ``Economic Support Fund''
______
SA 99. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 366, strike everything after ``the'' on line 3,
through ``Agency'' on line 4 and insert in lieu thereof:
headings ``Trade and Development Agency'', ``International
Military Education and Training'', ``Foreign Military
Financing Program'', ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'',
and ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs''
______
SA 100. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 107, line 5, insert ``of which $10,000,000 will be
provided for the continuance of methamphetamine reduction
efforts'' before the semicolon.
______
SA 101. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. __. ARMED FORCES MEMORIAL.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map referred to in
section 8902(a)(3) of title 40, United States Code.
(2) Memorial.--The term ``memorial'' means the memorial
authorized to be established under subsection (b)(1).
(b) Authority To Establish Memorial.--
(1) In general.--The Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation may
establish a memorial on Federal land in the area depicted on
the map as ``Area II'' to honor members of the Armed Forces
of the United States who have lost their lives during
peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training,
terrorist attacks, or covert operations.
(2) Compliance with standards for commemorative works.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with
chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Subsections (b) and (c) of section 8903 of
title 40, United States Code, shall not apply to the
establishment of the memorial.
(c) Funds for Memorial.--
(1) Use of federal funds prohibited.--Except as provided by
chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, no Federal funds
may be used to pay any expense incurred from the
establishment of the memorial.
[[Page 1509]]
(2) Deposit of excess funds.--The Pyramid of Remembrance
Foundation shall transmit to the Secretary of the Treasury
for deposit in the account provided for in section 8906(b)(1)
of title 40, United States Code--
(A) any funds that remain after payment of all expenses
incurred from the establishment of the memorial (including
payment of the amount for maintenance and preservation
required under section 8906(b) of title 40, United States
Code); or
(B) any funds that remain on expiration of the authority
for the memorial under section 8903(e) of title 40, United
States Code.
______
SA 102. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. VALUE-ADDED PROJECTS FOR AGRICULTURAL
DIVERSIFICATION.
Of the amount of funds that are made available to producers
in the State of Vermont under section 524 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524) for fiscal year 2003, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall make a grant of $200,000 to
the Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship at the
University of Vermont to support value-added projects that
contribute to agricultural diversification in the State, to
remain available until expended.
______
SA 103. Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Ms. Stabenow)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
On page 1037, line 2, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert
``$552,000,000''.
______
SA 104. Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Ms. Stabenow) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows;
In the division relating to agriculture--
(1) in the matter under the heading ``child nutrition
programs (including transfers of funds)'' under the heading
``Food and Nutrition Service'' in title IV--
(A) strike ``$5,834,506,000'' and insert
``$6,386,506,000''; and
(B) strike ``$4,745,663,000'' and insert
``$4,193,663,000''; and
(2) strike section 205.
______
SA 105. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows;
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE SENATE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a special
committee of the Senate, to be known as the Special Committee
on the Organization of the Senate (in this section referred
to as the ``Special Committee'').
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Special Committee are--
(1) to assist the Senate in addressing its organizational
structure in light of reorganization efforts in the Executive
Branch and the House of Representatives; and
(2) to report to the Senate a set of recommendations as to
necessary changes in the committee structure of the Senate.
(c) Composition.--
(1) In general.--The Special Committee shall be composed
of--
(A) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader;
(B) 5 members of the Senate appointed by the Majority
Leader; and
(C) 5 members of the Senate appointed by the Minority
Leader.
(2) Cochairmen.--The Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall each designate 1 member of the Special Committee
as cochairman.
(d) Powers.--
(1) In general.--For the purposes of this resolution, the
Special Committee is authorized--
(A) to make investigations into any matter within its
general purposes;
(B) to make expenditures from the contingent fund of the
Senate;
(C) to employ personnel;
(D) to hold hearings;
(E) to sit and act at any time or place during the
sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate;
(F) to procure the service of individual consultants or
organizations thereof, in accordance with the provisions of
section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946;
(G) to publish and report the findings of the Special
Committee; and
(H) to take depositions and other testimony.
(2) Administration of oaths.--A cochairman of the Special
Committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to
witnesses.
(e) Reports.--
(1) To the senate.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Special Committee shall issue
a final report of recommendations to the full Senate.
(2) Preliminary reports.--The Special Committee may issue
such preliminary reports and recommendations as the
cochairmen deem appropriate.
______
SA 106. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows;
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. FUNDING FOR CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
(a) Amendment to the Homeland Security Act.--Section 457 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 457. FUNDING FOR CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
``(a) Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1356(m)) is amended by striking `services, including
the costs of similar services provided without charge to
asylum applicants or other immigrants' and inserting
`services'.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Attorney General or the Secretary, as may be
appropriate, such funds as may be necessary to compensate for
the loss of any funds for adjudication services by reason of
the operation of the amendment made by subsection (a),
including funds necessary--
``(A) to carry out the provisions of sections 207 through
209 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157-
59); and
``(B) to provide fee waivers or exemptions to applicants
and petitioners.
``(2) Availability of funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until
expended.
``(c) Statutory Construction.--Nothing section 286(m) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by subsection
(a), or any other provision of law, shall be construed to
require the reduction of any fee, or the foregoing of any
increase in any fee, for adjudication services that is
otherwise authorized under such section 286(m) or any other
provision of law, until the date that is 90 days after the
date on which funds are specifically appropriated and made
available under subsection (b) in an amount equal to the
amount of such proposed reduction or foregone increase for
any fiscal year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
of this section shall be effective as if it were included in
the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-296).
______
SA 107. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. __. RESTORATION OF PROVISION REGARDING FEES TO COVER THE
FULL COSTS OF ALL ADJUDICATION SERVICES.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by striking
section 457, including the amendment made by such section.
______
SA 108. Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mr. Nelson of Florida)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
On page 549, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act for title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), $678,551,000 is appropriated to
carry out that Act, of which--
(1) $156,965,000 (which is available for obligation for the
period April 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for
making allotments and grants in accordance with subparagraphs
(B) and (C) of section 127(b)(1) of that Act (29 U.S.C.
2852(b)(1)) (relating to youth activities);
(2) $76,000,000 (which is available for obligation for the
period July 1, 2003 through June
[[Page 1510]]
30, 2004) shall be for making allotments and grants in
accordance with section 132(b)(1) of that Act (29 U.S.C.
2862(b)(1)) (relating to employment and training activities
for adults);
(3) $206,096,000 (which is available for obligation for the
period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for
making allotments and grants in accordance with section
132(b)(2) of that Act (29 U.S.C. 2862(b)(2)) (relating to
employment and training activities for dislocated workers);
(4) $181,890,000 (which is available for obligation for the
period April 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for use
under section 169 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 2914) (relating to
youth opportunity grants); and
(5) $57,600,000 (which is available for obligation for the
period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006) shall be for
carrying out subtitle C of title I of that Act (29 U.S.C.
2881 et seq.) (relating to the Job Corps).
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds
provided under the preceding sentence shall not result in a
further across-the-board rescission under section 601 of
division N.
______
SA 109. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. __. IMPERIAL PROJECT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds provided by this Act or any other Act for any fiscal
year may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to approve
the plan of operations submitted by the Glamis Imperial
Corporation for the Imperial project, an open-pit gold mine
located on public land administered by the Bureau of Land
Management in Imperial County, California.
______
SA 110. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
OFFSHORE OIL LEASES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) there are 36 undeveloped oil leases on land in the
southern California planning area of the outer Continental
Shelf that--
(A) have been under review by the Secretary of the Interior
for an extended period of time, including some leases that
have been under review for over 30 years; and
(B) have not been approved for development under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.);
(2) the oil companies that hold the 36 leases--
(A) have expressed an interest in retiring the leases in
exchange for equitable compensation; and
(B) are engaged in settlement negotiations with the
Secretary of the Interior for the retirement of the leases;
and
(3) it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money to continue
the process for approval or permitting of the 36 leases while
the Secretary of the Interior and the lessees are negotiating
to retire the leases.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that no funds made available by this Act or any other Act for
any fiscal year should be used by the Secretary of the
Interior to approve any exploration, development, or
production plan for, or application for a permit to drill on,
the 36 undeveloped leases in the southern California planning
area of the outer Continental Shelf during any period in
which the lessees are engaged in settlement negotiations with
the Secretary of the Interior for the retirement of the
leases.
______
SA 111. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the division making
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, insert the
following:
SEC. __. ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS THAT HAVE USED
WATER FOR IRRIGATION FROM RIO GRANDE RIVER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use
$10,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to make a grant to the State of Texas, acting through the
Texas Department of Agriculture, to provide assistance to
agricultural producers in the State of Texas with farming
operations along the Rio Grande River that have suffered
economic losses during the 2002 crop year due to the failure
of Mexico to deliver water to the United States in accordance
with the Treaty Relating to the Utilization of Waters of the
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, and
Supplementary Protocol signed November 14, 1944, signed at
Washington on February 3, 1944 (59 Stat. 1219; TS 944).
(b) Amount.--The amount of assistance provided to
individual agricultural producers under this section shall be
proportional to the amount of actual losses described in
subsection (a) that were incurred by the producers.
______
SA 112. Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. Santorum) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of the general provisions relating to the
Department of Health and Human Services, insert the
following:
SEC. __. GRANTS FOR PURCHASE OF ULTRASOUND EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may make grants for the purchase of ultrasound equipment.
Such ultrasound equipment shall be used by the recipients of
such grants to provide, under the direction and supervision
of a licensed physician, free ultrasound examinations to
pregnant woman needing medical services.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--An entity may receive a
grant under subsection (a) only if the entity meets the
following conditions:
(1) Nonprofit, tax exempt organization.--The entity is a
nonprofit private organization that is described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt
from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.
(2) Clinic.--The entity operates as a community-based
pregnancy help medical clinic.
(3) Qualified entity.--The entity is legally qualified to
provide medical services to pregnant women and is in
compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements
for the provision of such services.
(4) Procedures.--The entity agrees to comply with the
following medical procedures:
(A) Image and description.--Each pregnant woman upon whom
the ultrasound equipment is used will be shown the visual
image of the embryo or fetus involved from the ultrasound
examination and will be given a general anatomical and
physiological description of the characteristics of the
embryo or fetus.
(B) Age.--Each pregnant woman will be given, according to
the best medical judgment of the physician or physician's
agent performing the ultrasound examination, the approximate
age of the embryo or fetus considering the number of weeks
elapsed from the probable time of the conception of the
embryo or fetus, based upon the information provided by the
woman as to the time of her last menstrual period, her
medical history, a physical examination, or appropriate
laboratory tests.
(C) Information on options.--Each pregnant woman will be
given information on abortion and alternatives to abortion
such as childbirth and adoption and information concerning
public and private agencies that will assist women choosing
those alternatives.
(D) Insurance.--The entity will obtain and maintain medical
malpractice insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000,
and such insurance will cover all activities relating to the
use of the ultrasound machine purchased with the grant under
subsection (a).
(5) Multiple revenue sources.--The entity does not receive
more than 30 percent of its gross annual revenue from a
single source or donor.
(c) Limitation on Individual Grant Amount.--No grant made
under subsection (a) may be made in an amount that exceeds
the lesser of--
(1) an amount equal to 50 percent of the purchase price
cost of the ultrasound machine involved; or
(2) $20,000.
(d) Application for Grant.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a), an entity shall submit an
application to the Secretary in such form, in such manner,
and containing such agreements, assurances, and information
as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this
section.
(e) Annual Report to Secretary.--The Secretary may make a
grant under subsection (a) only if the applicant for the
grant agrees to report on an annual basis to the Secretary,
in such form and manner as the Secretary may require, on the
ongoing compliance of the applicant with the eligibility
conditions established in subsection (b).
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Community-based pregnancy help medical clinic.--The
term ``community-based pregnancy help medical clinic'' means
an entity that--
(A) provides free medical services to pregnant women under
the direction and supervision of a licensed physician who
serves as the medical director for such clinic; and
(B) does not charge for any services rendered to its
clients, whether or not such services are for pregnancy-
related matters.
[[Page 1511]]
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(g) Appropriations and Offset.--
(1) Appropriations.--There is appropriated to carry out
this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(2) Offset.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III of division K for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the amount available
for the Origins program under the Office of Space Sciences is
hereby reduced by $5,000,000.
______
SA 113. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SAVINGS PROVISION OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS MADE UNDER
THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002.
The transfer of functions under subtitle B of title XI of
the Homeland Security Act of 2003 (Public Law 107-296) shall
not affect any pending or completed administrative actions,
including orders, determinations, rules, regulations,
personnel actions, permits, agreements, grants, contracts,
certificates, licenses, or registrations, in effect on the
date immediately prior to the date of such transfer, or any
proceeding, unless and until amended, modified, superseded,
terminated, set aside, or revoked. Pending civil actions
shall not be affected by such transfer of functions.
______
SA 114. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place in division I, insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amendments made by section 890 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, relating to the Air Transportation
Safety and Systems Stabilization Act, are repealed and the
Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act shall
be applied as if such amendments had not been enacted.
______
SA 115. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 180, line 25, strike ``$566,500,000'' and insert
``$750,000,000''.
______
SA 116. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, which
was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
At the appropriate place in Division A insert:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall use the funds, facilities, and
authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to ensure
that United States contributions for international
humanitarian food assistance for each fiscal year 2003 and
2004 shall be no less than the previous five year average
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 117. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
Sec. 602. The rescission requirements in section 601(a)
shall not apply with respect to the budget authority provided
for amounts appropriated by title I of division K for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the Veterans Health
Administration for Medical Care, or to any amounts
appropriated pursuant to that budget authority.
______
SA 118. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. TRANSFER OF FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM LAND.
Section 7(l) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c(l)) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Transfer of forest legacy program land.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to any terms and conditions that
the Secretary may require (including the requirements
described in subparagraph (B)), the Secretary may, at the
request of a participating State, convey to the State, by
quitclaim deed, without consideration, any land or interest
in land acquired in the State under the Forest Legacy
Program.
``(B) Requirements.--In conveying land or an interest in
land under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may require that--
``(i) the deed conveying the land or interest in land
include requirements for the management of the land in a
manner that--
``(I) conserves the land or interest in land; and
``(II) is consistent with any other Forest Legacy Program
purposes for which the land or interest in land was acquired;
``(ii) if the land or interest in land is subsequently
sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of by the State, the
State shall--
``(I) reimburse the Secretary in an amount that is based on
the current market value of the land or interest in land in
proportion to the amount of consideration paid by the United
States for the land or interest in land; or
``(II) convey to the Secretary land or an interest in land
that is equal in value to the land or interest in land
conveyed.
``(C) Disposition of funds.--Amounts received by the
Secretary under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be credited to the
Forest Legacy Program account, to remain available until
expended.''.
______
SA 119. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in
this Act, there are appropriated $1,600,000,000 to enable the
Department of Health and Human Services to enhance the
preparedness of the United States to respond effectively to
acts of bioterrorism, of which--
(1) $850,000,000 shall be made available for grants to
States and local communities for the costs of smallpox
vaccination programs; and
(2) $750,000,000 shall be made available to extend the
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under title XXI of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 et seq.) to
cover those individuals who experience injuries or other
hardships resulting from the administration of vaccinia virus
or other countermeasures against smallpox.
______
SA 120. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in
this Act, there are appropriated $2,875,000,000 to enable the
Department of Health and Human Services to enhance the
preparedness of the United States to respond effectively to
acts of bioterrorism, of which--
(1) $850,000,000 shall be made available for grants to
States and local communities for the costs of smallpox
vaccination programs;
(2) $750,000,000 shall be made available to extend the
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under title XXI of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 et seq.) to
cover those individuals who experience injuries or other
hardships resulting from the administration of vaccinia virus
or other countermeasures against smallpox;
(3) $1,250,000 shall be made available to improve the
preparedness of hospitals for bioterrorism; and
(4) $25,000,000 shall be made available to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to enhance control of
biological agents and toxins as described under section 351A
of the Public Health Service Act.
______
SA 121. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1047, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
Sec. 404. (a) Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (V), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by striking subclauses (VI) and (VII) and inserting the
following:
``(VI) on or after October 1, 2001, `c' is equal to 1.6.''.
[[Page 1512]]
(b) Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1999 or'' and inserting ``1999,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or of section 404 of division N of the
Joint Resolution entitled `Joint Resolution making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes' after ``2000''.
______
SA 122. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 59, line 14, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That an additional
$13,603,766 shall be appropriated for the Food and Drug
Administration and shall be made available for the review of
medical devices, and such amount shall be in addition to any
other amounts appropriated in this Act for such activities:
Provided further, that amounts made available under this Act
for the administrative and related expenses for departmental
management for the Department of Health and Human Services
shall be reduced on pro rata basis by $13,603,766''.
______
SA 123. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated in this Act, there are appropriated
$584,646,000, of which--
(1) $43,492,000 shall be made available to the National
Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities;
(2) $21,015,000 shall be made available to the Office of
Minority Health of the Department of Health and Human
Services;
(3) $15,334,000 shall be made available to the Office for
Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services
for discrimination-related enforcement and allocated to
enforcement actions and the investigation of complaints and
potential violations of law relating to discrimination and
racial disparities in health care;
(4) $491,500,000 shall be made available to the Department
of Health and Human Services for research and activities
under the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative; and
(5) $13,305,000 shall be made available to the Health
Resources and Services Administration for Health Professions
Training for Diversity programs.
(b) Office of Minority Health.--The amount appropriated
under subsection (a)(2), shall be made available to the
Office of Minority Health of the Department of Health and
Human Services to be used for activities including--
(1) to undertake, through and in collaboration with the
Public Health Service agencies, a coordinated Federal
initiative to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health,
particularly in the six focus areas of infant mortality,
cancer screening and management, cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and immunizations;
(2) to increase funding for minority health initiatives and
collaborations at the multi-State, State, and local level
that employ proven public health strategies to reduce health
disparities in specific minority populations;
(3) to expand Federal efforts and assist States in the
collection and analysis of health status data that includes
standard racial and ethnic data;
(4) to conduct or support research on effective health
interventions in minority communities;
(5) to assist in the development and dissemination of cross
cultural curricula for the training of health professionals;
(6) to provide technical assistance to States to improve
public health infrastructures and outreach for health
disparity populations; and
(7) to sponsor National Forums on African American Health
Care, Latino Health Care, Asian American Health Care, and
Native American Health Care.
______
SA 124. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 620, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. __. PELL GRANT FUNDING.
(a) Additional Appropriations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the following sums are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, for an
additional amount for ``Student Financial Assistance'' for
carrying out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, $1,350,000,000 to remain available
through September 30, 2004.
(b) Maximum Pell Grant.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the maximum Pell Grant for which a
student shall be eligible during award year 2003-2004 shall
be $4,500.
(c) Across-the-Board Rescission.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, funds provided under subsections (a)
and (b) shall not result in a further across-the-board
rescission under section 601 of Division N.
______
SA 125. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 620, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. __. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, in lieu of any amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act for part A of title II of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, the following sums are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003,
$3,500,000,000 for carrying out such part, to remain
available through September 30, 2004.
(b) Across-the-Board Rescission.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, funds provided under subsection (a)
shall not result in a further across-the-board rescission
under section 601 of Division N.
______
SA 126. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003; and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``SEC. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE STRATEGIC
PETROLEUM RESERVE AND OTHER ENERGY PROGRAMS
(a) Amendment to Title I of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act.--Title I of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6211 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) and
inserting--
``AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
part and part D, to remain available until expended.'';
(2) by striking section 186 (42 U.S.C. 6250e); and
(3) by striking part E (42 U.S.C. 6251; relating to the
expiration of title I of the Act).
(b) Amendment to Title II of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act.--Title II of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 6276(h)) and
inserting--
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this part, to remain available
until expended.'';
(2) by inserting before section 273 (42 U.S.C. 6283) the
following:)
``Part C--Summer Fill and Fuel Budgeting Programs'';
(3) by striking section 273(e) (42 U.S.C. 6283(e); relating
to the expiration of summer fill and fuel budgeting
programs); and
(4) by striking part D (42 U.S.C. 6285; relating to the
expiration of title II of the Act).
(c) Technical Amendments.--The table of contents for the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended--
(1) by amending the items relating to part D of title I to
read as follows:
``Part D--Northwest Home Heating Oil Reserve
``Sec 181. Establishment.
``Sec. 182. Authority.
``Sec. 183. Conditions for release; plan.
``Sec. 184. Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Account.
``Sec. 185. Exemptions.'';
``(2) by amending the items relating to part C of title II
to read as follows:
``Part C--Summer Fill and Fuel Budgeting Programs
``Sec. 273. Summer fill and fuel budgeting programs.''; and
(3) by striking the items relating to part D of title II.
(d) Section 183(b)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6250b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting
``(considered as a heating season average)'' ``mid-October''
through March''.
(e) Full Capacity.--The President shall--
(1) fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve established
pursuant to part B of title I of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.) to full capacity as
soon as practicable.
(2) acquire petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
by the most practicable and
[[Page 1513]]
cost-effective means, including the acquisition of crude oil
the United States is entitled to receive in kind as royalties
from production on Federal lands; and
(3) ensure that the fill rate minimizes impacts on
petroleum markets.
(b) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
submit to the Congress a plan to--
(1) eliminate any infrastructure impediments that may limit
maximum drawdown capability; and
(2) determine whether the capacity of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve on the date of enactment of this section is
adequate in light of the increasing consumption of petroleum
and the reliance on imported petroleum.
______
SA 127. Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Edwards, and Mr. Lautenberg) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 311, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
united states agency for international
development
child survival and health programs fund
additional amount for global hiv/aids programs
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of
chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, for child survival, health, and family planning/
reproductive health activities, $180,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2004: Provided, That of such
amount, not less than $100,000,000 shall be made available
for a United States contribution to the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (in addition to amounts made
available for contribution to such Fund under any other
provision of this Act): Provided, further, That, of the
additional amount appropriated under this heading, up to
$25,000,000 (not to be derived from the amount made available
for contribution under the preceding proviso) may be
transferred to (and upon transfer shall be merged with)
amounts appropriated for the Department of Health and Human
Services for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
for disease control, research, and training under title II of
division G of this Act, which shall be made available for
child survival, maternal health, and other disease programs
and development activities to prevent, treat, care for, and
address the impact and consequences of HIV/AIDS: Provided,
further, That not more than seven percent of the total amount
appropriated under this heading may be made available for
administrative costs of departments and agencies of the
United States that carry out programs for which funds are
appropriated under this heading, but funds made available for
such costs may not to be derived from amounts made available
for contribution and transfer under the preceding provisos.
______
SA 128. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Voinovich, and Mr. Schumer) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 259, line 19, strike ``projects:'' and insert
``projects; and of which $500,000 shall be available for
dispersal barriers in the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal,
Illinois:''.
______
SA 129. Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. USE OF EMERGENCY FUNDS FOR SMALL BUSINESS LOANS.
The matter under the heading ``business loans program
account'' in chapter 2 of division B of the Department of
Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United
States Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-117) is amended by striking
``For emergency expenses'' and inserting the following: ``For
loan guarantee subsidies under section 7(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) or for emergency expenses''.
______
SA 130. Mr. CONRAD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 1032, strike line 21 and all that follows
through page 1041, line 13, and insert the following:
TITLE II--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Agricultural
Disaster Assistance Act of 2003''.
SEC. 202. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to
in this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use such sums as
are necessary, but not to exceed $2,250,000,000, of funds of
the Commodity Credit Corporation to make emergency financial
assistance authorized under this section available to
producers on a farm that have incurred qualifying crop losses
for the 2001 or 2002 crop, or both, due to damaging weather
or related condition, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-55),
including using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and
quality losses as were used in administering that section.
(c) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize
producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
SEC. 203. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation as are
necessary, but not to exceed $720,000,000, to make and
administer payments for livestock losses to producers for
2001 or 2002 losses, or both, in a county that has received a
corresponding emergency designation by the President or the
Secretary, of which an amount determined by the Secretary
shall be made available for the American Indian livestock
program under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114
Stat. 1549, 1549A-51).
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-51).
SEC. 204. CROP AND PASTURE FLOOD COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Covered Land.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The term ``covered land'' means land
that--
(A) was unusable for agricultural production during the
2001 or 2002 crop year, or both, as the result of flooding;
(B) was used for agricultural production during at least 1
of the 1992 through 2000 crop years;
(C) is a contiguous parcel of land of at least 1 acre; and
(D) is located in a county in which producers were eligible
for assistance under the 1998 or 2000 Flood Compensation
Program established under part 1439 of title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(2) Exclusions.--The term ``covered land'' excludes any
land for which a producer is insured, enrolled, or assisted
during the 2001 or 2002 crop year (as applicable) under--
(A) a policy or plan of insurance authorized under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
(B) the noninsured crop assistance program operated under
section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333);
(C) any crop disaster program established for the 2001 or
2002 crop year (as applicable);
(D) the conservation reserve program established under
subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.);
(E) the wetlands reserve program established under
subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.);
(F) any emergency watershed protection program or Federal
easement program that prohibits crop production or grazing;
or
(G) any other Federal or State water storage program, as
determined by the Secretary.
(b) Compensation.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$12,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
compensate producers with covered land for losses on the
covered land from long-term flooding.
(c) Payment Rate.--The payment rate for compensation
provided to a producer under this section shall equal the
average county cash rental rate per acre established by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service for the 2001 or 2002
crop year (as applicable).
(d) Payment Limitation.--The total amount of payments made
to a person (as defined in section 1001(e) of the Food
Security
[[Page 1514]]
Act (7 U.S.C. 1308(e))) under this section may not exceed
$40,000.
SEC. 205. FUNDING.
Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the
Secretary shall--
(1) use such sums as are necessary to carry out this title,
to remain available until expended; and
(2) transfer to the fund established by section 32 of the
Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to remain available
until expended, an amount that does not exceed the greater
of--
(A) $250,000,000; or
(B) the amount equal to the amount of funds under section
32 of that Act that--
(i) were made available before the date of enactment of
this Act to provide assistance to livestock producers under
the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program announced by the
Secretary on October 10, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 63070); and
(ii) were not otherwise reimbursed from another account
used by the Secretary or the Commodity Credit Corporation.
SEC. 206. REGULATIONS.
______
SA 131. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Breaux) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations
for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
On page 170, line 1, strike ``$329,397,000,'' and insert
``$348,397,000, of which $19,000,000 (referred to in this
title as the `supplemental legal assistance amount') is to
provide supplemental funding for basic field programs, and
related administration, to ensure that no service area
(including a merged or reconfigured service area) receives
less funding under the Legal Services Corporation Act for
fiscal year 2003 than the area received for fiscal year 2002,
due to use of data from the 2000 Census, and''.
On page 183, after line 25, add the following:
Sec. __. The amount made available under each account in
this division, other than the accounts relating to the Legal
Services Corporation and the accounts contained in title III,
for travel expenses, supplies, and printing expenses shall be
reduced on a pro rata basis, so that the total of the
reductions equals $19,000,000.
______
SA 132. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Dodd)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate to
issue any rule or regulation which implements the proposed
amendments to Internal Revenue Service regulations set forth
in REG-209500-86 and REG-164464-02, filed December 10, 2002,
or any amendments reaching results similar to such proposed
amendments.
______
SA 133. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 1037, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 1039, line 9.
______
SA 134. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1036, strike lines 15 through 22 and insert the
following:
established by the Secretary for the Program; and
(2) effective beginning on the date of enactment
______
SA 135. Mr. TALENT (for himself, and Mr. Lugar) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CORN.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall consider the planting, prevented
planting, and production of corn used to produce popcorn as
the planting, prevented planting, and production of corn for
the purposes of determining base acres and payment yields for
direct and counter-cyclical payments under subtitle A of
title I of Public Law 107-171.
______
SA 136. Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mrs. Clinton) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
At the appropriate place in title II of division G, insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act to carry out programs and
activities under title VIII of the Public Health Service Act,
there are appropriated an additional $20,000,000, to remain
available until expended, to carry out programs and
activities authorized under sections 831, 846, 846A, 851,
852, and 855 of such Act (as amended by the Nurse
Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205)).
(b) Offset.--Amounts made available under this division for
the administrative and related expenses for departmental
management shall be reduced on pro rata basis by $20,000,000.
______
SA 137. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hollings, and
Mr. Graham of Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. __. HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
(a) Decreased Cost-Sharing Requirement.--Section 507(c) of
the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16
U.S.C. 470a note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) Except'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Except'';
(2) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (2) and (3)'';
(3) by striking ``(2) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary'';
(4) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (1) and (3)''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Exception.--The Secretary shall not obligate funds
made available under subsection (d)(2) for a grant with
respect to a building or structure listed on, or eligible for
listing on, the National Register of Historic Places unless
the grantee agrees to provide, from funds derived from non-
Federal sources, an amount that is equal to 30 percent of the
total cost of the project for which the grant is provided.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 507(d) of the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16
U.S.C. 470a note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Pursuant to'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Under''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Additional funding.--In addition to amounts made
available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be
appropriated from the Historic Preservation Fund to carry out
this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2008.''.
______
SA 138. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriation for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1047, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
Sec. 404. Section 136 of Public Law 107-229, as added by
section 5 of Public Law 107-240, is amended by striking ``60
days after the date specified in section 107(c) of Public Law
107-229, as amended'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
______
SA 139. Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
and Mr. Voinovich) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was
On page 271, between lines 10 and 11, insert the
following:
SEC. 1__. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY PROJECT IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.
The Corps of Engineers, using funds made available for
modifications authorized by section 104 of the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C.
410r-8), shall immediately carry out alternative 6D
(including paying 100 percent of the cost of acquiring land
or an interest in land) for the purpose of providing a flood
protection system for the 8.5 square mile area described in
the report entitled
[[Page 1515]]
``Central and South Florida Project, Modified Water
Deliveries to Everglades National Park, Florida, 8.5 Square
Mile Area, General Reevaluation Report and Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement'' and dated July 2000.
______
SA 140. Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Crapo)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making furthur continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. CDBG Funds.--(a) Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, funds made available for block
grants 1 under title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) for fiscal
year 2002 may not be withheld from any metropolitan city that
has satisfied the population criteria pursuant to the 2000
census and has satisfied all other required criteria,
including the metropolitan cities listed in subsection (b).
(b) The metropolitan cities listed in this subsection are--
(1) Ames, Iowa;
(2) Bend, Oregon;
(3) Carson City, Nevada; and
(4) Idaho Falls, Idaho.
______
SA 141. Mrs. MURRAY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
Sec. Sense of the Senate Regarding the Continuation of
Amtrak Service.--It is the Sense of the Senate that the
conferees on this joint resolution should approve the full
$1,200,000,000 included in the Senate version of this
resolution for Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) so as to ensure the continuation of
passenger rail service along Amtrak's national passenger rail
network, including the Northeast Corridor, for the remainder
of the current fiscal year.
______
SA 142. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. RESTORATION OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ASSOCIATED
HABITATS IN WATERSHEDS OF CERTAIN LAKES.
(a) In General.--In carrying out section 2507 of Public Law
107-171, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
(1) subject to paragraph (3), provide water and assistance
under that section only for the Pyramid, Summit, and Walker
Lakes in the State of Nevada;
(2) use $1,000,000 to provide a grant to the Walker River
Paiute Tribe for the creation of a fish hatchery at Walker
Lake; and
(3) use $2,000,000 to provide grants, to be divided
equally, to the State of Nevada, the State of California, the
Truckee Meadows Water Authority, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe, to implement the Truckee River Operating Agreement.
(b) Restoration of Lakes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, may take actions or
initiate programs that will provide additional water to
Pyramid, Summit, and Walker Lakes in the State of Nevada--
(1) to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats of the Lakes; and
(2) to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats in the watersheds of the Lakes if the
actions or programs will result in the restoration of the
Lakes.
(c) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, may provide
financial assistance to State and local public agencies,
Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and individuals to
carry out this section and section 2507 of Public Law 107-
171.
______
SA 143. Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Kyl) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. FEDERAL MILK MARKETING.
(a) Exemption of Milk Producers and Handlers From
Obligation to Pool Milk.--Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments
by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(M) Obligation of certain milk producers and handlers to
pool milk.--
``(i) Definition of covered producer or handler.--
``(I) In general.--In this subparagraph, the term `covered
producer or handler' means a producer-handler, producer
operating as a handler, or handler of Class I milk products--
``(aa) a plant of which is located within the boundaries of
a marketing area (as those boundaries are in effect as of the
date of enactment of this subparagraph) and covered by an
order issued pursuant to this paragraph;
``(bb) that has packaged fluid milk product dispositions,
or sales of packaged fluid milk products to other plants, in
a milk marketing area located in a State that enforces
minimum prices to handlers for milk purchases; and
``(cc) that is not otherwise obligated by an order under
this paragraph, or a regulated milk pricing plan operated by
a State, to pay minimum class prices for the raw milk
presented by those milk dispositions or sales.
``(II) Exclusions.--The term `covered producer or handler'
does not include--
``(aa) a handler that operates an exempt plant (as defined
in section 1000.8(e) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subparagraph)); or
``(bb) a producer-handler that has route dispositions, and
sales to other plants, of packaged fluid milk products
equaling less than 6,000,000 pounds of milk in any 30-day
period.**
``(ii) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection and without limiting the authority of the
Secretary to otherwise regulate a noncovered producer or
handler, a covered producer or handler shall be subject to
all minimum price requirements of the Federal milk marketing
order in which the plant of the covered producer or handler
is located, at Federal order class prices for the county in
which the plant is located.''.
(b) Exemption of Milk Handlers From Minimum Price
Requirements.--Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment
Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (as amended by
subsection (a)), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(N) Exemption of milk handlers from minimum price
requirements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, no handler with distribution of Class I milk
products in the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area (Order No.
131) shall be exempt during any month from any minimum milk
price requirement established by the Secretary under this
subsection if the total distribution of Class I products
within the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area of any handler's
own farm production exceeds the lesser of--
``(i) 3 percent of the total quantity of Class I products
distributed in the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area (Order
No. 131); or
``(ii) 5,000,000 pounds.''.
(c) Exclusion of Nevada From Federal Milk Marketing
Orders.--
(1) In general.--Section 8c(11)(C) the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(11)(C)), reenacted with
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937, is amended by striking the last sentence and inserting
the following: ``In the case of milk and its products, no
county located within the State of Nevada shall be within a
marketing area defined in any order issued under this
section.''.
(2) Informal rulemaking.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
modify an order issued under section 8c of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, to
implement the amendment made by paragraph (1) by promulgating
regulations, without regard to sections 556 and 557 of title
5, United States Code.
______
SA 144. Mr. SANTORUM submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 311, line 7, before the period at the end insert
the following: ``Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the funds under this heading that are
available for efforts relating to the treatment and
prevention of HIV/AIDS shall also include family preservation
efforts carried out through programs and initiatives that are
designed to maintain and preserve the families of those
persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS and to reduce the numbers of
orphans created by HIV/AIDS''.
______
SA 145. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
[[Page 1516]]
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows;
On page 1047, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
Sec. 404. (a) Extending Availability of SCHIP Allotments
for Fiscal Years 1998 Through 2001.--
(1) Retained and redistributed allotments for fiscal years
1998 and 1999.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (2)(A)(ii) of
section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(g)) are each amended by striking ``fiscal year 2002''
and inserting ``fiscal year 2004''.
(2) Extension and revision of retained and redistributed
allotments for fiscal year 2000.--
(A) Permitting and extending retention of portion of fiscal
year 2000 allotment.--Paragraph (2) of such section 2104(g)
is amended--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``and 1999'' and inserting
``through 2000''; and
(ii) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the
following:
``(iii) Fiscal year 2000 allotment.--Of the amounts
allotted to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year
2000 that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal
year 2002, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available
for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year
2004.''.
(B) Redistributed allotments.--Paragraph (1) of such
section 2104(g) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or for fiscal year
2000 by the end of fiscal year 2002,'' after ``fiscal year
2001,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1998 or 1999'' and
inserting ``1998, 1999, or 2000'';
(iii) in subparagraph (A)(i)--
(I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
(II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(III) the fiscal year 2000 allotment, the amount
specified in subparagraph (C)(i) (less the total of the
amounts under clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied
by the ratio of the amount specified in subparagraph (C)(ii)
for the State to the amount specified in subparagraph
(C)(iii).'';
(iv) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or 1999'' and
inserting ``, 1999, or 2000'';
(v) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``with respect to
fiscal year 1998 or 1999'';
(vi) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
(I) by inserting ``with respect to fiscal year 1998, 1999,
or 2000,'' after ``subsection (e),''; and
(II) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''; and
(vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2000.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(III)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2000,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(iii);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title
in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 exceed the State's
allotment for fiscal year 2000 under subsection (b); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2000, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).''.
(C) Conforming amendments.--Such section 2104(g) is further
amended--
(i) in its heading, by striking ``and 1999'' and inserting
``, 1999, and 2000''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) by striking ``or fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``,
fiscal year 1999, or fiscal year 2000''; and
(II) by striking ``or November 30, 2001'' and inserting
``November 30, 2001, or November 30, 2002'', respectively.
(3) Extension and revision of retained and redistributed
allotments for fiscal year 2001.--
(A) Permitting and extending retention of portion of fiscal
year 2001 allotment.--Paragraph (2) of such section 2104(g),
as amended in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), is further amended--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``2000'' and inserting
``2001''; and
(ii) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the
following:
``(iv) Fiscal year 2001 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted
to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 2001 that
were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year
2003, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year
2005.''.
(B) Redistributed allotments.--Paragraph (1) of such
section 2104(g), as amended in paragraph (2)(B), is further
amended--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or for fiscal year
2001 by the end of fiscal year 2003,'' after ``fiscal year
2002,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999, or 2000'' and
inserting ``1999, 2000, or 2001'';
(iii) in subparagraph (A)(i)--
(I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (II),
(II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (III)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(IV) the fiscal year 2001 allotment, the amount specified
in subparagraph (D)(i) (less the total of the amounts under
clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of
the amount specified in subparagraph (D)(ii) for the State to
the amount specified in subparagraph (D)(iii).'';
(iv) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or 2000'' and
inserting ``2000, or 2001'';
(v) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(II) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(III) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to
fiscal year 2001, shall remain available for expenditure by
the State through the end of fiscal year 2005; and''; and
(vi) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2001.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(IV)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2001,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(iv);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title
in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 exceed the State's
allotment for fiscal year 2001 under subsection (b); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2001, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).''.
(C) Conforming amendments.--Such section 2104(g) is further
amended--
(i) in its heading, by striking ``and 2000'' and inserting
``2000, and 2001''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) by striking ``or fiscal year 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal year 2000, or fiscal year 2001''; and
(II) by striking ``or November 30, 2002,'' and inserting
``November 30, 2002, or November 30, 2003,'', respectively.
(4) Effective date.--This subsection, and the amendments
made by this subsection, shall be effective as if this
subsection had been enacted on September 30, 2002, and
amounts under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397aa et seq.) from allotments for fiscal years 1998 through
2000 are available for expenditure on and after October 1,
2002, under the amendments made by this subsection as if this
subsection had been enacted on September 30, 2002.
(b) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Portion of SCHIP
Funds for Medicaid Expenditures.--Section 2105 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Certain Funds
for Medicaid Expenditures.--
``(1) State option.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to allotments for fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, for fiscal years in which such allotments are
available under subsections (e) and (g) of section 2104, a
qualifying State (as defined in paragraph (2)) may elect to
use not more than 20 percent of such allotments (instead of
for expenditures under this title) for payments for such
fiscal year under title XIX in accordance with subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Payments to states.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a qualifying State that
has elected the option described in subparagraph (A), subject
to the total amount of funds described with respect to the
State in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall pay the State
an amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that
would have been paid to the State under title XIX for
expenditures of the State for the fiscal year described in
clause (ii) if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under
subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical
assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)) of such
expenditures.
``(ii) Expenditures described.--For purposes of clause (i),
the expenditures described in this clause are expenditures
for such fiscal years for providing medical assistance under
title XIX to individuals who have not attained age 19 and
whose family income exceeds 150 percent of the poverty line.
``(2) Qualifying state.--In this subsection, the term
`qualifying State' means a State that--
``(A) as of April 15, 1997, has an income eligibility
standard with respect to any 1 or more categories of children
(other than infants) who are eligible for medical assistance
under section 1902(a)(10)(A) or under a waiver under section
1115 implemented on January 1, 1994, that is up to 185
percent of the poverty line or above; and
``(B) satisfies the requirements described in paragraph
(3).
``(3) Requirements.--The requirements described in this
paragraph are the following:
``(A) SCHIP income eligibility.--The State has a State
child health plan that (whether implemented under title XIX
or this title)--
[[Page 1517]]
``(i) as of January 1, 2001, has an income eligibility
standard that is at least 200 percent of the poverty line or
has an income eligibility standard that exceeds 200 percent
of the poverty line under a waiver under section 1115 that is
based on a child's lack of health insurance;
``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the
acceptance of applications for children; and
``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who
apply for and meet eligibility standards on a statewide
basis.
``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children
whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty
line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation,
waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of
such children for child health assistance under such State
plan.
``(C) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented
at least 4 of the following policies and procedures (relating
to coverage of children under title XIX and this title):
``(i) Uniform, simplified application form.--With respect
to children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State uses the same uniform,
simplified application form (including, if applicable,
permitting application other than in person) for purposes of
establishing eligibility for benefits under title XIX and
this title.
``(ii) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply
any asset test for eligibility under section 1902(l) or this
title with respect to children.
``(iii) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The
State provides that eligibility shall not be regularly
redetermined more often than once every year under this title
or for children described in section 1902(a)(10)(A).
``(iv) Same verification and redetermination policies;
automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to
children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State provides for initial
eligibility determinations and redeterminations of
eligibility using the same verification policies (including
with respect to face-to-face interviews), forms, and
frequency as the State uses for such purposes under this
title, and, as part of such redeterminations, provides for
the automatic reassessment of the eligibility of such
children for assistance under title XIX and this title.
``(v) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides
for the receipt and initial processing of applications for
benefits under this title and for children under title XIX at
facilities defined as disproportionate share hospitals under
section 1923(a)(1)(A) and Federally-qualified health centers
described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) consistent with section
1902(a)(55).''.
______
SA 146. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 720, beginning in line 5, strike ``Provided
further, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to compensate in excess of 37 active duty flag
officer billets:''.
______
SA 147. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 136, beginning with line 10, strike through line
22.
______
SA 148. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 126, beginning with line 8, strike through line 12.
______
SA 149. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 137, beginning with line 11, strike through line
15.
______
SA 150. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 432, line 10 after ``expended:'' insert the
following:
``Provided, That subsection (t) of P.L. 93-153 is amended
hereinafter in the first sentence by inserting ``or renew or
extend'' before ``any'' the first place it appears and by
inserting ``on or'' before ``before:''.
______
SA 151. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
new section:
``SEC. . CLARIFICATION OF ALASKA NATIVE SETTLEMENT TRUSTS.
``(A) Section of P.L. (43 U.S.C. 1629b) is amended:
``(1) at subsection (d)(1) by striking ``An'' and inserting
in its place ``Except as otherwise set forth in subsection
(d)(3) of this section, an'';
``(2) by creating the following new subsection:
``(d)(3) A resolution described in subsection (a)(3) of
this section shall be considered to be approved by the
shareholders of a Native Corporation if it receives the
affirmative vote of shares representing--
``(A) a majority of the shares present or represented by
proxy at the meeting relating to such resolution, or
``(B) an amount of shares greater than a majority of the
shares present or represented by proxy at the meeting
relating to such resolution (but not greater than two-thirds
of the total voting power of the corporation) if the
corporation establishes such a level by an amendment to its
articles of incorporation.'';
``(3) by creating the following new subsection:
``(f) Substantially all of the assets. For purposes of this
section and section 1629e of this title, a Native Corporation
shall be considered to be transferring all or substantially
all of its assets to a Settlement Trust only if such assets
represent two-thirds or more of the fair market value of the
Native Corporation's total assets.
``(B) Section of P.L. (43 U.S.C. 1629e) is amended by
striking subsection (B) and inserting in its place the
following:
``(B) shall give rise to dissenters rights to the extent
provided under the laws of the State only if:
``(i) the rights of beneficiaries in the Settlement Trust
receiving a conveyance are inalienable; and
``(ii) a shareholder vote on such transfer is required by
(a)(4) of section 1629b of this title.''
______
SA 152. Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1026, after line 22, add the following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated under title IV of
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public
Law 107-248) for Ballistic Missile Defense Technology,
$4,000,000 shall be available for a Phase III Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program that is based on the
Missile Defense Agency's Phase II Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program for the use of an open atmosphere
vapor deposition process for frequency adaptive electronics
and high-density memory storage.
______
SA 153. Mr. VOINOVICH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
DIVISION __--REFORM RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
SEC. __. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this
division is as follows:
DIVISION __--REFORM RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
Sec. __. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--FEDERAL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT INNOVATIONS
Sec. 101. Streamlined personnel management demonstration projects.
Sec. 102. Effective date.
TITLE II--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
Sec. 201. Recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses.
Sec. 202. Streamlined critical pay authority.
TITLE III--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND
BENEFITS
Sec. 301. Agency training.
Sec. 302. Annual leave enhancements.
[[Page 1518]]
TITLE I--FEDERAL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT INNOVATIONS
SEC. 101. STREAMLINED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS.
Chapter 47 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 4701--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``(a)'';
(ii) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) `agency' means an Executive agency and any entity
that is subject to any provision of this title that could be
waived under section 4703, but does not include--
``(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the National Security
Agency, and, as determined by the President, any Executive
agency or unit thereof which is designated by the President
and which has as its principal function the conduct of
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities; or
``(B) the General Accounting Office;'';
(iii) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iv) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(v) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) `modification' means a significant change in 1 or
more of the elements of a demonstration project plan as
described in section 4703(b)(1); and''; and
(B) by striking subsection (b); and
(2) in section 4703--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``conduct and evaluate demonstration
projects'' and inserting ``conduct, modify, and evaluate
demonstration projects'';
(ii) by striking ``, including any law or regulation
relating to--'' and all that follows and inserting a period;
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following: ``The decision to
initiate or modify a project under this section shall be made
by the Office.'';
(B) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Before conducting or entering into any agreement or
contract to conduct a demonstration project, the Office shall
ensure--
``(1) that each project has a plan which describes--
``(A) its purpose;
``(B) the employees to be covered;
``(C) its anticipated outcomes and resource implications,
including how the project relates to carrying out the
agency's strategic plan, including meeting performance goals
and objectives, and accomplishing its mission;
``(D) the personnel policies and procedures the project
will use that differ from those otherwise available and
applicable, including a specific citation of any provisions
of law, rule, or regulation to be waived and a specific
description of any contemplated action for which there is a
lack of specific authority;
``(E) the method of evaluating the project; and
``(F) the agency's system for ensuring that the project is
implemented in a manner consistent with merit system
principles;
``(2) notification of the proposed project to employees who
are likely to be affected by the project;
``(3) an appropriate comment period;
``(4) publication of the final plan in the Federal
Register;
``(5) notification of the final project at least 90 days in
advance of the date any project proposed under this section
is to take effect to employees who are likely to be affected
by the project;
``(6) publication of any subsequent modification in the
Federal Register; and
``(7) notification of any subsequent modification to
employees who are included in the project.'';
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) any provision of chapter 63 or subpart G of part III
of this title;'';
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively;
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) section 7342, 7351, or 7353;
``(5) the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.);''; and
(iv) in paragraph (6) as redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection; or'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (5);'';
(D) by striking subsections (d) and (e) and inserting the
following:
``(d)(1) Unless terminated at an earlier date in accordance
with this section, each demonstration project shall terminate
at the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date on
which the project takes effect.
``(2) Before the end of the 5-year period beginning on the
date on which a demonstration project takes effect, the
Office shall submit a recommendation to Congress on whether
Congress should enact legislation to make that project
permanent.
``(e) The Office may terminate a demonstration project
under this chapter if the Office determines that the
project--
``(1) is not consistent with merit system principles set
forth in section 2301, veterans' preference principles, or
the provisions of this chapter; or
``(2) otherwise imposes a substantial hardship on, or is
not in the best interests of, the public, the Government,
employees, or eligibles.''; and
(E) by striking subsections (h) and (i) and inserting the
following:
``(h) Notwithstanding section 2302(e)(1), for purposes of
applying section 2302(b)(11) in a demonstration project under
this chapter, the term `veterans' preference requirement'
means any of the specific provisions of the demonstration
project plan that are designed to ensure that the project is
consistent with veterans' preference principles.
``(i) The Office shall ensure that each demonstration
project is evaluated. Each evaluation shall assess--
``(1) the project's compliance with the plan developed
under subsection (b)(1); and
``(2) the project's impact on improving public management.
``(j) Upon request of the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, agencies shall cooperate with and
assist the Office in any evaluation undertaken under
subsection (i) and provide the Office with requested
information and reports relating to the conducting of
demonstration projects in their respective agencies.''.
SEC. 102. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall take effect 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SEC. 201. RECRUITMENT, RELOCATION, AND RETENTION BONUSES.
(a) Bonuses.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking sections 5753 and 5754 and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 5753. Recruitment and relocation bonuses
``(a) In this section, the term `employee' has the meaning
given that term under section 2105, except that such term
also includes an employee described under subsection (c) of
that section.
``(b)(1) The Office of Personnel Management may authorize
the head of an agency to pay a bonus to an individual
appointed or moved to a position that is likely to be
difficult to fill in the absence of such a bonus, if the
individual--
``(A)(i) is newly appointed as an employee of the Federal
Government; or
``(ii) is currently employed by the Federal Government and
moves to a new position in the same geographic area under
circumstances described in regulations of the Office; or
``(B) is currently employed by the Federal Government and
must relocate to accept a position stationed in a different
geographic area.
``(2) Except as provided by subsection (h), a bonus may be
paid under this section only to an employee covered by the
General Schedule pay system established under subchapter III
of chapter 53.
``(c)(1) Payment of a bonus under this section shall be
contingent upon the employee entering into a written service
agreement to complete a period of employment with the agency,
not to exceed 4 years. The Office may, by regulation,
prescribe a minimum service.
``(2)(A) The agreement shall include--
``(i) the length of the required service period;
``(ii) the amount of the bonus;
``(iii) the method of payment; and
``(iv) other terms and conditions under which the bonus is
payable, subject to subsections (d) and (e) and regulations
of the Office.
``(B) The terms and conditions for paying a bonus, as
specified in the service agreement, shall include--
``(i) the conditions under which the agreement may be
terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been
completed; and
``(ii) the effect of the termination.
``(3) The agreement shall be made effective upon employment
with the agency or movement to a new position or geographic
area, as applicable, except that a service agreement with
respect to a recruitment bonus may be made effective at a
later date under circumstances described in regulations of
the Office, such as when there is an initial period of formal
basic training.
``(d)(1) Except as provided in subsection (e), a bonus
under this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the annual
rate of basic pay of the employee at the beginning of the
service period multiplied by the number of years (or
fractions thereof) in the service period, not to exceed 4
years.
``(2) A bonus under this section may be paid as an initial
lump sum, in installments, as a final lump sum upon the
completion of the full service period, or in a combination of
these forms of payment.
``(3) A bonus under this section is not part of the basic
pay of an employee for any purpose.
``(4) Under regulations of the Office, a recruitment bonus
under this section may be paid to an eligible individual
before that individual enters on duty.
``(e) The Office may authorize the head of an agency to
waive the limitation under subsection (d)(1) based on a
critical agency need,
[[Page 1519]]
subject to regulations prescribed by the Office. Under such a
waiver, the amount of the bonus may be up to 50 percent of
the employee's annual rate of basic pay at the beginning of
the service period multiplied by the number of years (or
fractions thereof) in the service period, not to exceed 100
percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay at the
beginning of the service period.
``(f) The Office shall require that, before paying a bonus
under this section, an agency shall establish a plan for
paying recruitment bonuses and a plan for paying relocation
bonuses, subject to regulations prescribed by the Office.
``(g) The Office may prescribe regulations to carry out
this section, including regulations relating to the repayment
of a recruitment or relocation bonus in appropriate
circumstances when the agreed-upon service period has not
been completed.
``(h)(1) At the request of the head of an Executive agency,
the Office may extend coverage under this section to
categories of employees within the agency who otherwise would
not be covered by this section.
``(2) The Office shall not extend coverage to the head of
an Executive agency, including an Executive agency headed by
a board or other collegial body composed of 2 or more
individual members.
``Sec. 5754. Retention bonuses
``(a) In this section, the term `employee' has the meaning
given that term under section 2105, except that such term
also includes an employee described in subsection (c) of that
section.
``(b) The Office of Personnel Management may authorize the
head of an agency to pay a retention bonus to an employee,
subject to regulations prescribed by the Office, if--
``(1) the unusually high or unique qualifications of the
employee or a special need of the agency for the employee's
services makes it essential to retain the employee; and
``(2) the agency determines that, in the absence of a
retention bonus, the employee would be likely to leave--
``(A) the Federal service; or
``(B) for a different position in the Federal service under
conditions described in regulations of the Office.
``(c) The Office may authorize the head of an agency to pay
retention bonuses to a group of employees in 1 or more
categories of positions in 1 or more geographic areas,
subject to the requirements of subsection (b)(1) and
regulations prescribed by the Office, if there is a high risk
that a significant portion of employees in the group would be
likely to leave in the absence of retention bonuses.
``(d) Except as provided in subsection (j), a bonus may be
paid only to an employee covered by the General Schedule pay
system established under subchapter III of chapter 53.
``(e)(1) Payment of a retention bonus is contingent upon
the employee entering into a written service agreement with
the agency to complete a period of employment with the
agency.
``(2)(A) The agreement shall include--
``(i) the length of the required service period;
``(ii) the amount of the bonus;
``(iii) the method of payment; and
``(iv) other terms and conditions under which the bonus is
payable, subject to subsections (f) and (g) and regulations
of the Office.
``(B) The terms and conditions for paying a bonus, as
specified in the service agreement, shall include--
``(i) the conditions under which the agreement may be
terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been
completed; and
``(ii) the effect of the termination.
``(3)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a written service
agreement is not required if the agency pays a retention
bonus in biweekly installments and sets the installment
payment at the full bonus percentage rate established for the
employee with no portion of the bonus deferred.
``(B) If an agency pays a retention bonus in accordance
with subparagraph (A) and makes a determination to terminate
the payments, the agency shall provide written notice to the
employee of that determination. Except as provided in
regulations of the Office, the employee shall continue to be
paid the retention bonus through the end of the pay period in
which such written notice is provided.
``(4) A retention bonus for an employee may not be based on
any period of such service which is the basis for a
recruitment or relocation bonus under section 5753.
``(f)(1) Except as provided in subsection (g), a retention
bonus, which shall be stated as a percentage of the
employee's basic pay for the service period associated with
the bonus, may not exceed--
``(A) 25 percent of the employee's basic pay if paid under
subsection (b); or
``(B) 10 percent of an employee's basic pay if paid under
subsection (c).
``(2) A retention bonus may be paid to an employee in
installments after completion of specified periods of service
or in a single lump sum at the end of the full period of
service required by the agreement. An installment payment may
not exceed the product derived from multiplying the amount of
basic pay earned in the installment period by a percentage
not to exceed the bonus percentage rate established for the
employee. If the installment payment percentage is less than
the bonus percentage rate, the accrued but unpaid portion of
the bonus is payable as part of the final installment payment
to the employee after completion of the full service period
under the terms of the service agreement.
``(3) A retention bonus is not part of the basic pay of an
employee for any purpose.
``(g) Upon the request of the head of an agency, the Office
may waive the limit established under subsection (f)(1) and
permit the agency head to pay an otherwise eligible employee
or category of employees retention bonuses of up to 50
percent of basic pay, based on a critical agency need.
``(h) The Office shall require that, before paying a bonus
under this section, an agency shall establish a plan for
paying retention bonuses, subject to regulations prescribed
by the Office.
``(i) The Office may prescribe regulations to carry out
this section.
``(j)(1) At the request of the head of an Executive agency,
the Office may extend coverage under this section to
categories of employees within the agency who otherwise would
not be covered by this section.
``(2) The Office shall not extend coverage under this
section to the head of an Executive agency, including an
Executive agency headed by a board or other collegial body
composed of 2 or more individual members.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 5754 and
inserting the following:
``5754. Retention bonuses.''.
(b) Relocation Payments.--Section 407 of the Federal
Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 5305 note;
104 Stat. 1467) is repealed.
(c) Effective Date and Application.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as provided under paragraphs
(2) and (3), this section shall take effect on the first day
of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Application to agreements.--A recruitment or relocation
bonus service agreement that was authorized under section
5753 of title 5, United States Code, before the effective
date under paragraph (1) shall continue, until its
expiration, to be subject to section 5753 as in effect on the
day before such effective date.
(3) Application to allowances.--Payment of a retention
allowance that was authorized under section 5754 of title 5,
United States Code, before the effective date under paragraph
(1) shall continue, subject to section 5754 as in effect on
the day before such effective date, until the retention
allowance is reauthorized or terminated (but no longer than 1
year after such effective date).
SEC. 202. STREAMLINED CRITICAL PAY AUTHORITY.
Section 5377 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) The Office of Personnel Management, in consultation
with the Office of Management and Budget, may, upon the
request of the head of an agency, grant authority to fix the
rate of basic pay for 1 or more positions in such agency in
accordance with this section.'';
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``Office of
Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Personnel
Management'';
(3) by striking subsections (f) and (g) and inserting the
following:
``(f) The Office of Personnel Management may not authorize
the exercise of authority under this section with respect to
more than 800 positions at any 1 time, of which not more than
30 may, at any such time, be positions the rate of basic pay
for which would otherwise be determined under subchapter II.
``(g) The Office of Personnel Management shall consult with
the Office of Management and Budget before making any
decision to grant or terminate any authority under this
section.''; and
(4) in subsection (h), by striking ``The Office of
Management and Budget shall report to the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service'' and inserting ``The Office of
Personnel Management shall report to the Committee on
Government Reform.''.
TITLE III--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND
BENEFITS
SEC. 301. AGENCY TRAINING.
(a) Training To Accomplish Performance Plans and Strategic
Goals.--Section 4103 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) The head of each agency shall--
``(1) evaluate each program or plan established, operated,
or maintained under subsection (a) with respect to
accomplishing specific performance plans and strategic goals
in performing the agency mission; and
``(2) modify such program or plan to accomplish such plans
and goals.''.
(b) Agency Training Officer; Specific Training Programs.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding after section 4119 the following:
``Sec. 4120. Agency training officer
``Each agency shall appoint or designate a training officer
who shall be responsible for
[[Page 1520]]
developing, coordinating, and administering training for the
agency.
``Sec. 4121. Specific training programs
``In consultation with the Office of Personnel Management,
each head of an agency shall establish--
``(1) a comprehensive management succession program to
provide training to employees to develop managers for the
agency; and
``(2) a program to provide training to managers on actions,
options, and strategies a manager may use in--
``(A) relating to employees with unacceptable performances;
and
``(B) mentoring employees and improving employee
performance and productivity.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``4120. Agency training officer.
``4121. Specific training programs.''.
SEC. 302. ANNUAL LEAVE ENHANCEMENTS.
(a) Accrual of Leave for Newly Hired Federal Employees With
Qualified Experience.--
(1) In general.--Section 6303 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1) In this subsection, the term `period of qualified
non-Federal service' means any equal period of service
performed by an individual that--
``(A) except for this subsection would not otherwise be
service performed by an employee for purposes of subsection
(a); and
``(B) was performed in a position--
``(i) the duties of which were directly related to the
duties of the position in an agency that such individual
holds; and
``(ii) which meets such other conditions as the Office of
Personnel Management shall prescribe by regulation.
``(2) For purposes of subsection (a), the head of an agency
may deem a period of qualified non-Federal service performed
by an individual to be a period of service performed as an
employee.''.
(2) Effective date.--This section shall take effect 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act and shall only
apply to an individual hired on or after that effective date.
(b) Senior Executive Service Annual Leave Enhancements.--
(1) In general.--Section 6303(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) one day for each full biweekly pay period for an
employee in a position paid under section 5376 or 5383, or
for an employee in an equivalent category for which the
minimum rate of basic pay is greater than the rate payable at
GS-15, step 10.''.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management
shall prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments made
by this subsection.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Regulations.--Paragraph (2) shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 154. Mr. VOINOVICH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the followimg:
DIVISION __--REFORM RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
SEC. __. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this
division is as follows:
DIVISION __--REFORM RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
Sec. __. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
Sec. 101. Recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses.
Sec. 102. Streamlined critical pay authority.
TITLE II--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND
BENEFITS
Sec. 201. Agency training.
Sec. 202. Annual leave enhancements.
TITLE I--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SEC. 101. RECRUITMENT, RELOCATION, AND RETENTION BONUSES.
(a) Bonuses.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking sections 5753 and 5754 and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 5753. Recruitment and relocation bonuses
``(a) In this section, the term `employee' has the meaning
given that term under section 2105, except that such term
also includes an employee described under subsection (c) of
that section.
``(b)(1) The Office of Personnel Management may authorize
the head of an agency to pay a bonus to an individual
appointed or moved to a position that is likely to be
difficult to fill in the absence of such a bonus, if the
individual--
``(A)(i) is newly appointed as an employee of the Federal
Government; or
``(ii) is currently employed by the Federal Government and
moves to a new position in the same geographic area under
circumstances described in regulations of the Office; or
``(B) is currently employed by the Federal Government and
must relocate to accept a position stationed in a different
geographic area.
``(2) Except as provided by subsection (h), a bonus may be
paid under this section only to an employee covered by the
General Schedule pay system established under subchapter III
of chapter 53.
``(c)(1) Payment of a bonus under this section shall be
contingent upon the employee entering into a written service
agreement to complete a period of employment with the agency,
not to exceed 4 years. The Office may, by regulation,
prescribe a minimum service.
``(2)(A) The agreement shall include--
``(i) the length of the required service period;
``(ii) the amount of the bonus;
``(iii) the method of payment; and
``(iv) other terms and conditions under which the bonus is
payable, subject to subsections (d) and (e) and regulations
of the Office.
``(B) The terms and conditions for paying a bonus, as
specified in the service agreement, shall include--
``(i) the conditions under which the agreement may be
terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been
completed; and
``(ii) the effect of the termination.
``(3) The agreement shall be made effective upon employment
with the agency or movement to a new position or geographic
area, as applicable, except that a service agreement with
respect to a recruitment bonus may be made effective at a
later date under circumstances described in regulations of
the Office, such as when there is an initial period of formal
basic training.
``(d)(1) Except as provided in subsection (e), a bonus
under this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the annual
rate of basic pay of the employee at the beginning of the
service period multiplied by the number of years (or
fractions thereof) in the service period, not to exceed 4
years.
``(2) A bonus under this section may be paid as an initial
lump sum, in installments, as a final lump sum upon the
completion of the full service period, or in a combination of
these forms of payment.
``(3) A bonus under this section is not part of the basic
pay of an employee for any purpose.
``(4) Under regulations of the Office, a recruitment bonus
under this section may be paid to an eligible individual
before that individual enters on duty.
``(e) The Office may authorize the head of an agency to
waive the limitation under subsection (d)(1) based on a
critical agency need, subject to regulations prescribed by
the Office. Under such a waiver, the amount of the bonus may
be up to 50 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic
pay at the beginning of the service period multiplied by the
number of years (or fractions thereof) in the service period,
not to exceed 100 percent of the employee's annual rate of
basic pay at the beginning of the service period.
``(f) The Office shall require that, before paying a bonus
under this section, an agency shall establish a plan for
paying recruitment bonuses and a plan for paying relocation
bonuses, subject to regulations prescribed by the Office.
``(g) The Office may prescribe regulations to carry out
this section, including regulations relating to the repayment
of a recruitment or relocation bonus in appropriate
circumstances when the agreed-upon service period has not
been completed.
``(h)(1) At the request of the head of an Executive agency,
the Office may extend coverage under this section to
categories of employees within the agency who otherwise would
not be covered by this section.
``(2) The Office shall not extend coverage to the head of
an Executive agency, including an Executive agency headed by
a board or other collegial body composed of 2 or more
individual members.
``Sec. 5754. Retention bonuses
``(a) In this section, the term `employee' has the meaning
given that term under section 2105, except that such term
also includes an employee described in subsection (c) of that
section.
``(b) The Office of Personnel Management may authorize the
head of an agency to pay a retention bonus to an employee,
subject to regulations prescribed by the Office, if--
``(1) the unusually high or unique qualifications of the
employee or a special need of the agency for the employee's
services makes it essential to retain the employee; and
``(2) the agency determines that, in the absence of a
retention bonus, the employee would be likely to leave--
[[Page 1521]]
``(A) the Federal service; or
``(B) for a different position in the Federal service under
conditions described in regulations of the Office.
``(c) The Office may authorize the head of an agency to pay
retention bonuses to a group of employees in 1 or more
categories of positions in 1 or more geographic areas,
subject to the requirements of subsection (b)(1) and
regulations prescribed by the Office, if there is a high risk
that a significant portion of employees in the group would be
likely to leave in the absence of retention bonuses.
``(d) Except as provided in subsection (j), a bonus may be
paid only to an employee covered by the General Schedule pay
system established under subchapter III of chapter 53.
``(e)(1) Payment of a retention bonus is contingent upon
the employee entering into a written service agreement with
the agency to complete a period of employment with the
agency.
``(2)(A) The agreement shall include--
``(i) the length of the required service period;
``(ii) the amount of the bonus;
``(iii) the method of payment; and
``(iv) other terms and conditions under which the bonus is
payable, subject to subsections (f) and (g) and regulations
of the Office.
``(B) The terms and conditions for paying a bonus, as
specified in the service agreement, shall include--
``(i) the conditions under which the agreement may be
terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been
completed; and
``(ii) the effect of the termination.
``(3)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a written service
agreement is not required if the agency pays a retention
bonus in biweekly installments and sets the installment
payment at the full bonus percentage rate established for the
employee with no portion of the bonus deferred.
``(B) If an agency pays a retention bonus in accordance
with subparagraph (A) and makes a determination to terminate
the payments, the agency shall provide written notice to the
employee of that determination. Except as provided in
regulations of the Office, the employee shall continue to be
paid the retention bonus through the end of the pay period in
which such written notice is provided.
``(4) A retention bonus for an employee may not be based on
any period of such service which is the basis for a
recruitment or relocation bonus under section 5753.
``(f)(1) Except as provided in subsection (g), a retention
bonus, which shall be stated as a percentage of the
employee's basic pay for the service period associated with
the bonus, may not exceed--
``(A) 25 percent of the employee's basic pay if paid under
subsection (b); or
``(B) 10 percent of an employee's basic pay if paid under
subsection (c).
``(2) A retention bonus may be paid to an employee in
installments after completion of specified periods of service
or in a single lump sum at the end of the full period of
service required by the agreement. An installment payment may
not exceed the product derived from multiplying the amount of
basic pay earned in the installment period by a percentage
not to exceed the bonus percentage rate established for the
employee. If the installment payment percentage is less than
the bonus percentage rate, the accrued but unpaid portion of
the bonus is payable as part of the final installment payment
to the employee after completion of the full service period
under the terms of the service agreement.
``(3) A retention bonus is not part of the basic pay of an
employee for any purpose.
``(g) Upon the request of the head of an agency, the Office
may waive the limit established under subsection (f)(1) and
permit the agency head to pay an otherwise eligible employee
or category of employees retention bonuses of up to 50
percent of basic pay, based on a critical agency need.
``(h) The Office shall require that, before paying a bonus
under this section, an agency shall establish a plan for
paying retention bonuses, subject to regulations prescribed
by the Office.
``(i) The Office may prescribe regulations to carry out
this section.
``(j)(1) At the request of the head of an Executive agency,
the Office may extend coverage under this section to
categories of employees within the agency who otherwise would
not be covered by this section.
``(2) The Office shall not extend coverage under this
section to the head of an Executive agency, including an
Executive agency headed by a board or other collegial body
composed of 2 or more individual members.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 5754 and
inserting the following:
``5754. Retention bonuses.''.
(b) Relocation Payments.--Section 407 of the Federal
Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 5305 note;
104 Stat. 1467) is repealed.
(c) Effective Date and Application.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as provided under paragraphs
(2) and (3), this section shall take effect on the first day
of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Application to agreements.--A recruitment or relocation
bonus service agreement that was authorized under section
5753 of title 5, United States Code, before the effective
date under paragraph (1) shall continue, until its
expiration, to be subject to section 5753 as in effect on the
day before such effective date.
(3) Application to allowances.--Payment of a retention
allowance that was authorized under section 5754 of title 5,
United States Code, before the effective date under paragraph
(1) shall continue, subject to section 5754 as in effect on
the day before such effective date, until the retention
allowance is reauthorized or terminated (but no longer than 1
year after such effective date).
SEC. 102. STREAMLINED CRITICAL PAY AUTHORITY.
Section 5377 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) The Office of Personnel Management, in consultation
with the Office of Management and Budget, may, upon the
request of the head of an agency, grant authority to fix the
rate of basic pay for 1 or more positions in such agency in
accordance with this section.'';
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``Office of
Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Personnel
Management'';
(3) by striking subsections (f) and (g) and inserting the
following:
``(f) The Office of Personnel Management may not authorize
the exercise of authority under this section with respect to
more than 800 positions at any 1 time, of which not more than
30 may, at any such time, be positions the rate of basic pay
for which would otherwise be determined under subchapter II.
``(g) The Office of Personnel Management shall consult with
the Office of Management and Budget before making any
decision to grant or terminate any authority under this
section.''; and
(4) in subsection (h), by striking ``The Office of
Management and Budget shall report to the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service'' and inserting ``The Office of
Personnel Management shall report to the Committee on
Government Reform.''.
TITLE II--REFORMS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND
BENEFITS
SEC. 201. AGENCY TRAINING.
(a) Training To Accomplish Performance Plans and Strategic
Goals.--Section 4103 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) The head of each agency shall--
``(1) evaluate each program or plan established, operated,
or maintained under subsection (a) with respect to
accomplishing specific performance plans and strategic goals
in performing the agency mission; and
``(2) modify such program or plan to accomplish such plans
and goals.''.
(b) Agency Training Officer; Specific Training Programs.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding after section 4119 the following:
``Sec. 4120. Agency training officer
``Each agency shall appoint or designate a training officer
who shall be responsible for developing, coordinating, and
administering training for the agency.
``Sec. 4121. Specific training programs
``In consultation with the Office of Personnel Management,
each head of an agency shall establish--
``(1) a comprehensive management succession program to
provide training to employees to develop managers for the
agency; and
``(2) a program to provide training to managers on actions,
options, and strategies a manager may use in--
``(A) relating to employees with unacceptable performances;
and
``(B) mentoring employees and improving employee
performance and productivity.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``4120. Agency training officer.
``4121. Specific training programs.''.
SEC. 202. ANNUAL LEAVE ENHANCEMENTS.
(a) Accrual of Leave for Newly Hired Federal Employees With
Qualified Experience.--
(1) In general.--Section 6303 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1) In this subsection, the term `period of qualified
non-Federal service' means any equal period of service
performed by an individual that--
``(A) except for this subsection would not otherwise be
service performed by an employee for purposes of subsection
(a); and
``(B) was performed in a position--
``(i) the duties of which were directly related to the
duties of the position in an agency that such individual
holds; and
``(ii) which meets such other conditions as the Office of
Personnel Management shall prescribe by regulation.
``(2) For purposes of subsection (a), the head of an agency
may deem a period of qualified non-Federal service performed
by an individual to be a period of service performed as an
employee.''.
[[Page 1522]]
(2) Effective date.--This section shall take effect 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act and shall only
apply to an individual hired on or after that effective date.
(b) Senior Executive Service Annual Leave Enhancements.--
(1) In general.--Section 6303(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) one day for each full biweekly pay period for an
employee in a position paid under section 5376 or 5383, or
for an employee in an equivalent category for which the
minimum rate of basic pay is greater than the rate payable at
GS-15, step 10.''.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management
shall prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments made
by this subsection.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Regulations.--Paragraph (2) shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 155. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 488, on line 2, strike the period after the word
``accomplishment'' and insert the following:
``: Provided further, That within funds available for the
purpose of implementing the Valles Caldera Preservation Act,
notwithstanding the limitations of 107(e)(2) of the Valles
Caldera Preservation Act (Public Law 106-248), for fiscal
year 2003, the members of the Board of Trustees of the Valles
Caldera Trust may receive, upon request, compensation for
each day (including travel time) that they are engaged in the
performance of the functions of the Board, except that
compensation shall not exceed the daily equivalent of the
annual rate in effect for members of the Senior Executive
Service at the ES-1 level, and shall be in addition to any
reimbursement for travel, subsistence and other necessary
expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties,
and except that Members of the Board who are officers or
employees of the United States shall not receive any
additional compensation by reason of service on the Board.''
______
SA 156. Mr. DOMENICI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
On page 489, line 8, after ``Service;'' add the following
new proviso: ``Provided further, That hazardous fuel
treatment dollars in the National Fire Plan are to go to the
County Partnership Restoration Program for forest restoration
on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona, the
Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico, and the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest in Colorado;''
______
SA 157. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to joint resolution H.J. Res.
2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 547, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
TITLE __--T'UF SHUR BIEN PRESERVATION TRUST AREA
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``T'uf Shur Bien
Preservation Trust Area Act''.
SEC. __02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in 1748, the Pueblo of Sandia received a grant from a
representative of the King of Spain, which grant was
recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858 (11 Stat. 374);
and
(2) in 1994, the Pueblo filed a civil action against the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
(Civil No. 1:94CV02624), asserting that Federal surveys of
the grant boundaries erroneously excluded certain land within
the Cibola National Forest, including a portion of the Sandia
Mountain Wilderness.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to establish the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area
in the Cibola National Forest;
(2) to confirm the status of national forest land and
wilderness land in the Area while resolving issues associated
with the civil action referred to in subsection (a)(2) and
the opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior dated December 9, 1988 (M-36963; 96 I.D. 331) and
January 19, 2001 (M-37002); and
(3) to provide the Pueblo, the parties to the civil action,
and the public with a fair and just settlement of the
Pueblo's claim.
SEC. __03. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Area'' means the T'uf Shur Bien
Preservation Trust Area, comprised of approximately 9890
acres of land in the Cibola National Forest, as depicted on
the map.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``Area'' does not include--
(i) the subdivisions;
(ii) Pueblo-owned land;
(iii) the crest facilities; or
(iv) the special use permit area.
(2) Crest facilities.--The term ``crest facilities''
means--
(A) all facilities and developments located on the crest of
Sandia Mountain, including the Sandia Crest Electronic Site;
(B) electronic site access roads;
(C) the Crest House;
(D) the upper terminal, restaurant, and related facilities
of Sandia Peak Tram Company;
(E) the Crest Observation Area;
(F) parking lots;
(G) restrooms;
(H) the Crest Trail (Trail No. 130);
(I) hang glider launch sites;
(J) the Kiwanis cabin; and
(K) the land on which the facilities described in
subparagraphs (A) through (J) are located and the land
extending 100 feet along terrain to the west of each such
facility, unless a different distance is agreed to in writing
by the Secretary and the Pueblo and documented in the survey
of the Area.
(3) Existing use.--The term ``existing use'' means a use
that--
(A) is occurring in the Area as of the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(B) is authorized in the Area after November 1, 1995, but
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) La luz tract.--The term ``La Luz tract'' means the
tract comprised of approximately 31 acres of land owned in
fee by the Pueblo and depicted on the map.
(5) Local public body.--The term ``local public body''
means a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico (as
defined in New Mexico Code 6-5-1).
(6) Map.--The term ``map'' means the Forest Service map
entitled ``T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area'' and dated
April 2000.
(7) Modified use.--
(A) In general.--The term ``modified use'' means an
existing use that, at any time after the date of enactment of
this Act, is modified or reconfigured but not significantly
expanded.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``modified use'' includes--
(i) a trail or trailhead being modified, such as to
accommodate handicapped access;
(ii) a parking area being reconfigured (but not expanded);
and
(iii) a special use authorization for a group recreation
use being authorized for a different use area or time period.
(8) New use.--
(A) In general.--The term ``new use'' means--
(i) a use that is not occurring in the Area as of the date
of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) an existing use that is being modified so as to be
significantly expanded or altered in scope, dimension, or
impact on the land, water, air, or wildlife resources of the
Area.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``new use'' does not include a
use that--
(i) is categorically excluded from documentation
requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); or
(ii) is carried out to comply with the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(9) Piedra lisa tract.--The term ``Piedra Lisa tract''
means the tract comprised of approximately 160 acres of land
owned by the Pueblo and depicted on the map.
(10) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Pueblo of
Sandia in its governmental capacity.
(11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(12) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
dated April 4, 2000, among the United States, the Pueblo, and
the Sandia Peak Tram Company.
(13) Special use permit.--The term ``special use permit''
means the Special Use Permit issued December 1, 1993, by the
Secretary to Sandia Peak Tram Company and Sandia Peak Ski
Company
(14) Special use permit area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``special use permit area'' means
the land and facilities subject to the special use permit.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``special use permit area''
includes--
(i) approximately 46 acres of land used as an aerial
tramway corridor;
[[Page 1523]]
(ii) approximately 945 acres of land used as a ski area;
and
(iii) the land and facilities described in Exhibit A to the
special use permit, including--
(I) the maintenance road to the lower tram tower;
(II) water storage and water distribution facilities; and
(III) 7 helispots.
(15) Subdivision.--The term ``subdivision'' means--
(A) the subdivision of--
(i) Sandia Heights Addition;
(ii) Sandia Heights North Unit I, II, or 3;
(iii) Tierra Monte;
(iv) Valley View Acres; or
(v) Evergreen Hills; and
(B) any additional plat or privately-owned property
depicted on the map.
(16) Traditional or cultural use.--The term ``traditional
or cultural use'' means--
(A) a ceremonial activity (including the placing of
ceremonial materials in the Area); and
(B) the use, hunting, trapping, or gathering of plants,
animals, wood, water, and other natural resources for a
noncommercial purpose.
SEC. __04. T'UF SHUR BIEN PRESERVATION TRUST AREA.
(a) Establishment.--The T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust
Area is established within the Cibola National Forest and the
Sandia Mountain Wilderness as depicted on the map--
(1) to recognize and protect in perpetuity the rights and
interests of the Pueblo in and to the Area, as specified in
section __05(a);
(2) to preserve in perpetuity the national forest and
wilderness character of the Area; and
(3) to recognize and protect in perpetuity the longstanding
use and enjoyment of the Area by the public.
(b) Administration and Applicable Law.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall continue to administer
the Area as part of the National Forest System subject to and
consistent with the provisions of this title affecting
management of the Area.
(2) Traditional or cultural uses.--Traditional or cultural
uses by Pueblo members and members of other federally-
recognized Indian tribes authorized to use the Area by the
Pueblo under section __05(a)(4) shall not be restricted
except by--
(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) (including
regulations promulgated under that Act) as in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) applicable Federal wildlife protection laws, as
provided in section __06(a)(2).
(3) Later enactments.--To the extent that any law enacted
or amended after the date of enactment of this Act is
inconsistent with this title, the law shall not apply to the
Area unless expressly made applicable by Congress.
(4) Trust.--The use of the word ``Trust'' in the name of
the Area--
(A) is in recognition of the specific rights and interests
of the Pueblo in the Area; and
(B) does not confer on the Pueblo the ownership interest
that exists in a case in which the Secretary of the Interior
accepts the title to land held in trust for the benefit of an
Indian tribe.
(c) Map.--
(1) Filing.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file the map and a
legal description of the Area with the Committee on Resources
of the House of Representatives and with the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
(2) Public availability.--The map and legal description
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the
Office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Washington,
District of Columbia.
(3) Effect.--The map and legal description filed under
paragraph (1) shall have the same effect as if the map and
legal description were included in this title, except that--
(A) technical and typographical errors shall be corrected;
(B) changes that may be necessary under subsection (b),
(d), or (e) of section __09 or subsection (b) or (c) of
section __13 shall be made; and
(C) to the extent that the map and the language of this
title conflict, the language of this title shall control.
(d) No Conveyance of Title.--No right, title, or interest
of the United States in or to the Area or any part of the
Area shall be conveyed to or exchanged with any person,
trust, or governmental entity, including the Pueblo, without
specific authorization of Congress.
(e) Prohibited Uses.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(A) no use prohibited by the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131
et seq.) as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be
permitted in the wilderness portion of the Area; and
(B) none of the following uses shall be permitted in any
portion of the Area:
(i) Gaming or gambling.
(ii) Mineral production.
(iii) Timber production.
(iv) Any new use to which the Pueblo objects under section
__05(a)(3).
(2) Mining claims.--The Area is closed to the location of
mining claims under section 2320 of the Revised Statutes (30
U.S.C. 23) (commonly known as the ``Mining Law of 1872'').
(f) No Modification of Boundaries.--Establishment of the
Area shall not--
(1) affect the boundaries of or repeal or disestablish the
Sandia Mountain Wilderness or the Cibola National Forest; or
(2) modify the existing boundary of the Pueblo grant.
SEC. __05. PUEBLO RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE AREA.
(a) In General.--The Pueblo shall have the following rights
and interests in the Area:
(1) Free and unrestricted access to the Area for
traditional or cultural uses, to the extent that those uses
are not inconsistent with--
(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) (including
regulations promulgated under that Act) as in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) applicable Federal wildlife protection laws as provided
in section __06(a)(2).
(2) Perpetual preservation of the national forest and
wilderness character of the Area under this title.
(3) Rights in the management of the Area as specified in
section __07, including--
(A) the right to consent or withhold consent to a new use;
(B) the right to consultation regarding a modified use;
(C) the right to consultation regarding the management and
preservation of the Area; and
(D) the right to dispute resolution procedures.
(4) Exclusive authority, in accordance with the customs and
laws of the Pueblo, to administer access to the Area for
traditional or cultural uses by members of the Pueblo and of
other federally-recognized Indian tribes.
(5) Such other rights and interests as are recognized in
sections __04, __05(c), __07, __08, and __09.
(b) Access.-- Except as provided in subsection (a)(4),
access to and use of the Area for all other purposes shall
continue to be administered by the Secretary.
(c) Compensable Interest.--
(1) In general.--If, by an Act of Congress enacted after
the date of enactment of this Act, Congress diminishes the
national forest or wilderness designation of the Area by
authorizing a use prohibited by section __04(e) in all or any
portion of the Area, or denies the Pueblo access for any
traditional or cultural use in all or any portion of the
Area--
(A) the United States shall compensate the Pueblo as if the
Pueblo held a fee title interest in the affected portion of
the Area and as though the United States had acquired such an
interest by legislative exercise of the power of eminent
domain; and
(B) the restrictions of sections __04(e) and __06(a) shall
be disregarded in determining just compensation owed to the
Pueblo.
(2) Effect.--Any compensation made to the Pueblo under
paragraph (c) shall not affect the extinguishment of claims
under section __10.
SEC. __06. LIMITATIONS ON PUEBLO RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE
AREA.
(a) Limitations.--The rights and interests of the Pueblo
recognized in this title do not include--
(1) any right to sell, grant, lease, convey, encumber, or
exchange land or any interest in land in the Area (and any
such conveyance shall not have validity in law or equity);
(2) any exemption from applicable Federal wildlife
protection laws;
(3) any right to engage in a use prohibited by section
__04(e); or
(4) any right to exclude persons or governmental entities
from the Area.
(b) Exception.--No person who exercises traditional or
cultural use rights as authorized by section __05(a)(4) may
be prosecuted for a Federal wildlife offense requiring proof
of a violation of a State law (including regulations).
SEC. __07. MANAGEMENT OF THE AREA.
(a) Process.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Pueblo not less than twice each year, unless otherwise
mutually agreed, concerning protection, preservation, and
management of the Area (including proposed new uses and
modified uses in the Area and authorizations that are
anticipated during the next 6 months and were approved in the
preceding 6 months).
(2) New uses.--
(A) Request for consent after consultation.--
(i) Denial of consent.--If the Pueblo denies consent for a
new use within 30 days after completion of the consultation
process, the Secretary shall not proceed with the new use.
(ii) Granting of consent.--If the Pueblo consents to the
new use in writing or fails to respond within 30 days after
completion of the consultation process, the Secretary may
proceed with the notice and comment process and the
environmental analysis.
(B) Final request for consent.--
(i) Request.--Before the Secretary (or a designee) signs a
record of decision or decision notice for a proposed new use,
the Secretary shall again request the consent of the Pueblo.
[[Page 1524]]
(ii) Denial of consent.--If the Pueblo denies consent for a
new use within 30 days after receipt by the Pueblo of the
proposed record of decision or decision notice, the new use
shall not be authorized.
(iii) Failure to respond.--If the Pueblo fails to respond
to the consent request within 30 days after receipt of the
proposed record of decision or decision notice--
(I) the Pueblo shall be deemed to have consented to the
proposed record of decision or decision notice; and
(II) the Secretary may proceed to issue the final record of
decision or decision notice.
(3) Public involvement.--
(A) In general.--With respect to a proposed new use or
modified use, the public shall be provided notice of--
(i) the purpose and need for the proposed new use or
modified use;
(ii) the role of the Pueblo in the decisionmaking process;
and
(iii) the position of the Pueblo on the proposal.
(B) Court challenge.--Any person may bring a civil action
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico to challenge a determination by the Secretary
concerning whether a use constitutes a new use or a modified
use.
(b) Emergencies and Emergency Closure Orders.--
(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall retain the authority of
the Secretary to manage emergency situations, to--
(A) provide for public safety; and
(B) issue emergency closure orders in the Area subject to
applicable law.
(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall notify the Pueblo
regarding emergencies, public safety issues, and emergency
closure orders as soon as practicable.
(3) No consent.--An action of the Secretary described in
paragraph (1) shall not require the consent of the Pueblo.
(c) Disputes Involving Forest Service Management and Pueblo
Traditional Uses.--
(1) In general.--In a case in which the management of the
Area by the Secretary conflicts with a traditional or
cultural use, if the conflict does not pertain to a new use
subject to the process specified in subsection (a)(2), the
process for dispute resolution specified in this subsection
shall apply.
(2) Dispute resolution process.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a conflict described in
paragraph (1)--
(i) the party identifying the conflict shall notify the
other party in writing addressed to the Governor of the
Pueblo or the Regional Forester, as appropriate, specifying
the nature of the dispute; and
(ii) the Governor of the Pueblo or the Regional Forester
shall attempt to resolve the dispute for a period of at least
30 days after notice has been provided before bringing a
civil action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico.
(B) Disputes requiring immediate resolution.--In the case
of a conflict that requires immediate resolution to avoid
imminent, substantial, and irreparable harm--
(i) the party identifying the conflict shall notify the
other party and seek to resolve the dispute within 3 days of
the date of notification; and
(ii) if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute
within 3 days--
(I) either party may bring a civil action for immediate
relief in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico; and
(II) the procedural requirements specified in subparagraph
(A) shall not apply.
SEC. __08. JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA.
(a) Criminal Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Area shall be
allocated as provided in this paragraph.
(2) Jurisdiction of the pueblo.--The Pueblo shall have
jurisdiction over an offense committed by a member of the
Pueblo or of another federally-recognized Indian tribe who is
present in the Area with the permission of the Pueblo under
section __05(a)(4).
(3) Jurisdiction of the united states.--The United States
shall have jurisdiction over--
(A) an offense described in section 1153 of title 18,
United States Code, committed by a member of the Pueblo or
another federally-recognized Indian tribe;
(B) an offense committed by any person in violation of the
laws (including regulations) pertaining to the protection and
management of national forests;
(C) enforcement of Federal criminal laws of general
applicability; and
(D) any other offense committed by a member of the Pueblo
against a person not a member of the Pueblo.
(4) Jurisdiction of the state of new mexico.--The State of
New Mexico shall have jurisdiction over an offense under the
law of the State committed by a person not a member of the
Pueblo.
(5) Overlapping jurisdiction.--To the extent that the
respective allocations of jurisdiction over the Area under
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) overlap, the governments shall
have concurrent jurisdiction.
(6) Federal use of state law.--Under the jurisdiction of
the United States described in paragraph (3)(D), Federal law
shall incorporate any offense defined and punishable under
State law that is not so defined under Federal law.
(b) Civil Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the United States, the State of New Mexico, and local
public bodies shall have the same civil adjudicatory,
regulatory, and taxing jurisdiction over the Area as was
exercised by those entities on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Jurisdiction of the pueblo.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall have exclusive civil
adjudicatory jurisdiction over--
(i) a dispute involving only members of the Pueblo;
(ii) a civil action brought by the Pueblo against a member
of the Pueblo; and
(iii) a civil action brought by the Pueblo against a member
of another federally-recognized Indian tribe for a violation
of an understanding between the Pueblo and the other tribe
regarding use of or access to the Area for traditional or
cultural uses.
(B) Regulatory jurisdiction.--The Pueblo shall have no
regulatory jurisdiction over the Area, except that the Pueblo
shall have exclusive authority to--
(i) regulate traditional or cultural uses by the members of
the Pueblo and administer access to the Area by other
federally-recognized Indian tribes for traditional or
cultural uses, to the extent such regulation is consistent
with this title; and
(ii) regulate hunting and trapping in the Area by members
of the Pueblo, to the extent that the hunting or trapping is
related to traditional or cultural uses, except that such
hunting and trapping outside of that portion of the Area in
sections 13, 14, 23, 24, and the northeast quarter of section
25 of T12N, R4E, and section 19 of T12N, R5E, N.M.P.M.,
Sandoval County, New Mexico, shall be regulated by the Pueblo
in a manner consistent with the regulations of the State of
New Mexico concerning types of weapons and proximity of
hunting and trapping to trails and residences.
(C) Taxing jurisdiction.--The Pueblo shall have no
authority to impose taxes within the Area.
(3) State and local taxing jurisdiction.--The State of New
Mexico and local public bodies shall have no authority within
the Area to tax the uses or the property of the Pueblo,
members of the Pueblo, or members of other federally-
recognized Indian tribes authorized to use the Area under
section __05(a)(4).
SEC. __09. SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS.
(a) Subdivisions.--
(1) In general.--The subdivisions are excluded from the
Area.
(2) Jurisdiction.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall have no civil or criminal
jurisdiction for any purpose, including adjudicatory, taxing,
zoning, regulatory or any other form of jurisdiction, over
the subdivisions and property interests therein, and the laws
of the Pueblo shall not apply to the subdivisions.
(B) State jurisdiction.--The jurisdiction of the State of
New Mexico and local public bodies over the subdivisions and
property interests therein shall continue in effect, except
that on application of the Pueblo a tract comprised of
approximately 35 contiguous, nonsubdivided acres in the
northern section of Evergreen Hills owned in fee by the
Pueblo at the time of enactment of this Act, shall be
transferred to the United States and held in trust for the
Pueblo by the United States and administered by the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Limitations on trust land.--Trust land described in
paragraph (2)(B) shall be subject to all limitations on use
pertaining to the Area contained in this title.
(b) Piedra Lisa.--
(1) In general.--The Piedra Lisa tract is excluded from the
Area.
(2) Declaration of trust title.--The Piedra Lisa tract--
(A) shall be transferred to the United States;
(B) is declared to be held in trust for the Pueblo by the
United States; and
(C) shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior
subject to all limitations on use pertaining to the Area
contained in this title.
(3) Applicability of certain restriction.--The restriction
contained in section __06(a)(4) shall not apply outside of
Forest Service System trails.
(c) Crest Facilities.--
(1) In general.--The land on which the crest facilities are
located is excluded from the Area.
(2) Jurisdiction.--The Pueblo shall have no civil or
criminal jurisdiction for any purpose, including
adjudicatory, taxing, zoning, regulatory or any other form of
jurisdiction, over the land on which the crest facilities are
located and property interests therein, and the laws of the
Pueblo, shall not apply to that land. The preexisting
jurisdictional status of that land shall continue in effect.
(d) Special Use Permit Area.--
(1) In general.--The land described in the special use
permit is excluded from the Area.
(2) Jurisdiction.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall have no civil or criminal
jurisdiction for any purpose, including adjudicatory, taxing,
zoning,
[[Page 1525]]
regulatory, or any other form of jurisdiction, over the land
described in the special use permit, and the laws of the
Pueblo shall not apply to that land.
(B) Preexisting status.--The preexisting jurisdictional
status of that land shall continue in effect.
(3) Amendment to plan.--In the event the special use
permit, during its existing term or any future terms or
extensions, requires amendment to include other land in the
Area necessary to realign the existing or any future
replacement tram line, associated structures, or facilities,
the land subject to that amendment shall thereafter be
excluded from the Area and shall have the same status under
this title as the land currently described in the special use
permit.
(4) Land dedicated to aerial tramway and related uses.--Any
land dedicated to aerial tramway and related uses and
associated facilities that are excluded from the special use
permit through expiration, termination or the amendment
process shall thereafter be included in the Area, but only
after final agency action no longer subject to any appeals.
(e) La Luz Tract.--
(1) In general.--The La Luz tract now owned in fee by the
Pueblo is excluded from the Area and, on application by the
Pueblo, shall be transferred to the United States and held in
trust for the Pueblo by the United States and administered by
the Secretary of the Interior subject to all limitations on
use pertaining to the Area contained in this title.
(2) Nonapplicability of certain restriction.--The
restriction contained in section __06(a)(4) shall not apply
outside of Forest Service System trails.
(f) Evergreen Hills Access.--The Secretary shall ensure
that Forest Service Road 333D, as depicted on the map, is
maintained in an adequate condition in accordance with
section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3210(a)).
(g) Pueblo Fee Land.--Those properties not specifically
addressed in subsections (a) or (e) that are owned in fee by
the Pueblo within the subdivisions are excluded from the Area
and shall be subject to the jurisdictional provisions of
subsection (a).
(h) Rights-of-Way.--
(1) Road rights-of-way.--
(A) In general.--In accordance with the Pueblo having given
its consent in the Settlement Agreement, the Secretary of the
Interior shall grant to the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico,
in perpetuity, the following irrevocable rights-of-way for
roads identified on the map in order to provide for public
access to the subdivisions, the special use permit land and
facilities, the other leasehold and easement rights and
interests of the Sandia Peak Tram Company and its affiliates,
the Sandia Heights South Subdivision, and the Area--
(i) a right-of-way for Tramway Road;
(ii) a right-of-way for Juniper Hill Road North;
(iii) a right-of-way for Juniper Hill Road South;
(iv) a right-of-way for Sandia Heights Road; and
(v) a right-of-way for Juan Tabo Canyon Road (Forest Road
No. 333).
(B) Conditions.--The road rights-of-way shall be subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Such rights-of-way may not be expanded or otherwise
modified without the Pueblo's written consent, but road
maintenance to the rights-of-way shall not be subject to
Pueblo consent.
(ii) The rights-of-way shall not authorize uses for any
purpose other than roads without the Pueblo's written
consent.
(iii) Except as provided in the Settlement Agreement,
existing rights-of-way or leasehold interests and obligations
held by the Sandia Peak Tram Company and its affiliates,
shall be preserved, protected, and unaffected by this title.
(2) Utility rights-of-way.--In accordance with the Pueblo
having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement, the
Secretary of the Interior shall grant irrevocable utility
rights-of-way in perpetuity across Pueblo land to appropriate
utility or other service providers serving Sandia Heights
Addition, Sandia Heights North Units I, II, and 3, the
special use permit land, Tierra Monte, and Valley View Acres,
including rights-of-way for natural gas, power, water,
telecommunications, and cable television services. Such
rights-of-way shall be within existing utility corridors as
depicted on the map or, for certain water lines, as described
in the existing grant of easement to the Sandia Peak Utility
Company; provided that use of water line easements outside
the utility corridors depicted on the map shall not be used
for utility purposes other than water lines and associated
facilities. Except where above-ground facilities already
exist, all new utility facilities shall be installed
underground unless the Pueblo agrees otherwise. To the extent
that enlargement of existing utility corridors is required
for any technologically-advanced telecommunication,
television, or utility services, the Pueblo shall not
unreasonably withhold agreement to a reasonable enlargement
of the easements described above.
(3) Forest service rights-of-way.--In accordance with the
Pueblo having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement,
the Secretary of the Interior shall grant to the Forest
Service the following irrevocable rights-of-way in perpetuity
for Forest Service trails crossing land of the Pueblo in
order to provide for public access to the Area and through
Pueblo land--
(A) a right-of-way for a portion of the Crest Spur Trail
(Trail No. 84), crossing a portion of the La Luz tract, as
identified on the map;
(B) a right-of-way for the extension of the Foothills Trail
(Trail No. 365A), as identified on the map; and
(C) a right-of-way for that portion of the Piedra Lisa
North-South Trail (Trail No. 135) crossing the Piedra Lisa
tract.
SEC. __10. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Except for the rights and interests in and
to the Area specifically recognized in sections __04, __05,
__07, __08, and __09, all Pueblo claims to right, title and
interest of any kind, including aboriginal claims, in and to
land within the Area, any part thereof, and property
interests therein, as well as related boundary, survey,
trespass, and monetary damage claims, are permanently
extinguished. The United States' title to the Area is
confirmed.
(b) Subdivisions.--Any Pueblo claims to right, title and
interest of any kind, including aboriginal claims, in and to
the subdivisions and property interests therein (except for
land owned in fee by the Pueblo as of the date of enactment
of this Act), as well as related boundary, survey, trespass,
and monetary damage claims, are permanently extinguished.
(c) Special Use and Crest Facilities Areas.--Any Pueblo
right, title and interest of any kind, including aboriginal
claims, and related boundary, survey, trespass, and monetary
damage claims, are permanently extinguished in and to--
(1) the land described in the special use permit; and
(2) the land on which the crest facilities are located.
(d) Pueblo Agreement.--As provided in the Settlement
Agreement, the Pueblo has agreed to the relinquishment and
extinguishment of those claims, rights, titles and interests
extinguished pursuant to subsection (a), (b) and (c).
(e) Consideration.--The recognition of the Pueblo's rights
and interests in this title constitutes adequate
consideration for the Pueblo's agreement to the
extinguishment of the Pueblo's claims in this section and the
right-of-way grants contained in section __09, and it is the
intent of Congress that those rights and interests may only
be diminished by a future Act of Congress specifically
authorizing diminishment of such rights, with express
reference to this title.
SEC. __11. CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Strict Construction.--This title recognizes only
enumerated rights and interests, and no additional rights,
interests, obligations, or duties shall be created by
implication.
(b) Existing Rights.--To the extent there exist within the
Area as of the date of enactment of this Act any valid
private property rights associated with private land that are
not otherwise addressed in this title, such rights are not
modified or otherwise affected by this title, nor is the
exercise of any such right subject to the Pueblo's right to
withhold consent to new uses in the Area as set forth in
section __05(a)(3)(A).
(c) Not Precedent.--The provisions of this title creating
certain rights and interests in the National Forest System
are uniquely suited to resolve the Pueblo's claim and the
geographic and societal situation involved, and shall not be
construed as precedent for any other situation involving
management of the National Forest System.
(d) Fish and Wildlife.--Except as provided in section
__08(b)(2)(B), nothing in this title shall be construed as
affecting the responsibilities of the State of New Mexico
with respect to fish and wildlife, including the regulation
of hunting, fishing, or trapping within the Area.
(e) Federal Land Policy and Management Act.--Section 316 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1746) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Any
corrections authorized by this section which affect the
boundaries of, or jurisdiction over, land administered by
another Federal agency shall be made only after consultation
with, and the approval of, the head of such other agency.''
SEC. __12. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Enforcement.--A civil action to enforce the provisions
of this title may be brought to the extent permitted under
chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Judicial review
shall be based on the administrative record and subject to
the applicable standard of review set forth in section 706 of
title 5, United States Code.
(b) Waiver.--A civil action may be brought against the
Pueblo for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief under
this title, but no money damages, including costs or
attorney's fees, may be imposed on the Pueblo as a result of
such judicial action.
(c) Venue.--Venue for any civil action provided for in this
section, as well as any civil action to contest the
constitutionality of this title, shall lie only in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
[[Page 1526]]
SEC. __13. PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONTRIBUTIONS AND LAND
EXCHANGE.
(a) Contributions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may accept contributions
from the Pueblo, or from other persons or governmental
entities--
(A) to perform and complete a survey of the Area; or
(B) to carry out any other project or activity for the
benefit of the Area in accordance with this title.
(2) Deadline.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
survey of the Area under paragraph (1)(A).
(b) Land Exchange.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, after consultation with the Pueblo,
the Secretary shall, in accordance with applicable laws,
prepare and offer a land exchange of National Forest land
outside the Area and contiguous to the northern boundary of
the Pueblo's Reservation within sections 10, 11, and 14 of
T12N, R4E, N.M.P.M., Sandoval County, New Mexico excluding
wilderness land, for land owned by the Pueblo in the
Evergreen Hills subdivision in Sandoval County contiguous to
National Forest land, and the La Luz tract in Bernalillo
County.
(2) Acceptance of payment.--Notwithstanding section 206(b)
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)), the Secretary may either make or accept a cash
equalization payment in excess of 25 percent of the total
value of the land or interests transferred out of Federal
ownership.
(3) Funds received.--Any funds received by the Secretary as
a result of the exchange shall be deposited in the fund
established under the Act of December 4, 1967, known as the
Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. 484a), and shall be available to purchase
non-Federal land within or adjacent to the National Forests
in the State of New Mexico.
(4) Treatment of land exchanged or conveyed.--All land
exchanged or conveyed to the Pueblo is declared to be held in
trust for the Pueblo by the United States and added to the
Pueblo's Reservation subject to all existing and outstanding
rights and shall remain in its natural state and shall not be
subject to commercial development of any kind. Land exchanged
or conveyed to the Forest Service shall be subject to all
limitations on use pertaining to the Area under this title.
(5) Failure to make offer.--If the land exchange offer is
not made by the date that is 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Resources of the United
States House of Representatives, a report explaining the
reasons for the failure to make the offer including an
assessment of the need for any additional legislation that
may be necessary for the exchange. If additional legislation
is not necessary, the Secretary, consistent with this
section, should proceed with the exchange pursuant to
existing law.
(c) Land Acquisition and Other Compensation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land owned by
the Pueblo within the Evergreen Hills Subdivision in Sandoval
County or any other privately held land inside of the
exterior boundaries of the Area. The boundaries of the Cibola
National Forest and the Area shall be adjusted to encompass
any land acquired pursuant to this section.
(2) Piedra lisa tract.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall compensate the Pueblo for
the fair market value of--
(A) the right-of-way established pursuant to section
__09(h)(3)(C); and
(B) the conservation easement established by the
limitations on use of the Piedra Lisa tract pursuant to
section __09(b)(2).
(d) Reimbursement of Certain Costs.--
(1) In general.--The Pueblo, the County of Bernalillo, New
Mexico, and any person that owns or has owned property inside
of the exterior boundaries of the Area as designated on the
map, and who has incurred actual and direct costs as a result
of participating in the case of Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt,
Civ. No. 94-2624 HHG (D.D.C.), or other proceedings directly
related to resolving the issues litigated in that case, may
apply for reimbursement in accordance with this section.
Costs directly related to such participation which shall
qualify for reimbursement shall be--
(A) dues or payments to a homeowner association for the
purpose of legal representation; and
(B) legal fees and related expenses.
(2) Treatment of reimbursement.--Any reimbursement provided
in this subsection shall be in lieu of that which might
otherwise be available pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (24 U.S.C. 2412).
(3) Payments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make
reimbursement payments as provided in this section out of any
money not otherwise appropriated.
(4) Applications.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, applications for reimbursement
shall be filed with the Department of the Treasury, Financial
Management Service, Washington, D.C.
(5) Maximum reimbursement.--
(A) In general.--No party shall be reimbursed in excess of
$750,000 under this section, and the total amount reimbursed
in accordance with this section shall not exceed $3,000,000.
(B) Offset.--The percentage amount of each rescission
provided for under section 601 of division N shall be
increased by such percentage amount as is necessary to
rescind an amount of funds equal to the total amount
reimbursed under this section.
SEC. __14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title, including such sums as are
necessary for the Forest Service to carry out
responsibilities of the Forest Service in accordance with
section __13(c).
SEC. __15. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this title shall take effect immediately
on enactment of this Act.
______
SA 158. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 547, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
TITLE __--T'UF SHUR BIEN PRESERVATION TRUST AREA
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``T'uf Shur Bien
Preservation Trust Area Act''.
SEC. __02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in 1748, the Pueblo of Sandia received a grant from a
representative of the King of Spain, which grant was
recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858 (11 Stat. 374);
and
(2) in 1994, the Pueblo filed a civil action against the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
(Civil No. 1:94CV02624), asserting that Federal surveys of
the grant boundaries erroneously excluded certain land within
the Cibola National Forest, including a portion of the Sandia
Mountain Wilderness.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to establish the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area
in the Cibola National Forest;
(2) to confirm the status of national forest land and
wilderness land in the Area while resolving issues associated
with the civil action referred to in subsection (a)(2) and
the opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior dated December 9, 1988 (M-36963; 96 I.D. 331) and
January 19, 2001 (M-37002); and
(3) to provide the Pueblo, the parties to the civil action,
and the public with a fair and just settlement of the
Pueblo's claim.
SEC. __03. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Area'' means the T'uf Shur Bien
Preservation Trust Area, comprised of approximately 9890
acres of land in the Cibola National Forest, as depicted on
the map.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``Area'' does not include--
(i) the subdivisions;
(ii) Pueblo-owned land;
(iii) the crest facilities; or
(iv) the special use permit area.
(2) Crest facilities.--The term ``crest facilities''
means--
(A) all facilities and developments located on the crest of
Sandia Mountain, including the Sandia Crest Electronic Site;
(B) electronic site access roads;
(C) the Crest House;
(D) the upper terminal, restaurant, and related facilities
of Sandia Peak Tram Company;
(E) the Crest Observation Area;
(F) parking lots;
(G) restrooms;
(H) the Crest Trail (Trail No. 130);
(I) hang glider launch sites;
(J) the Kiwanis cabin; and
(K) the land on which the facilities described in
subparagraphs (A) through (J) are located and the land
extending 100 feet along terrain to the west of each such
facility, unless a different distance is agreed to in writing
by the Secretary and the Pueblo and documented in the survey
of the Area.
(3) Existing use.--The term ``existing use'' means a use
that--
(A) is occurring in the Area as of the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(B) is authorized in the Area after November 1, 1995, but
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) La luz tract.--The term ``La Luz tract'' means the
tract comprised of approximately 31 acres of land owned in
fee by the Pueblo and depicted on the map.
(5) Local public body.--The term ``local public body''
means a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico (as
defined in New Mexico Code 6-5-1).
(6) Map.--The term ``map'' means the Forest Service map
entitled ``T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area'' and dated
April 2000.
(7) Modified use.--
[[Page 1527]]
(A) In general.--The term ``modified use'' means an
existing use that, at any time after the date of enactment of
this Act, is modified or reconfigured but not significantly
expanded.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``modified use'' includes--
(i) a trail or trailhead being modified, such as to
accommodate handicapped access;
(ii) a parking area being reconfigured (but not expanded);
and
(iii) a special use authorization for a group recreation
use being authorized for a different use area or time period.
(8) New use.--
(A) In general.--The term ``new use'' means--
(i) a use that is not occurring in the Area as of the date
of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) an existing use that is being modified so as to be
significantly expanded or altered in scope, dimension, or
impact on the land, water, air, or wildlife resources of the
Area.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``new use'' does not include a
use that--
(i) is categorically excluded from documentation
requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); or
(ii) is carried out to comply with the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(9) Piedra lisa tract.--The term ``Piedra Lisa tract''
means the tract comprised of approximately 160 acres of land
owned by the Pueblo and depicted on the map.
(10) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Pueblo of
Sandia in its governmental capacity.
(11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(12) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
dated April 4, 2000, among the United States, the Pueblo, and
the Sandia Peak Tram Company.
(13) Special use permit.--The term ``special use permit''
means the Special Use Permit issued December 1, 1993, by the
Secretary to Sandia Peak Tram Company and Sandia Peak Ski
Company
(14) Special use permit area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``special use permit area'' means
the land and facilities subject to the special use permit.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``special use permit area''
includes--
(i) approximately 46 acres of land used as an aerial
tramway corridor;
(ii) approximately 945 acres of land used as a ski area;
and
(iii) the land and facilities described in Exhibit A to the
special use permit, including--
(I) the maintenance road to the lower tram tower;
(II) water storage and water distribution facilities; and
(III) 7 helispots.
(15) Subdivision.--The term ``subdivision'' means--
(A) the subdivision of--
(i) Sandia Heights Addition;
(ii) Sandia Heights North Unit I, II, or 3;
(iii) Tierra Monte;
(iv) Valley View Acres; or
(v) Evergreen Hills; and
(B) any additional plat or privately-owned property
depicted on the map.
(16) Traditional or cultural use.--The term ``traditional
or cultural use'' means--
(A) a ceremonial activity (including the placing of
ceremonial materials in the Area); and
(B) the use, hunting, trapping, or gathering of plants,
animals, wood, water, and other natural resources for a
noncommercial purpose.
SEC. __04. T'UF SHUR BIEN PRESERVATION TRUST AREA.
(a) Establishment.--The T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust
Area is established within the Cibola National Forest and the
Sandia Mountain Wilderness as depicted on the map--
(1) to recognize and protect in perpetuity the rights and
interests of the Pueblo in and to the Area, as specified in
section __05(a);
(2) to preserve in perpetuity the national forest and
wilderness character of the Area; and
(3) to recognize and protect in perpetuity the longstanding
use and enjoyment of the Area by the public.
(b) Administration and Applicable Law.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall continue to administer
the Area as part of the National Forest System subject to and
consistent with the provisions of this title affecting
management of the Area.
(2) Traditional or cultural uses.--Traditional or cultural
uses by Pueblo members and members of other federally-
recognized Indian tribes authorized to use the Area by the
Pueblo under section __05(a)(4) shall not be restricted
except by--
(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) (including
regulations promulgated under that Act) as in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) applicable Federal wildlife protection laws, as
provided in section __06(a)(2).
(3) Later enactments.--To the extent that any law enacted
or amended after the date of enactment of this Act is
inconsistent with this title, the law shall not apply to the
Area unless expressly made applicable by Congress.
(4) Trust.--The use of the word ``Trust'' in the name of
the Area--
(A) is in recognition of the specific rights and interests
of the Pueblo in the Area; and
(B) does not confer on the Pueblo the ownership interest
that exists in a case in which the Secretary of the Interior
accepts the title to land held in trust for the benefit of an
Indian tribe.
(c) Map.--
(1) Filing.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file the map and a
legal description of the Area with the Committee on Resources
of the House of Representatives and with the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
(2) Public availability.--The map and legal description
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the
Office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Washington,
District of Columbia.
(3) Effect.--The map and legal description filed under
paragraph (1) shall have the same effect as if the map and
legal description were included in this title, except that--
(A) technical and typographical errors shall be corrected;
(B) changes that may be necessary under subsection (b),
(d), or (e) of section __09 or subsection (b) or (c) of
section __13 shall be made; and
(C) to the extent that the map and the language of this
title conflict, the language of this title shall control.
(d) No Conveyance of Title.--No right, title, or interest
of the United States in or to the Area or any part of the
Area shall be conveyed to or exchanged with any person,
trust, or governmental entity, including the Pueblo, without
specific authorization of Congress.
(e) Prohibited Uses.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(A) no use prohibited by the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131
et seq.) as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be
permitted in the wilderness portion of the Area; and
(B) none of the following uses shall be permitted in any
portion of the Area:
(i) Gaming or gambling.
(ii) Mineral production.
(iii) Timber production.
(iv) Any new use to which the Pueblo objects under section
__05(a)(3).
(2) Mining claims.--The Area is closed to the location of
mining claims under section 2320 of the Revised Statutes (30
U.S.C. 23) (commonly known as the ``Mining Law of 1872'').
(f) No Modification of Boundaries.--Establishment of the
Area shall not--
(1) affect the boundaries of or repeal or disestablish the
Sandia Mountain Wilderness or the Cibola National Forest; or
(2) modify the existing boundary of the Pueblo grant.
SEC. __05. PUEBLO RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE AREA.
(a) In General.--The Pueblo shall have the following rights
and interests in the Area:
(1) Free and unrestricted access to the Area for
traditional or cultural uses, to the extent that those uses
are not inconsistent with--
(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) (including
regulations promulgated under that Act) as in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) applicable Federal wildlife protection laws as provided
in section __06(a)(2).
(2) Perpetual preservation of the national forest and
wilderness character of the Area under this title.
(3) Rights in the management of the Area as specified in
section __07, including--
(A) the right to consent or withhold consent to a new use;
(B) the right to consultation regarding a modified use;
(C) the right to consultation regarding the management and
preservation of the Area; and
(D) the right to dispute resolution procedures.
(4) Exclusive authority, in accordance with the customs and
laws of the Pueblo, to administer access to the Area for
traditional or cultural uses by members of the Pueblo and of
other federally-recognized Indian tribes.
(5) Such other rights and interests as are recognized in
sections __04, __05(c), __07, __08, and __09.
(b) Access.-- Except as provided in subsection (a)(4),
access to and use of the Area for all other purposes shall
continue to be administered by the Secretary.
(c) Compensable Interest.--
(1) In general.--If, by an Act of Congress enacted after
the date of enactment of this Act, Congress diminishes the
national forest or wilderness designation of the Area by
authorizing a use prohibited by section __04(e) in all or any
portion of the Area, or denies the Pueblo access for any
traditional or cultural use in all or any portion of the
Area--
(A) the United States shall compensate the Pueblo as if the
Pueblo held a fee title interest in the affected portion of
the Area and as though the United States had acquired such an
interest by legislative exercise of the power of eminent
domain; and
[[Page 1528]]
(B) the restrictions of sections __04(e) and __06(a) shall
be disregarded in determining just compensation owed to the
Pueblo.
(2) Effect.--Any compensation made to the Pueblo under
paragraph (c) shall not affect the extinguishment of claims
under section __10.
SEC. __06. LIMITATIONS ON PUEBLO RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE
AREA.
(a) Limitations.--The rights and interests of the Pueblo
recognized in this title do not include--
(1) any right to sell, grant, lease, convey, encumber, or
exchange land or any interest in land in the Area (and any
such conveyance shall not have validity in law or equity);
(2) any exemption from applicable Federal wildlife
protection laws;
(3) any right to engage in a use prohibited by section
__04(e); or
(4) any right to exclude persons or governmental entities
from the Area.
(b) Exception.--No person who exercises traditional or
cultural use rights as authorized by section __05(a)(4) may
be prosecuted for a Federal wildlife offense requiring proof
of a violation of a State law (including regulations).
SEC. __07. MANAGEMENT OF THE AREA.
(a) Process.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Pueblo not less than twice each year, unless otherwise
mutually agreed, concerning protection, preservation, and
management of the Area (including proposed new uses and
modified uses in the Area and authorizations that are
anticipated during the next 6 months and were approved in the
preceding 6 months).
(2) New uses.--
(A) Request for consent after consultation.--
(i) Denial of consent.--If the Pueblo denies consent for a
new use within 30 days after completion of the consultation
process, the Secretary shall not proceed with the new use.
(ii) Granting of consent.--If the Pueblo consents to the
new use in writing or fails to respond within 30 days after
completion of the consultation process, the Secretary may
proceed with the notice and comment process and the
environmental analysis.
(B) Final request for consent.--
(i) Request.--Before the Secretary (or a designee) signs a
record of decision or decision notice for a proposed new use,
the Secretary shall again request the consent of the Pueblo.
(ii) Denial of consent.--If the Pueblo denies consent for a
new use within 30 days after receipt by the Pueblo of the
proposed record of decision or decision notice, the new use
shall not be authorized.
(iii) Failure to respond.--If the Pueblo fails to respond
to the consent request within 30 days after receipt of the
proposed record of decision or decision notice--
(I) the Pueblo shall be deemed to have consented to the
proposed record of decision or decision notice; and
(II) the Secretary may proceed to issue the final record of
decision or decision notice.
(3) Public involvement.--
(A) In general.--With respect to a proposed new use or
modified use, the public shall be provided notice of--
(i) the purpose and need for the proposed new use or
modified use;
(ii) the role of the Pueblo in the decisionmaking process;
and
(iii) the position of the Pueblo on the proposal.
(B) Court challenge.--Any person may bring a civil action
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico to challenge a determination by the Secretary
concerning whether a use constitutes a new use or a modified
use.
(b) Emergencies and Emergency Closure Orders.--
(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall retain the authority of
the Secretary to manage emergency situations, to--
(A) provide for public safety; and
(B) issue emergency closure orders in the Area subject to
applicable law.
(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall notify the Pueblo
regarding emergencies, public safety issues, and emergency
closure orders as soon as practicable.
(3) No consent.--An action of the Secretary described in
paragraph (1) shall not require the consent of the Pueblo.
(c) Disputes Involving Forest Service Management and Pueblo
Traditional Uses.--
(1) In general.--In a case in which the management of the
Area by the Secretary conflicts with a traditional or
cultural use, if the conflict does not pertain to a new use
subject to the process specified in subsection (a)(2), the
process for dispute resolution specified in this subsection
shall apply.
(2) Dispute resolution process.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a conflict described in
paragraph (1)--
(i) the party identifying the conflict shall notify the
other party in writing addressed to the Governor of the
Pueblo or the Regional Forester, as appropriate, specifying
the nature of the dispute; and
(ii) the Governor of the Pueblo or the Regional Forester
shall attempt to resolve the dispute for a period of at least
30 days after notice has been provided before bringing a
civil action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico.
(B) Disputes requiring immediate resolution.--In the case
of a conflict that requires immediate resolution to avoid
imminent, substantial, and irreparable harm--
(i) the party identifying the conflict shall notify the
other party and seek to resolve the dispute within 3 days of
the date of notification; and
(ii) if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute
within 3 days--
(I) either party may bring a civil action for immediate
relief in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico; and
(II) the procedural requirements specified in subparagraph
(A) shall not apply.
SEC. __08. JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA.
(a) Criminal Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Area shall be
allocated as provided in this paragraph.
(2) Jurisdiction of the pueblo.--The Pueblo shall have
jurisdiction over an offense committed by a member of the
Pueblo or of another federally-recognized Indian tribe who is
present in the Area with the permission of the Pueblo under
section __05(a)(4).
(3) Jurisdiction of the united states.--The United States
shall have jurisdiction over--
(A) an offense described in section 1153 of title 18,
United States Code, committed by a member of the Pueblo or
another federally-recognized Indian tribe;
(B) an offense committed by any person in violation of the
laws (including regulations) pertaining to the protection and
management of national forests;
(C) enforcement of Federal criminal laws of general
applicability; and
(D) any other offense committed by a member of the Pueblo
against a person not a member of the Pueblo.
(4) Jurisdiction of the state of new mexico.--The State of
New Mexico shall have jurisdiction over an offense under the
law of the State committed by a person not a member of the
Pueblo.
(5) Overlapping jurisdiction.--To the extent that the
respective allocations of jurisdiction over the Area under
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) overlap, the governments shall
have concurrent jurisdiction.
(6) Federal use of state law.--Under the jurisdiction of
the United States described in paragraph (3)(D), Federal law
shall incorporate any offense defined and punishable under
State law that is not so defined under Federal law.
(b) Civil Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the United States, the State of New Mexico, and local
public bodies shall have the same civil adjudicatory,
regulatory, and taxing jurisdiction over the Area as was
exercised by those entities on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Jurisdiction of the pueblo.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall have exclusive civil
adjudicatory jurisdiction over--
(i) a dispute involving only members of the Pueblo;
(ii) a civil action brought by the Pueblo against a member
of the Pueblo; and
(iii) a civil action brought by the Pueblo against a member
of another federally-recognized Indian tribe for a violation
of an understanding between the Pueblo and the other tribe
regarding use of or access to the Area for traditional or
cultural uses.
(B) Regulatory jurisdiction.--The Pueblo shall have no
regulatory jurisdiction over the Area, except that the Pueblo
shall have exclusive authority to--
(i) regulate traditional or cultural uses by the members of
the Pueblo and administer access to the Area by other
federally-recognized Indian tribes for traditional or
cultural uses, to the extent such regulation is consistent
with this title; and
(ii) regulate hunting and trapping in the Area by members
of the Pueblo, to the extent that the hunting or trapping is
related to traditional or cultural uses, except that such
hunting and trapping outside of that portion of the Area in
sections 13, 14, 23, 24, and the northeast quarter of section
25 of T12N, R4E, and section 19 of T12N, R5E, N.M.P.M.,
Sandoval County, New Mexico, shall be regulated by the Pueblo
in a manner consistent with the regulations of the State of
New Mexico concerning types of weapons and proximity of
hunting and trapping to trails and residences.
(C) Taxing jurisdiction.--The Pueblo shall have no
authority to impose taxes within the Area.
(3) State and local taxing jurisdiction.--The State of New
Mexico and local public bodies shall have no authority within
the Area to tax the uses or the property of the Pueblo,
members of the Pueblo, or members of other federally-
recognized Indian tribes authorized to use the Area under
section __05(a)(4).
SEC. __09. SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS.
(a) Subdivisions.--
(1) In general.--The subdivisions are excluded from the
Area.
(2) Jurisdiction.--
[[Page 1529]]
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall have no civil or criminal
jurisdiction for any purpose, including adjudicatory, taxing,
zoning, regulatory or any other form of jurisdiction, over
the subdivisions and property interests therein, and the laws
of the Pueblo shall not apply to the subdivisions.
(B) State jurisdiction.--The jurisdiction of the State of
New Mexico and local public bodies over the subdivisions and
property interests therein shall continue in effect, except
that on application of the Pueblo a tract comprised of
approximately 35 contiguous, nonsubdivided acres in the
northern section of Evergreen Hills owned in fee by the
Pueblo at the time of enactment of this Act, shall be
transferred to the United States and held in trust for the
Pueblo by the United States and administered by the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Limitations on trust land.--Trust land described in
paragraph (2)(B) shall be subject to all limitations on use
pertaining to the Area contained in this title.
(b) Piedra Lisa.--
(1) In general.--The Piedra Lisa tract is excluded from the
Area.
(2) Declaration of trust title.--The Piedra Lisa tract--
(A) shall be transferred to the United States;
(B) is declared to be held in trust for the Pueblo by the
United States; and
(C) shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior
subject to all limitations on use pertaining to the Area
contained in this title.
(3) Applicability of certain restriction.--The restriction
contained in section __06(a)(4) shall not apply outside of
Forest Service System trails.
(c) Crest Facilities.--
(1) In general.--The land on which the crest facilities are
located is excluded from the Area.
(2) Jurisdiction.--The Pueblo shall have no civil or
criminal jurisdiction for any purpose, including
adjudicatory, taxing, zoning, regulatory or any other form of
jurisdiction, over the land on which the crest facilities are
located and property interests therein, and the laws of the
Pueblo, shall not apply to that land. The preexisting
jurisdictional status of that land shall continue in effect.
(d) Special Use Permit Area.--
(1) In general.--The land described in the special use
permit is excluded from the Area.
(2) Jurisdiction.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall have no civil or criminal
jurisdiction for any purpose, including adjudicatory, taxing,
zoning, regulatory, or any other form of jurisdiction, over
the land described in the special use permit, and the laws of
the Pueblo shall not apply to that land.
(B) Preexisting status.--The preexisting jurisdictional
status of that land shall continue in effect.
(3) Amendment to plan.--In the event the special use
permit, during its existing term or any future terms or
extensions, requires amendment to include other land in the
Area necessary to realign the existing or any future
replacement tram line, associated structures, or facilities,
the land subject to that amendment shall thereafter be
excluded from the Area and shall have the same status under
this title as the land currently described in the special use
permit.
(4) Land dedicated to aerial tramway and related uses.--Any
land dedicated to aerial tramway and related uses and
associated facilities that are excluded from the special use
permit through expiration, termination or the amendment
process shall thereafter be included in the Area, but only
after final agency action no longer subject to any appeals.
(e) La Luz Tract.--
(1) In general.--The La Luz tract now owned in fee by the
Pueblo is excluded from the Area and, on application by the
Pueblo, shall be transferred to the United States and held in
trust for the Pueblo by the United States and administered by
the Secretary of the Interior subject to all limitations on
use pertaining to the Area contained in this title.
(2) Nonapplicability of certain restriction.--The
restriction contained in section __06(a)(4) shall not apply
outside of Forest Service System trails.
(f) Evergreen Hills Access.--The Secretary shall ensure
that Forest Service Road 333D, as depicted on the map, is
maintained in an adequate condition in accordance with
section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3210(a)).
(g) Pueblo Fee Land.--Those properties not specifically
addressed in subsections (a) or (e) that are owned in fee by
the Pueblo within the subdivisions are excluded from the Area
and shall be subject to the jurisdictional provisions of
subsection (a).
(h) Rights-of-Way.--
(1) Road rights-of-way.--
(A) In general.--In accordance with the Pueblo having given
its consent in the Settlement Agreement, the Secretary of the
Interior shall grant to the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico,
in perpetuity, the following irrevocable rights-of-way for
roads identified on the map in order to provide for public
access to the subdivisions, the special use permit land and
facilities, the other leasehold and easement rights and
interests of the Sandia Peak Tram Company and its affiliates,
the Sandia Heights South Subdivision, and the Area--
(i) a right-of-way for Tramway Road;
(ii) a right-of-way for Juniper Hill Road North;
(iii) a right-of-way for Juniper Hill Road South;
(iv) a right-of-way for Sandia Heights Road; and
(v) a right-of-way for Juan Tabo Canyon Road (Forest Road
No. 333).
(B) Conditions.--The road rights-of-way shall be subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Such rights-of-way may not be expanded or otherwise
modified without the Pueblo's written consent, but road
maintenance to the rights-of-way shall not be subject to
Pueblo consent.
(ii) The rights-of-way shall not authorize uses for any
purpose other than roads without the Pueblo's written
consent.
(iii) Except as provided in the Settlement Agreement,
existing rights-of-way or leasehold interests and obligations
held by the Sandia Peak Tram Company and its affiliates,
shall be preserved, protected, and unaffected by this title.
(2) Utility rights-of-way.--In accordance with the Pueblo
having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement, the
Secretary of the Interior shall grant irrevocable utility
rights-of-way in perpetuity across Pueblo land to appropriate
utility or other service providers serving Sandia Heights
Addition, Sandia Heights North Units I, II, and 3, the
special use permit land, Tierra Monte, and Valley View Acres,
including rights-of-way for natural gas, power, water,
telecommunications, and cable television services. Such
rights-of-way shall be within existing utility corridors as
depicted on the map or, for certain water lines, as described
in the existing grant of easement to the Sandia Peak Utility
Company; provided that use of water line easements outside
the utility corridors depicted on the map shall not be used
for utility purposes other than water lines and associated
facilities. Except where above-ground facilities already
exist, all new utility facilities shall be installed
underground unless the Pueblo agrees otherwise. To the extent
that enlargement of existing utility corridors is required
for any technologically-advanced telecommunication,
television, or utility services, the Pueblo shall not
unreasonably withhold agreement to a reasonable enlargement
of the easements described above.
(3) Forest service rights-of-way.--In accordance with the
Pueblo having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement,
the Secretary of the Interior shall grant to the Forest
Service the following irrevocable rights-of-way in perpetuity
for Forest Service trails crossing land of the Pueblo in
order to provide for public access to the Area and through
Pueblo land--
(A) a right-of-way for a portion of the Crest Spur Trail
(Trail No. 84), crossing a portion of the La Luz tract, as
identified on the map;
(B) a right-of-way for the extension of the Foothills Trail
(Trail No. 365A), as identified on the map; and
(C) a right-of-way for that portion of the Piedra Lisa
North-South Trail (Trail No. 135) crossing the Piedra Lisa
tract.
SEC. __10. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Except for the rights and interests in and
to the Area specifically recognized in sections __04, __05,
__07, __08, and __09, all Pueblo claims to right, title and
interest of any kind, including aboriginal claims, in and to
land within the Area, any part thereof, and property
interests therein, as well as related boundary, survey,
trespass, and monetary damage claims, are permanently
extinguished. The United States' title to the Area is
confirmed.
(b) Subdivisions.--Any Pueblo claims to right, title and
interest of any kind, including aboriginal claims, in and to
the subdivisions and property interests therein (except for
land owned in fee by the Pueblo as of the date of enactment
of this Act), as well as related boundary, survey, trespass,
and monetary damage claims, are permanently extinguished.
(c) Special Use and Crest Facilities Areas.--Any Pueblo
right, title and interest of any kind, including aboriginal
claims, and related boundary, survey, trespass, and monetary
damage claims, are permanently extinguished in and to--
(1) the land described in the special use permit; and
(2) the land on which the crest facilities are located.
(d) Pueblo Agreement.--As provided in the Settlement
Agreement, the Pueblo has agreed to the relinquishment and
extinguishment of those claims, rights, titles and interests
extinguished pursuant to subsection (a), (b) and (c).
(e) Consideration.--The recognition of the Pueblo's rights
and interests in this title constitutes adequate
consideration for the Pueblo's agreement to the
extinguishment of the Pueblo's claims in this section and the
right-of-way grants contained in section __09, and it is the
intent of Congress that those rights and interests may only
be diminished by a future Act of Congress specifically
authorizing diminishment of such rights, with express
reference to this title.
[[Page 1530]]
SEC. __11. CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Strict Construction.--This title recognizes only
enumerated rights and interests, and no additional rights,
interests, obligations, or duties shall be created by
implication.
(b) Existing Rights.--To the extent there exist within the
Area as of the date of enactment of this Act any valid
private property rights associated with private land that are
not otherwise addressed in this title, such rights are not
modified or otherwise affected by this title, nor is the
exercise of any such right subject to the Pueblo's right to
withhold consent to new uses in the Area as set forth in
section __05(a)(3)(A).
(c) Not Precedent.--The provisions of this title creating
certain rights and interests in the National Forest System
are uniquely suited to resolve the Pueblo's claim and the
geographic and societal situation involved, and shall not be
construed as precedent for any other situation involving
management of the National Forest System.
(d) Fish and Wildlife.--Except as provided in section
__08(b)(2)(B), nothing in this title shall be construed as
affecting the responsibilities of the State of New Mexico
with respect to fish and wildlife, including the regulation
of hunting, fishing, or trapping within the Area.
(e) Federal Land Policy and Management Act.--Section 316 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1746) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Any
corrections authorized by this section which affect the
boundaries of, or jurisdiction over, land administered by
another Federal agency shall be made only after consultation
with, and the approval of, the head of such other agency.''
SEC. __12. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Enforcement.--A civil action to enforce the provisions
of this title may be brought to the extent permitted under
chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Judicial review
shall be based on the administrative record and subject to
the applicable standard of review set forth in section 706 of
title 5, United States Code.
(b) Waiver.--A civil action may be brought against the
Pueblo for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief under
this title, but no money damages, including costs or
attorney's fees, may be imposed on the Pueblo as a result of
such judicial action.
(c) Venue.--Venue for any civil action provided for in this
section, as well as any civil action to contest the
constitutionality of this title, shall lie only in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
SEC. __13. PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONTRIBUTIONS AND LAND
EXCHANGE.
(a) Contributions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may accept contributions
from the Pueblo, or from other persons or governmental
entities--
(A) to perform and complete a survey of the Area; or
(B) to carry out any other project or activity for the
benefit of the Area in accordance with this title.
(2) Deadline.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
survey of the Area under paragraph (1)(A).
(b) Land Exchange.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, after consultation with the Pueblo,
the Secretary shall, in accordance with applicable laws,
prepare and offer a land exchange of National Forest land
outside the Area and contiguous to the northern boundary of
the Pueblo's Reservation within sections 10, 11, and 14 of
T12N, R4E, N.M.P.M., Sandoval County, New Mexico excluding
wilderness land, for land owned by the Pueblo in the
Evergreen Hills subdivision in Sandoval County contiguous to
National Forest land, and the La Luz tract in Bernalillo
County.
(2) Acceptance of payment.--Notwithstanding section 206(b)
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)), the Secretary may either make or accept a cash
equalization payment in excess of 25 percent of the total
value of the land or interests transferred out of Federal
ownership.
(3) Funds received.--Any funds received by the Secretary as
a result of the exchange shall be deposited in the fund
established under the Act of December 4, 1967, known as the
Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. 484a), and shall be available to purchase
non-Federal land within or adjacent to the National Forests
in the State of New Mexico.
(4) Treatment of land exchanged or conveyed.--All land
exchanged or conveyed to the Pueblo is declared to be held in
trust for the Pueblo by the United States and added to the
Pueblo's Reservation subject to all existing and outstanding
rights and shall remain in its natural state and shall not be
subject to commercial development of any kind. Land exchanged
or conveyed to the Forest Service shall be subject to all
limitations on use pertaining to the Area under this title.
(5) Failure to make offer.--If the land exchange offer is
not made by the date that is 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Resources of the United
States House of Representatives, a report explaining the
reasons for the failure to make the offer including an
assessment of the need for any additional legislation that
may be necessary for the exchange. If additional legislation
is not necessary, the Secretary, consistent with this
section, should proceed with the exchange pursuant to
existing law.
(c) Land Acquisition and Other Compensation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land owned by
the Pueblo within the Evergreen Hills Subdivision in Sandoval
County or any other privately held land inside of the
exterior boundaries of the Area. The boundaries of the Cibola
National Forest and the Area shall be adjusted to encompass
any land acquired pursuant to this section.
(2) Piedra lisa tract.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall compensate the Pueblo for
the fair market value of--
(A) the right-of-way established pursuant to section
__09(h)(3)(C); and
(B) the conservation easement established by the
limitations on use of the Piedra Lisa tract pursuant to
section __09(b)(2).
(d) Reimbursement of Certain Costs.--
(1) In general.--The Pueblo, the County of Bernalillo, New
Mexico, and any person that owns or has owned property inside
of the exterior boundaries of the Area as designated on the
map, and who has incurred actual and direct costs as a result
of participating in the case of Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt,
Civ. No. 94-2624 HHG (D.D.C.), or other proceedings directly
related to resolving the issues litigated in that case, may
apply for reimbursement in accordance with this section.
Costs directly related to such participation which shall
qualify for reimbursement shall be--
(A) dues or payments to a homeowner association for the
purpose of legal representation; and
(B) legal fees and related expenses.
(2) Treatment of reimbursement.--Any reimbursement provided
in this subsection shall be in lieu of that which might
otherwise be available pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (24 U.S.C. 2412).
(3) Payments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make
reimbursement payments as provided in this section out of any
money not otherwise appropriated as provided in advance in
appropriations acts.
(4) Applications.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, applications for reimbursement
shall be filed with the Department of the Treasury, Financial
Management Service, Washington, D.C.
(5) Maximum reimbursement.--
(A) In general.--No party shall be reimbursed in excess of
$750,000 under this section, and the total amount reimbursed
in accordance with this section shall not exceed $3,000,000.
SEC. __14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title, including such sums as are
necessary for the Forest Service to carry out
responsibilities of the Forest Service in accordance with
section __13(c).
SEC. __15. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this title shall take effect immediately
on enactment of this Act.
______
SA 159 Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 237, at the end of line 15, insert the following:
``Such amount shall be made available as a direct lump sum
payment to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board (hereinafter
`Board') which is hereby established to award grants to
market, develop, and promote Alaska seafood and improve
related technology and transportation with emphasis on wild
salmon, of which 20 percent shall be transferred to the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. The Board shall be
transferred to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. The
Board shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and
shall be administered by an Executive Director to be
appointed by the Secretary. The Board shall submit an annual
report to the Secretary detailing the expenditures of the
board.''
______
SA 160. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:
On page 183, line 25, insert the following after
``contributions.'': ``Such amounts shall be subject only to
conditions and requirements required by the Maritime
Administration.''
______
SA 161. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for
[[Page 1531]]
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 295 at the end of line 24 insert the following new
section:
``Sec. 3XX. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be used to defer, deobligate, withdraw to
headquarters, reserve for contemplated future rescissions, or
otherwise adversely affect the planned and continuing
expenditure of funds previously made available for Cerro
Grande Fire Activities in P.L. 106-246 and P.L. 106-377.
______
SA 162. Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Dole)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
On page 335, line 10, before the period at the end of the
line insert the following: ``Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this heading may be made available for a
headquarters contribution to the International Committee of
the Red Cross only if the Secretary of State determines (and
so reports to the appropriate committees of Congress) that
the Magen David Adom Society of Israel is not being denied
participation in the activities of the International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement''.
______
SA 163. Mr. FITZGERALD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 741.
______
SA 164. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. 641. MODIFICATION OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN
PLANS.
(a) Funding Rules for Certain Plans.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, the minimum funding rules under
paragraph (2) shall apply for any plan year beginning after
December 31, 2002, in the case of a defined benefit plan
which--
(A) was established by an air carrier which was granted a
conditional loan guarantee by the Air Transport Stabilization
Board on July 10, 2002, and which filed for protection under
chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, on August 11,
2002, and
(B) is maintained for the benefit of such carrier's
employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
(2) Special funding rule.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a plan described in
paragraph (1), the minimum funding requirements under this
paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury
Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-3 (as in effect on the date of
the enactment of this section).
(B) Rules of special application.--In applying the
requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-3 for
purposes of paragraph (1)--
(i) the plan shall be treated as having met the
requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-
3(a)(2),
(ii) the payment schedules shall be determined--
(I) by using the maximum amortization period permitted
under section 1.412(c)(1)-3, and
(II) on the basis of the actuarial valuation of the accrued
liability and the current liability of the plan as of January
1, 2003, less the actuarial value of the plan assets on that
date,
(iii) the payments under a restoration payment schedule
shall be made in level amounts over the payment period, and
(iv) the actuarial value of assets shall be the fair market
value of such assets as of January 1, 2003, with prospective
investment returns in excess of or less than the assumed
return phased in over 5 years.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2002.
______
SA 165. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 641, line 10, insert ``President Pro Tempore
emeritus, $7,500;'' before ``Chairmen of the Majority and
Minority Conference Committees''.
On page 641, line 13, strike ``$120,000'' and insert
``$127,500''.
On page 641, line 22, strike ``$116,891,000'' and insert
``$117,041,000''.
On page 642, between lines 3 and 4, insert:
office of the president pro tempore emeritus
For the Office of the President Pro Tempore emeritus,
$150,000.
On page 645, line 2, strike ``$18,513,000'' and insert
``$18,355,500''.
On page 650, between lines 23 and 24, insert:
SEC. 8. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE EMERITUS OF THE
SENATE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Office of the
President pro tempore emeritus of the Senate.
(b) Designation.--Any Member of the Senate who--
(1) is designated by the Senate as the President pro
tempore emeritus of the United States Senate; and
(2) is serving as a Member of the Senate,
shall be the President pro tempore emeritus of the United
States Senate.
(c) Appointment and Compensation of Employees.--The
President pro tempore emeritus is authorized to appoint and
fix the compensation of such employees as the President pro
tempore emeritus determines appropriate.
(d) Expense Allowance.--There is authorized an expense
allowance for the President pro tempore emeritus which shall
not exceed $7,500 each fiscal year. The President pro tempore
emeritus may receive the expense allowance (1) as
reimbursement for actual expenses incurred upon certification
and documentation of such expenses by the President pro
tempore emeritus, or (2) in equal monthly payments. Such
amounts paid to the President pro tempore emeritus as
reimbursement of actual expenses incurred upon certification
and documentation under this subsection, shall not be
reported as income, and the expenses so reimbursed shall not
be allowed as a deduction under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act and shall apply only with
respect to the 108th Congress.
______
SA 166. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 713, strike line 23 and all that follows through
page 714, line 3, and insert the following:
Sec. 209. United States-China Economic and Security Review
Commission.
(a) Appropriations.--There are appropriated, out of any
funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1,800,000,
to remain available until expended, to the United States-
China Economic and Security Review Commission.
(b) Name Change.--
(1) In general.--Section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002)
is amended--
(A) in the section heading by inserting ``ECONOMIC AND''
before ``SECURITY'';
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security'';
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Economic
and'' before ``Security'';
(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security'';
(iii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``Economic and'' before ''Security''; and
(II) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``Economic and''
before ``Security''; and
(iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security'' each place it appears; and
(D) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security'';
(ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security'';
(iii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) in the first sentence, by inserting ``Economic and''
before ``Security''; and
(II) in the second sentence, by inserting ``Economic and''
before ``Security'';
(iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security''; and
(v) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``Economic and'' before
``Security'' each place it appears.
(2) References.--Any reference in any Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or relating to the United
States-China Security Review Commission shall be deemed to
refer to the United States-China Economic and Security Review
Commission.
(c) Membership and Terms.--
(1) In general.--Section 1238(b)(3) of the Floyd D. Spencer
National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002)
is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``12 members'' and inserting ``8 members''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the
following:
[[Page 1532]]
``(F) each appointing authority referred to under
subparagraphs (A) through (D) of this paragraph shall--
``(i) appoint 2 members to the Commission;
``(ii) make the 2 appointments with respect to the 108th
Congress on a staggered term basis, such that--
``(I) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on
December 31, 2003; and
``(II) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on
December 31, 2004;
``(iii) make all appointments with respect to the 109th
Congress, and each subsequent Congress, on an approximate 2-
year term basis to expire on December 31 of the applicable
year; and
``(iv) make appointments not later than 30 days after the
date on which each new Congress convenes;''.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 167. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . TREATMENT OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND
INTEREST.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any interest credited to the fund established by section
401 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(30 U.S.C. 1231) shall be transferred to the Combined Fund
identified in section 402(h)(2) of such Act (30 U.S.C.
1232(h)(2)), up to such amount as is estimated by the
trustees of such Combined Fund to offset the amount of any
deficit in net assets in the Combined Fund.
(b) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--Except as provided in
subsection (a), no principal amounts in or credited to the
fund established by section 401 of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231) may be
transferred to the Combine Fund identified in section
402(h)(2) of such Act (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)).
(c) Limitation.--This section shall cease to have any force
and effect after September 30, 2004.
______
SA 168. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
public health and social services emergency fund
For additional amounts for grants to state and local health
departments to support activities related to immunizing first
responders against smallpox, $850,000,000: Proivded, That
this amount is transferred to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
______
SA 169. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the joint resolution insert the
following:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$363,000,000, to remain available until expended, only for
the Entry Exit System, to be managed by the Justice
Management Division: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated in this Act, or in Public Law 107-117, for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's Entry Exist System
may be obligated until the INS submits a plan for expenditure
that: (1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11, part 3; (2) complies
with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and
systems acquisition management practices of the Federal
Government; (3) is reviewed by the General Accounting Office;
and (4) has been approved by the Committees on
Appropriations: Proivded further, That funds provided under
this heading shall only be available for obligation and
expenditure in accordance with the procedures applicable to
reprogramming notifications set forth in section 605 of
Public Law 107-77.
______
SA 170. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the joint resolution insert the
following:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security administration
weapons activities
For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' for
emergency expenses, $150,000,000: Provided, That $25,000,000
of the funds provided shall be available for secure
transportation asset activities: Provided further, That
$35,000,000 shall be available for construction and
renovation activities at the National Center for Combating
Terrorism: Provided further, That $90,000,000 of the funds
provided shall be available to meet increased safeguard and
security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex,
including at least $25,000,000 for cyber security.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Other Defense Activities
For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities''
for emergency expenses needed to conduct critical
infrastructure assessments at critical energy supply
facilities nationwide, $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That $25,000,000 of the funds made
available shall be provided to the National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center: Provided further, That
$25,000,000 of the funds made available shall be provided to
the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
______
SA 171. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the joint resolution insert the
following:
DIVISION __--HOMELAND SECURITY
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Security Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For additional amounts for necessary expenses of the
Transportation Security Administration related to
transportation security services pursuant to Public Law 107-
71, $620,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2004, of which $500,000,000 shall be available for port
security grants for the purpose of implementing the
provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and
$120,000,000 shall be available for Operation Safe Commerce.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
United States Customs Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$47,000,000 for the Container Security Initiative.
______
SA 172. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Ms. Snowe) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 397, line 12, delete all after ``Fund'', through
``opportunities'' on line 17, and insert in lieu thereof:
not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for programs
to support women's development in Afghanistan, including
girl's and women's education, health, legal and social
rights, economic opportunities, and political participation:
Provided further, That of the funds provided in the previous
proviso, $5,000,000 shall be made available to support
activities directed by Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs
including the establishment of women's resource centers
throughout Afghanistan, and not less than $1,500,000 should
be made available to support activities of the National Human
Rights Commission of Afghanistan: Provided further, That one
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of State shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees that details women's development
programs in Afghanistan supported by the United States
Government, and barriers that impede he development of women
in Afghanistan.
______
SA 173. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 59, line 14, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, the amount, excluding the amount
of user fees appropriated, that is appropriated for devices
and radiological products under the salaries and expenses
account of the Food and Drug Administration is increased to
$205,720,000: Provided further, That amounts made available
under this Act for the administrative and related expenses
for departmental management for the Department of
[[Page 1533]]
Health and Human Services shall be reduced on pro rata basis
by the amount necessary to increase such amount to
$205,720,000''.
______
SA 174. Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Sense of Congress on Pay Parity.--It is the sense
of Congress that there should be parity between the
adjustments in the compensation of members of the uniformed
services and the adjustments in the compensation of civilian
employees of the United States, including blue collar Federal
employees paid under the Federal Wage system.
______
SA 175. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 93, line 1, strike ``$3,927,587,000'' and insert
``$4,202,587,000 (which amount shall not be subject to
reduction by any other provision of this Act, including
section 601)''.
On page 99, line 17, strike ``$1,368,415,000'' and insert
``$1,827,715,000 (which amount shall not be subject to
reduction by any other provision of this Act, including
section 601)''.
On page 105, line 19, before the period, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, including section 601, the total
amount appropriated under this heading for the Weed and Seed
Program Fund shall not be reduced''.
On page 106, line 12, before the period, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, including section 601, the total
amount appropriated under this heading for Community Oriented
Policing Services shall not be reduced''.
On page 111, line 20, before the period, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, including section 601, the total
amount appropriated under this heading for the Juvenile
Justice Programs shall not be reduced''.
______
SA 176. Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Reid, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Leahy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 898, before the period at the end of line 21,
insert the following: ``: Provided, further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the Veterans
Health Administration for medical care is $23,889,304,000''.
______
SA 177. Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Cantwell, and
Mrs. Clinton) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title II of division G, insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act to carry out programs and
activities under title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.), there are appropriated an
additional--
(1) $33,500,000 to carry out part A of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.);
(2) $32,400,000 to carry out part B of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-21 et seq.);
(3) $62,000,000 to carry out State AIDS Drug Assistance
Programs under section 2616 of such title XXVI (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26);
(4) $8,300,000 to carry out part C of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-51 et seq.);
(5) $15,000,000 to carry out part D of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-71 et seq.);
(6) $9,705,000 to carry out section 2692(a) of such title
XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(a)); and
(7) $3,500,000 to carry out section 2692(b) of such title
XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(b)).
(b) Reduction in Administrative Accounts.--Amounts made
available under this Act for the administrative and related
expenses for departmental management for the Department of
Health and Human Services shall be reduced on pro rata basis
by $164,405,000.
______
SA. 178. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr.
Leahy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations
for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec.__. In addition to amounts appropriated by this Act
under the heading ``Public Law 480 Title II Grants'', there
is appropriated, out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $600,000,000 for assistance for emergency
relief activities: Provided, That the amount appropriated
under this section shall remain available through September
30, 2004.
______
SA 179. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows;
On page 29 line 11 strike the period and insert the
following:
: Provided,
(a) Whereas, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is a
Government owned and operated entity that was created to
stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices;
(b) Whereas, CCC was incorporated on October 17, 1933,
under a Delaware charter. On July 1, 1939, CCC was
transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). It was reincorporated on July 1, 1948, as a Federal
corporation within USDA by the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act (62 Stat. 1070; 15 U.S.C. 174);
(c) Whereas, the mission of the CCC has expanded over time:
(1) Pursuant to section 2701 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171), the officer and
directors of CCC have a responsibility to use the funds,
facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out the conservation reserve program
(CRP); the wetlands reserve program (WRP); the conservation
security program (CSP); the grassland reserve program (GRP);
the environmental quality incentives program (EQIP); and the
wildlife habitat incentives program (WHIP), including the
provision of technical assistance; and
(2) Pursuant to section 1601 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) the officers and
directors of CCC have a responsibility to use the funds,
facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out Title I of the Act;
(d) Whereas, CCC is managed by a Board of Directors,
subject to the general supervision and direction of the
Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and
chairperson of the Board. The Board consists of seven
members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by
the President of the United States by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. All members of the Board and
Corporation officers are USDA officials;
(e) Whereas, CCC has in the past requested other agencies
to assist it in the conduct of its business and reimbursed
them for their administrative expenses under the authority
granted to it by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act. For
example:
(1) CCC's price support, storage, and reserve programs, and
its domestic acquisition and disposal activities have been
carried out primarily through the personnel and facilities of
the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
(2) The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) occasionally
uses CCC authority to acquire various commodities for
domestic and foreign food assistance programs.
(3) Export sales and foreign assistance disposal of CCC-
controlled stocks have been administered through the General
Sales Manager of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
(4) The Natural Resources Conservation Service has
administered several conservation programs under the auspices
of CCC;
(f) Whereas, in 1996 section 11 of the CCC Charter Act was
amended to limit reimbursements by CCC to other agencies in
the performance of any part or all of the functions of the
CCC;
(g) Whereas, section 10 of the CCC Charter Act mandates
that the Secretary appoint such officers and employees of the
CCC as may be necessary for the conduct of business of the
Corporation. Expenditures of the Corporation under this
section are not subject to the section 11 cap on
reimbursements to other agencies;
(h) The Secretary is directed to exercise her authority
under section 10 of the CCC Charter Act and appoint such
officers and employees of the CCC as may be necessary for the
conduct of business of the Corporation if the Secretary
determines that the total amount of funds available under
section 11 of the CCC Charter Act are not sufficient to allow
other agencies to carry out the functions of the CCC.
[[Page 1534]]
______
SA 180. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1027, strike line 6 and all that follows through
page 1032, line 8.
______
SA 181. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``No funds
appropriated under this Act may be used in a manner
inconsistent with Executive Orders 12873, 13101, 13123,
13148, 13149, and 13221.''
______
SA 182. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 59, line 14, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That an additional
$7,866,000 shall be appropriated for the Food and Drug
Administration and shall be made available for the review of
medical devices, and such amount shall be in addition to any
other amounts appropriated in this Act for such activities:
Provided further, that amounts made available under this Act
for the administrative and related expenses for departmental
management of the Department of Agriculture shall be reduced
on pro rata basis by $7,866,000''.
______
SA 183. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 59, line 14, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That an additional
$7,866,000 shall be appropriated for the Food and Drug
Administration and shall be made available for the review of
medical devices, and such amount shall be in addition to any
other amounts appropriated in this Act for such activities:
Provided further, that amounts made available under this Act
for the administrative and related expenses for departmental
management for the Department of Health and Human Services
shall be reduced on pro rata basis by $7,866,000''.
______
SA 184. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 59, line 14, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That an additional
$13,603,766 shall be appropriated for the Food and Drug
Administration and shall be made available for the review of
medical devices, and such amount shall be in addition to any
other amounts appropriated in this Act for such activities:
Provided further, that amounts made available under this Act
for the administrative and related expenses for departmental
management of the Department of Agriculture shall be reduced
on pro rata basis by $13,603,766''.
______
SA 185. Mr. BOND submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations by the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 988, after line 23, insert the following provision:
``The Environmental Protection Agency is directed to submit
a report no later that February 15, 2004 on the practices and
procedures by which States develop separate emission
standards, including standards for nonroad engines or
vehicles, as compared to the development by Environmental
Protection Agency of national emission standards under the
Clean Air Act. This report shall include an assessment of the
procedures, practices, standards and requirements used by
States as opposed to those used by Environmental Protection
Agency, including how States and the Environmental Protection
Agency take into account technological feasibility, economic
feasibility, impact on the economy, costs, safety, noise and
energy factors associated in the development of these
standards.''.
______
SA 186. Mr. BOND submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. 1__. MISSOURI RIVER.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service--
(1) to require the Corps of Engineers to implement a steady
release flow schedule for the Missouri River; or
(2) to prevent the Corps of Engineers from relocating bird
nests along the Missouri River.
______
SA 187. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 308, line 10, strike ``supports or'' and ``the
management of a program of''
On page 347, line 4, after the colon, insert:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this
heading, not less than $35,000,000 shall be made available
for the United Nations Populations Fund:
On page 347, line 7, strike ``if'' and insert in lieu
thereof:
unless
On page 347, line 8, strike ``no longer supports or''
On page 347, line 9, strike ``the management of a program
of''
On page 365, line 4, before the period insert the
following:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under title
II of this Act, not less than $435,000,000 shall be made
available for family planning/reproductive health''
On page 424, line 13, insert the following new section:
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
Sec. 585. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,
regulation, or policy, in determining eligibility for
assistance authorized under part I or the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, foreign private organizations shall be subject
to only those requirements relating to the use of non-United
States Government funds for advocacy and lobbying activities
that apply to United States private organizations receiving
assistance under part I of such Act.
______
SA 188. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 589, line 17, strike ``$8,648,884,000'' and insert
``$8,848,884,000''.
On page 589, line 23, strike ``$6,667,533,000'' and insert
``$6,867,533,000''.
______
SA 189. Mr. INOUYE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. NEW ELECTRIC UTILITY ENTITIES SERVING EXTREMELY
HIGH-COST COMMUNITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 19 of the Rural Electrification
Act of 193 (7 U.S.C. 918a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Acquisition by Consumer-Owned Entities of Assets of
an Electric Utility.--A consumer-owned entity that acquires
the assets of an electric utility providing electricity to
residential customers at a rate exceeding 18 cents per
kilowatt hour shall be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a) for the purposes of--
``(1) paying any transaction, transition, or other
organizational costs associated with the acquisition; and
``(2) if the Secretary determines that relocation and
refurbishment of any generation asset of the electric utility
will enhance efforts to reduce overall electric costs in the
community served, paying the costs of relocation and
refurbishment.''.
(b) Applicability of Amendment.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) applies to a consumer-owned entity that
acquires the assets of an electric utility on or after the
date that is 2 years before the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
SA 190. Mrs. BOXER. (for herself and Mr. Dorgan) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
203, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
[[Page 1535]]
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . SALARIES.
No funds shall be used to pay any federal employee or any
employee, member or chairperson of any federal commission,
board, committee, or council an annual salary in excess of
the annual salary of the President of the United States.
______
SA 191. Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 1051, line 7, strike ``access.'' and insert
``access; and
``(3) $3,000,000 shall be made available to the oyster
industry in the State of Louisiana for economic assistance to
the oyster fishery affected by Hurricane Isidore, and
Hurricane Lili: Provided, That such funds may be used only
for (A) personal assistance with priority given to food,
energy needs, housing assistance, transportation fuel, and
other urgent needs; (B) assistance for small businesses
including oystermen, oyster processors, and related
businesses serving the oyster industry; (C) domestic product
marketing and seafood promotion; and (D) State seafood
testing programs.
______
SA 192. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kennedy)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
On page 982, strike lines 21 through 25 and insert the
following:
per project; $1,500,000,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 517(a) of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
499; 100 Stat. 1613),
______
SA 193. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 260, line 9, before the colon, insert the
following: ``, and that the Corps of Engineers shall bear
full responsibility for correcting any design deficiencies of
Waterbury Dam''.
______
SA 194. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 120, line 12, strike ``$257,886,000'' and insert
``$317,213,000''.
______
SA 195. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title III of Division G, insert the
following:
SEC. __. FULLY FUNDING IDEA.
(a) Fully Funding IDEA.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the total amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2003 (out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2003) to carry out part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, other than section 619 of such
Act, shall be the greater of--
(1) $19,204,246,000; or
(2) the amount necessary to fully fund 40 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure for programs under part B of
such Act, other than section 619 of such Act.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to
subsection (a) shall remain available through September 30,
2004.
(c) Across-the-Board Rescission.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, funds provided under subsection (a)
shall not result in a further across-the-board rescission
under section 601 of Division N.
______
SA. 196. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with
respect to any State that is operating under a waiver
described in section 415(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 615(a)) which would otherwise expire on a date that
occurs during the period that begins on September 30, 2002
(or in the case of New Hampshire, March 31, 2002), and ends
on September 30, 2003, the State may elect to continue to
operate under that waiver, on the same terms and conditions
as applied to the waiver on the day before such date, through
September 30, 2003.
______
SA. 197. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Schumer) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 1014, between lines 13 and 14, insert the
following:
SEC. 4__. REGULATIONS TO CONTROL HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FROM MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE FUELS.
Not later than July 1, 2004, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate final
regulations to control hazardous air pollutants from motor
vehicles and motor vehicle fuels, as provided for in section
80.1045 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act).
______
SA. 198. Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Schumer) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 1014, between lines 13 and 14, insert the
following:
SEC. 4__. NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM.
Not later than February 15, 2003, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of Justice shall each satisfy all information
requests relating to the new source review program under
section 111 and parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7411, 7470 et seq.) made in 2001 or 2002--
(1) by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the
Committee on the Judiciary, or the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, or a member of
any of those Committees; or
(2) by the General Accounting Office on behalf of any of
those Committees or a member of any of those Committees;
through the provision of copies of the requested documents,
analyses, electronic mail, or document logs to the requesting
Committee or member or to the General Accounting Office.
______
SA 199. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 257, on line 15, strike ``that action.'' and insert
``that action, except that this limitation on attorneys' fees
paid by the District of Columbia shall not apply if the
plaintiff is a child who is (a) from a family with an annual
income of less than $17,600; or (b) from a family where one
of the parents or guardians is a disabled veteran; or (c)
where the child has been adjudicated as neglected,
delinquent, in need of supervision, abused, or is a ward of
the District of Columbia; or (d) from a family where one of
the parents or guardians is on active duty with the Armed
Services of the United States or the National Guard; or (e)
from a family for which the primary custodian is over the age
of 65; or (f) from a family where one of the parents or
guardians is a firefighter or law enforcement officer.''
______
SA 200. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Before the period at the end of the undesignated paragraph
under the heading ``International Military Education and
Training'', insert the following: ``Provided further, That
funds made available under this heading for Indonesian
military personnel shall be available only for ``Expanded
International Military Education and Training'' assistance,
unless the President determines and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that the Government of
Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are (1)
demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to
combat international terrorism, including United States
interdiction
[[Page 1536]]
efforts against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations,
and taking effective measures to bring to justice those
responsible for the October 13, 2002, terrorist attack on
Bali, which killed United States citizens, and (2) taking
effective measures, including cooperating with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, to bring to justice any member of
the Indonesian Armed Forces or Indonesian militia group
against whom there is credible evidence of involvement in the
August 31, 2002, attack, which resulted in the deaths of
United States citizens, and in other gross violations of
human rights: Provided further, That nothing in the preceding
proviso prohibits the United States from conducting ongoing
contacts and training with the Indonesian Armed Forces,
including sales of nonlethal defense articles,
counterterrorism training, officer visits, port visits,
educational exchanges, or Expanded International Military
Educational and Training for military officers and
civilians''.
______
SA 201. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 450, line 2 strike ``restoration:'' and insert the
following:
``restoration; and with the funds provided in this title, the
Secretary shall release a plan for assisting states, federal
agencies and tribes in managing chronic wasting disease in
wild and captive cervids within 90 days of enactment of this
Act.''.
______
SA 202. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 443, line 3, strike ``projects:'' and insert the
following:
``projects; and of which $500,000 of the funds provided to
the National Park Service for resource stewardship activities
is for work with the U.S. Geological Survey to refine a
chronic wasting disease test for use on live cervids.''.
______
SA 203. Mr. ALLEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Of the $10 million available for the Challenge Grant
Program, not more than $3 million shall be made available for
Communities In Schools, Inc.
______
SA 204. Mr. COCHRAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 1032, strike line 21 and all that follows
through page 1042, line 7, and insert the following:
TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Agricultural Assistance
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Covered commodity.--The term ``covered commodity'' has
the meaning given the term in section 1001 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7901).
(2) Disaster county.--The term ``disaster county'' means a
county included in the geographic area covered by a
qualifying natural disaster declaration, excluding a
contiguous county.
(3) Eligible noninsurable commodity.--The term ``eligible
noninsurable commodity'' means an eligible crop for which the
producers on a farm are eligible to obtain assistance under
section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333).
(4) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity''
means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock)
produced in an area that is eligible for coverage under a
policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(5) Qualifying natural disaster declaration.--The term
``qualifying natural disaster declaration'' means--
(A) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary under
section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)); or
(B) a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 203. SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECT PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make payments to
producers on a farm if--
(1)(A) the farm is located in a disaster county declared
during calendar year 2001 or 2002; or
(B) the producers on the farm have incurred qualifying crop
losses with respect to the 2001 or 2002 crop of a covered
commodity or peanuts due to damaging weather or related
condition, as determined by the Secretary using the same loss
thresholds for the quantity and quality losses as were used
in administering section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114
Stat. 1549, 1549A-55); and
(2) the producers on the farm are eligible for direct
payments for the 2002 crop of a covered commodity or peanuts
under sections 1103 and 1303, respectively, of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913,
7953).
(b) Amount.--The amount of the payment made to the
producers on a farm under this section shall be equal to 42
percent of the amount of the direct payment the producers on
the farm are eligible to receive for the 2002 crop under
sections 1103 and 1303, respectively, of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913, 7953).
(c) Crop Insurance.--As a condition of the receipt of a
payment under this section--
(1) in the case of an insurable commodity, the producers on
the farm shall enter into a contract with the Secretary under
which the producers on the farm agree--
(A) to obtain at least catastrophic risk protection
coverage for each insurable commodity produced on the farm
for each of the next 2 crop years for which crop insurance is
available under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) on violation of the contract, to repay to the Secretary
any payment received under this section; and
(2) in the case of an eligible noninsurable commodity, the
producers on the farm shall enter into a contract with the
Secretary under which the producers on the farm agree--
(A) to file the required paperwork, and pay the
administrative fee by the applicable State filing deadline,
for each eligible noninsurable commodity produced on the farm
for each of the next 2 crop or calendar years (as applicable)
under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333), as determined by the
Secretary; and
(B) on violation of the contract, to repay to the Secretary
any payment received under this section.
(d) Administration.--The total amount of payments made to a
person under this section for 1 or more covered commodities,
and the total amount of payments made to a person under this
section for peanuts, shall not exceed the dollar amounts that
are specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, of
section 1001(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308(b)).
(e) Time for Payment.--The Secretary shall make payments
under this section as soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.
(a) Livestock Assistance Program.--Subject to subsection
(c), in carrying out the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program
announced by the Secretary on October 10, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg.
63070), the Secretary shall--
(1) provide assistance to any applicant that--
(A) conducts a livestock operation that is physically
located in a county that requested a declaration as a
disaster county during the period beginning on January 1,
2001, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) meets all other eligibility requirements established by
the Secretary for the Program;
(2) provide assistance to producers of an animal described
in section 10806(a)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (21 U.S.C. 321d(a)(1)) that meet all
other eligibility requirements established by the Secretary
for the Program; and
(3) effective beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, carry out the Program using funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation.
(b) Livestock Loss Assistance Program.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(c), the Secretary shall use $250,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to establish a program under
which payments for livestock losses are made using the
criteria established to carry out the 1999 Livestock
Assistance Program to producers for losses in a disaster
county declared during calendar year 2001 or 2002.
(2) Choice of payments.--If the farm of the producers is
located in a disaster county declared during each of calendar
years 2001 and 2002, the producers on the farm may elect to
receive payments under this subsection for losses associated
with the qualifying natural disaster declaration in either
calendar year 2001 or calendar year 2002, but not both.
(c) Relationship of Livestock Assistance Programs.--
[[Page 1537]]
(1) Definition of livestock assistance program.--In this
subsection, the term ``livestock assistance program'' means--
(A) the 2002 Cattle Feed Program announced by the Secretary
on September 3, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 56260);
(B) the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program, as announced
by the Secretary on October 10, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 63070) and
modified in accordance with subsection (a); and
(C) the livestock loss assistance program established under
subsection (b).
(2) Payments.--The amount of assistance that the producers
on a farm would otherwise receive for a loss under a
livestock assistance program shall be reduced by the amount
of the assistance that the producers on the farm receive
under any other livestock assistance program.
SEC. 205. EMERGENCY SURPLUS REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall transfer $250,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to the fund established by
section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to
carry out emergency surplus removal of agricultural
commodities.
SEC. 206. SPECIALTY CROPS.
The Secretary shall use $100,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance to
producers directly or through grants to States, or take such
other action as the Secretary determines is appropriate, to
assist producers of fruits and vegetables (including nuts).
SEC. 207. TOBACCO PAYMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible person.--The term ``eligible person'' means a
person that--
(A) owns a farm for which, irrespective of temporary
transfers or undermarketings, a basic quota or allotment for
eligible tobacco is established for the 2002 crop year under
part I of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.);
(B) controls the farm from which, under the quota or
allotment for the relevant period, eligible tobacco is
marketed, could have been marketed, or can be marketed,
taking into account temporary transfers; or
(C) grows, could have grown, or can grow eligible tobacco
that is marketed, could have been marketed, or can be
marketed under the quota or allotment for the 2002 crop year,
taking into account temporary transfers.
(2) Eligible tobacco.--The term ``eligible tobacco'' means
each of the following kinds of tobacco:
(A) Flue-cured tobacco, comprising types 11, 12, 13, and
14.
(B) Fire-cured tobacco, comprising types 21, 22, and 23.
(C) Dark air-cured tobacco, comprising types 35 and 36.
(D) Virginia sun-cured tobacco, comprising type 37.
(E) Burley tobacco, comprising type 31.
(F) Cigar-filler and cigar-binder tobacco, comprising types
42, 43, 44, 54, and 55.
(b) Payments.--Not later than June 1, 2003, the Secretary
shall use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make
payments under this section.
(c) Poundage Payment Quantities.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Flue-cured and cigar tobacco.--In the case of Flue-
cured tobacco (types 11, 12, 13, and 14) and cigar-filler and
cigar-binder tobacco (types 42, 43, 44, 54, and 55), the
poundage payment quantity under this section shall equal the
number of pounds of the basic poundage quota of the kind of
tobacco, irrespective of temporary transfers or
undermarketings, under part I of subtitle B of title III of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et
seq.) for the 2002 crop year.
(B) Other kinds of eligible tobacco.--In the case of each
other kind of eligible tobacco, the poundage payment quantity
under this section shall equal--
(i) in the case of eligible persons that are owners
described in subsection (a)(1)(A), the number of pounds of
the basic poundage quota of the kind of tobacco, irrespective
of temporary transfers or undermarketings, under part I of
subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) for the 2002 crop year; and
(ii) in the case of eligible persons that are controllers
described in subsection (a)(1)(B) or growers described in
subsection (a)(1)(C), the number of pounds of effective
poundage quota of the kind of tobacco, including temporary
transfers or undermarketings, under part I of subtitle B of
title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7
U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) for the 2002 crop year.
(2) Conversion of individual allotments to poundage payment
quantities.--In the case of each kind of eligible tobacco
other than Flue-cured tobacco (types 11, 12, 13, and 14) and
Burley tobacco (type 31), individual allotments shall be
converted to poundage payment quantities by multiplying--
(A) the number of acres that may, irrespective of temporary
transfers or undermarketings, be devoted, without penalty, to
the production of the kind of tobacco under the allotment
under part I of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) for the 2002
crop year; by
(B)(i) in the case of fire-cured tobacco (type 21), 1,746
pounds per acre;
(ii) in the case of fire-cured tobacco (types 22 and 23),
2,676 pounds per acre;
(iii) in the case of dark air-cured tobacco (types 35 and
36), 2,475 pounds per acre;
(iv) in the case of Virginia sun-cured tobacco (type 37),
1,502 pounds per acre; and
(v) in the case of cigar-filler and cigar-binder tobacco
(types 42, 43, 44, 54, and 55), 2,230 pounds per acre.
(d) Available Payment Amounts.--The available payment
amount for each kind of eligible tobacco under subsection (b)
shall not exceed the amount obtained by multiplying--
(1) 5.55 cents per pound; and
(2) the national basic poundage quota for the applicable
kind.
(e) Division of Payments Among Eligible Persons.--
(1) In general.--Payments available with respect to a pound
of payment quantity, as determined under subsection (d),
shall be made available to eligible persons in accordance
with this paragraph, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Flue-cured and cigar tobacco.--In the case of payments
made available in a State under subsection (b) for Flue-cured
tobacco (types 11, 12, 13, and 14) and cigar-filler and
cigar-binder tobacco (types 42, 43, 44, 54, and 55), the
Secretary shall distribute (as determined by the Secretary)--
(A) 50 percent of the payments to eligible persons that are
owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A); and
(B) 50 percent of the payments to eligible persons that are
growers described in subsection (a)(1)(C).
(3) Other kinds of eligible tobacco.--In the case of
payments made available in a State under subsection (b) for
each other kind of eligible tobacco not covered by paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall distribute (as determined by the
Secretary)--
(A) 33\1/3\ percent of the payments to eligible persons
that are owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A);
(B) 33\1/3\ percent of the payments to eligible persons
that are controllers described in subsection (a)(1)(B); and
(C) 33\1/3\ percent of the payments to eligible persons
that are growers described in subsection (a)(1)(C).
(f) Special Rule for Georgia.--The Secretary may make
payments under this section to eligible persons in Georgia
only if the State of Georgia agrees to use $13,000,000 to
make payments at the same time, or subsequently, to the same
persons in the same manner as provided for the Federal
payments under this section, as required by section 204(b)(6)
of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C.
1421 note; Public Law 106-224).
(g) Judicial Review.--A determination by the Secretary
under this section shall not be subject to judicial review.
SEC. 208. COTTONSEED.
The Secretary shall use $50,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance to
producers and first-handlers of the 2002 crop of cottonseed.
SEC. 209. HURRICANE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--In a State in a which a qualifying natural
disaster declaration has been made during a calendar year,
the Secretary shall make available to first processors that
are eligible to obtain a loan under section 156(a) of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7272(a)) assistance in the form of payments, or
commodities in the inventory of the Commodity Credit
Corporation from carrying out that section, to partially
compensate producers and first processors for crop and other
losses that are related to the qualifying natural disaster
declaration.
(b) Administration.--Assistance under this section shall
be--
(1) shared by an affected first processor with affected
producers that provide commodities to the processor in a
manner that reflects contracts entered into between the
processor and the producers; and
(2) made available under such terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines are necessary to carry out this section.
(c) Quantity.--To carry out this section, the Secretary
shall--
(1) use 200,000 tons of commodities in the inventory of the
Commodity Credit Corporation under section 156(a) of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7272(a));
(2) make payments in an aggregate amount equal to the
market value of 200,000 tons of commodities described in
paragraph (1); or
(3) take any combination of actions described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) using commodities or payments with a total market
value of 200,000 tons of commodities described in paragraph
(1).
(d) Limitations.--The Secretary shall provide assistance
under this section only in a State described in section
359f(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7
U.S.C. 1359ff(c)(1)(A)) in which a qualifying natural
disaster declaration was made during calendar year 2002.
SEC. 210. WEATHER-RELATED LOSSES.
The Secretary shall use not more than $80,000,000 of funds
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance to
sugar beet producers that suffered production losses
(including quality losses) for the 2002 crop year, as
determined by the Secretary.
[[Page 1538]]
SEC. 211. ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS LOCATED ALONG
RIO GRANDE FOR WATER LOSSES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a grant to
the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of
Agriculture, to provide assistance to agricultural producers
in the State of Texas with farming operations along the Rio
Grande that have suffered economic losses during the 2002
crop year due to the failure of Mexico to deliver water to
the United States in accordance with the Treaty Relating to
the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers
and of the Rio Grande, and Supplementary Protocol signed
November 14, 1944, signed at Washington February 3, 1944 (59
Stat. 1219; TS 994).
(b) Amount.--The amount of assistance provided to
individual agricultural producers under this section shall be
proportional to the amount of economic losses described in
subsection (a) that were incurred by the producers.
SEC. 212. ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS LOCATED IN NEW
MEXICO FOR TEBUTHIURON APPLICATION LOSSES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$1,650,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
reimburse agricultural producers on farms located in the
vicinity of Malaga, New Mexico, for losses incurred during
calendar years 2002 and 2003 as the result of the application
by the Federal Government of tebuthiuron on land on or near
the farms of the producers during August 2002, to remain
available until expended.
(b) Amount.--The amount of assistance provided to
individual agricultural producers under this section shall be
proportional to the amount of losses described in subsection
(a) that were incurred by the producers.
SEC. 213. ADMINISTRATION.
Section 1232(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(7)(A)(iii)) is amended by inserting before
the semicolon the following: ``, except that this clause
shall not apply during the 2002 calendar year''.
SEC. 214. SENSE OF SENATE ON ASSISTANCE FOR PORK PRODUCERS
UNDER THE FEED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) weather-related disasters have caused economic distress
for United States pork producers in the form of higher feed
costs;
(2) feed assistance programs administered by the Secretary
(such as the Livestock Assistance Program established under
part 1439 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, and the
2002 Cattle Feed Program announced by the Secretary on
September 3, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 56260)), have been very
effective in--
(A) assisting cow-calf producers that have been negatively
affected by weather-related disasters; and
(B) reducing Commodity Credit Corporation-owned stocks of
powdered nonfat dry milk; and
(3) the Secretary, using authorities of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, should expand feed assistance programs
admininstered by the Secretary to include United States pork
producers that are negatively affected by weather-related
disasters.
SEC. 215. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use the funds,
facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out this title, to remain available
until expended.
(b) Administration.--The Secretary, acting through the Farm
Service Agency, may use not more than $70,000,000 of funds of
the Commodity Credit Corporation to cover administrative
costs associated with the implementation of this title and
title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(7 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.), to remain available until expended.
SEC. 216. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this title.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this title shall be made without regard
to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
______
SA 205. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. PRICE SUPPORT ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Carry Forward Adjustment.--Section 319(e) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314e(e)) is
amended in the fifth sentence--
(1) by striking ``: Provided, That'' and inserting ``,
except that (1)''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, (2) the total quantity of all adjustments
under this sentence for all farms for any crop year may not
exceed 10 percent of the national basic quota for the
preceding crop year, and (3) this sentence shall not apply to
the establishment of a marketing quota for the 2003 marketing
year''.
(b) Special Requirements.--During the period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the last day
of the 2002 marketing year for the kind of tobacco involved,
the Secretary of Agriculture may waive the application of
section 1464.2(b)(2) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.
(c) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement
this section and the amendments made by this section.
(2) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this section and the amendments made by
this section shall be made without regard to--
(A) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(B) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(C) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(3) Congressional review of agency rulemaking.--In carrying
out this subsection, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
______
SA 206. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, and Mr. DeWine) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 424, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 5__. EXTENSION OF PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING IN
THE GREAT LAKES.
Section 503 of the Energy and Water Resources Development
Approptiations Act, 2002 (115 Stat. 512), is amended by
striking ``2002 and 2003'' and inserting ``2002 through
2005''.
______
SA 207. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 547, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
TITLE __--OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Ottawa National Wildlife
Refuge Complex Expansion and Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act''.
SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) International refuge.--The term ``International
Refuge'' means the Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge established by section 5(a) of the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act (16 U.S.C.
668dd note; 115 Stat. 894).
(2) Refuge complex.--The term ``Refuge Complex'' means the
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the lands and
waters in the complex, as described in the document entitled
``The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Ottawa National
Wildlife Refuge Complex'' and dated September 22, 2000,
including--
(A) the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, established by the
Secretary in accordance with the Migratory Bird Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.);
(B) the West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge
established by Executive Order No. 7937, dated August 2,
1937; and
(C) the Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge established by
the Secretary in accordance with the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Western basin.--
(A) In general.--The term ``western basin'' means the
western basin of Lake Erie, consisting of the land and water
in the watersheds of Lake Erie extending from the watershed
of the Lower Detroit River in the State of Michigan to and
including Sandusky Bay and the watershed of Sandusky Bay in
the State of Ohio.
(B) Inclusion.--The term `western basin' includes the Bass
Island archipelago in the State of Ohio.
[[Page 1539]]
SEC. __03. EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES.
(a) Refuge Complex Boundaries.--
(1) Expansion.--The boundaries of the Refuge Complex are
expanded to include land and water in the State of Ohio from
the eastern boundary of Maumee Bay State Park to the eastern
boundary of the Darby Unit (including the Bass Island
archipelago), as depicted on the map entitled ``Ottawa
National Wildlife Refuge Complex Expansion and Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act'' and dated
September 6, 2002.
(2) Availability of map.--The map referred to in paragraph
(1) shall be available for inspection in appropriate offices
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(b) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make such
revisions of the boundaries of the Refuge Complex as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate--
(1) to facilitate the acquisition of property within the
Refuge Complex; or
(2) to carry out this title.
(c) Acquisition.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
may acquire by donation, purchase with donated or
appropriated funds, or exchange the land and water, and
interests in land and water (including conservation
easements), within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex.
(2) Consent.--No land, water, or interest in land or water
described in paragraph (1) may be acquired by the Secretary
without the consent of the owner of the land, water, or
interest.
(d) Transfers From Other Agencies.--Administrative
jurisdiction over any Federal property that is located within
the boundaries of the Refuge Complex and under the
administrative jurisdiction of an agency of the United States
other than the Department of the Interior may, with the
concurrence of the head of the administering agency, be
transferred without consideration to the Secretary for the
purpose of this title.
(e) Study of Associated Area.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall conduct
a study of fish and wildlife habitat and aquatic and
terrestrial communities in and around the 2 dredge spoil
disposal sites that are--
(A) referred to by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority
as ``Port Authority Facility Number Three'' and ``Grassy
Island'', respectively; and
(B) located within Toledo Harbor near the mouth of the
Maumee River.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) complete the study under paragraph (1); and
(B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
SEC. __04. EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL REFUGE BOUNDARIES.
The southern boundary of the International Refuge is
extended south to include additional land and water in the
State of Michigan located east of Interstate Route 75,
extending from the southern boundary of Sterling State Park
to the Ohio State boundary, as depicted on the map referred
to in section __03(a)(1).
SEC. __05. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Refuge Complex.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer all
federally owned land, water, and interests in land and water
that are located within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex
in accordance with--
(A) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.); and
(B) this title.
(2) Additional authority.--The Secretary may use such
additional statutory authority available to the Secretary for
the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the provision of
opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this
title.
(b) Additional Purposes.--In addition to the purposes of
the Refuge Complex under other laws, regulations, executive
orders, and comprehensive conservation plans, the Refuge
Complex shall be managed--
(1) to strengthen and complement existing resource
management, conservation, and education programs and
activities at the Refuge Complex in a manner consistent with
the primary purposes of the Refuge Complex--
(A) to provide major resting, feeding, and wintering
habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife; and
(B) to enhance national resource conservation and
management in the western basin;
(2) in partnership with nongovernmental and private
organizations and private individuals dedicated to habitat
enhancement, to conserve, enhance, and restore the native
aquatic and terrestrial community characteristics of the
western basin (including associated fish, wildlife, and plant
species);
(3) to facilitate partnerships among the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, Canadian national and provincial
authorities, State and local governments, local communities
in the United States and Canada, conservation organizations,
and other non-Federal entities to promote public awareness of
the resources of the western basin; and
(4) to advance the collective goals and priorities that--
(A) were established in the report entitled ``Great Lakes
Strategy 2002--A Plan for the New Millennium'', developed by
the United States Policy Committee, comprised of Federal
agencies (including the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the United States Geological Survey, the Forest Service, and
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission) and State governments and
tribal governments in the Great Lakes basin; and
(B) include the goals of cooperating to protect and restore
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem.
(c) Priority Uses.--In providing opportunities for
compatible fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, the
Secretary, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)), shall
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that hunting,
trapping, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation are the priority
public uses of the Refuge Complex.
(d) Cooperative Agreements Regarding Non-Federal Land.--To
promote public awareness of the resources of the western
basin and encourage public participation in the conservation
of those resources, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with the State of Ohio or Michigan, any political
subdivision of the State, or any person for the management,
in a manner consistent with this title, of land that--
(1) is owned by the State, political subdivision, or
person; and
(2) is located within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex.
(e) Use of Existing Greenway Authority.--The Secretary
shall encourage the State of Ohio to use authority under the
recreational trails program under section 206 of title 23,
United States Code, to provide funding for acquisition and
development of trails within the boundaries of the Refuge
Complex.
SEC. __06. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary--
(1) to acquire land and water within the Refuge Complex
under section __03(c);
(2) to carry out the study under section __03(e); and
(3) to develop, operate, and maintain the Refuge Complex.
______
SA 208. Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``SEC. . BANDON CRANBERRY WATER CONTROL DISTRICT.
``(a) Of the funds made available to the United States
Department of Agriculture for the Rural Community Advancement
Program, $250,000 shall be made available from the Rural
Community Facilities Grant Program for grants to the Bandon
Cranberry Water Control District in Coos County, Oregon, to
help meet certain debt obligations for existing water supply
projects.
``(b) The Department is further directed to work with the
Bandon Cranberry Water Control District to restructure its
remaining debt on water supply projects, in light of the
significant reduction in commodity prices experienced by the
cranberry growers in recent years.''
______
SA 209. Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2,
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``SEC. . BANDON CRANBERRY WATER CONTROL DISTRICT.
``(a) Of the funds made available to the United States
Department of Agriculture for the Rural Community Advancement
Program, $250,000 shall be made available from the Rural
Community Facilities Grant Program for grants to the Bandon
Cranberry Water Control District in Coos County, Oregon, to
help meet certain debt obligations for existing water supply
projects.''
______
SA 210. Mr. NICKLES submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 578 strike lines 15 through 19.
______
SA 211. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
[[Page 1540]]
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 772, beginning with line 24, strike through line 2
on page 773.
______
SA 212. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 745, beginning with ``account; to be available'' in
line 24, strike through line 12 on page 749, and insert
``account.''.
______
SA 213. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 731, beginning with ``the following'' in line 10,
strike through line 2 on page 735, and insert, ``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).''.
______
SA 214. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 262, beginning with ``That'' in line 2, strike
through ``State,'' in line 24, and insert ``That the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
may use up to $5,000,000 of Construction, General funding as
provided herein for construction of an emergency outlet from
Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne River except that
the funds shall not become available until completion of the
feasibility study required by Public Law 105-245, for the
continuation of which the Secretary may use $500,000 of such
funding, and except that the funds for such construction
shall not become available unless the Secretary of the Army
determines that an emergency (as defined in section 102 of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) exists with respect to the
emergency need for the outlet and reports to Congress that
the construction is technically sound, economically
justified, and environmentally acceptable and in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.): Provided further, That the economic
justification for the emergency outlet shall be prepared in
accordance with the principles and guidelines for economic
evaluation as required by regulations and procedures of the
Army Corps of Engineers for all flood control projects:
Provided further, That the economic justification be fully
described, including the analysis of the benefits and costs,
in the project plan documents: Provided further, That the
plans for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed and, to be
effective, shall contain assurances provided by the Secretary
of State, after consultation with the International Joint
Commission,''.
______
SA 215. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1052, line 5, strike ``1.6 percent'' and insert:
``0.5 percent''.
______
SA 216. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 486, line 9, insert the following:
``Sec. 136. At the end of Pub. L. No. 92-203, as amended,
insert the following new section:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 4(5)
of Pub. L. 100-497 shall include those entities defined in
section 3(g) of Pub. L. 92-203, and 25 U.S.C. sections 465
and 467 shall be applicable to such entities to carry out,
within the continental United States, the purposes of Pub. L.
100-497. For the sole purpose of carrying out the activities
permitted by Pub. L. 100-497, those entities shall be deemed
to be on the list provided for in Pub. L. 103-454 and in
carrying out these activities shall have the same powers,
authority, status and immunities as if included on that list.
The applicable Secretary, utilizing the authority provided in
section 22(f) of Pub. L. 92-203 or 1302(h) of Pub. L. 96-487
may in his or her discretion enter into a land exchange
pursuant thereto. An entity defined in section 3(g) of Pub.
L. 92-203 may apply, for a period of ten years from the date
of enactment of this section, to the Secretary of the
Interior to have title to any lands that have been or may be
acquired by the entity pursuant to section 22(f) of Pub. L.
92-203, section 1302(h) of Pub. L. 96-487, or subsections
12(b)(6) or 12(b)(7) of Pub. L. 94-204, as amended, placed in
the status described in 25 U.S.C. sections 465 and 467 to
carry out the purposes of Pub. L. 100-497, and the Secretary
shall accept title to such lands and place them into such
status forthwith, and such lands shall be deemed to have been
in such status prior to October 17, 1988.'''
______
SA 217. Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Sec. . Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. In addition to any amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act for support of Part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the following
sum is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2003, $1,500,000,000, which shall become available on
October 1, 2003, and shall remain available through September
30, 2004, academic year 2003-2004.
______
SA 218. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC 7(c) OF PL 106-143 IS AMENDED BY STRIKING ``2001'', AND
INSERTING 2004.
______
SA 219. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. __. BLACK REVOLUTIONARY WAR PATRIOTS MEMORIAL.
(a) Cost Sharing.--Public Law 99-558 (100 Stat. 3144) is
amended by striking section 2 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 2. COST SHARING.
``Up to 25 percent of the total cost of establishing the
memorial may be derived from Federal sources.''.
(b) Repeal of Duplicative Enactments.--
(1) Section 118 of Public Law 99-500 (100 Stat. 1783-266)
is repealed.
(2) Title VIII of Public Law 99-590 (100 Stat. 3339) is
repealed.
(3) Section 118 of Public Law 99-591 (100 Stat. 3341-266)
is repealed.
______
SA 220. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Specter)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . FUNDING FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) There remains a great need for after-school programs.
The Census Bureau reported that at least 8 to 15 million
children have no place to go after school is out.
(2) According to the FBI, youth are most at risk for
committing violent acts and being victims of violent crimes
between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.--after school is out and before
parents arrive home.
(3) Studies show that organized extracurricular activities,
such as after-school programs, reduce crime, drug use, and
teenage pregnancy.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that every effort should be made to--
(1) accommodate the waiting lists of children needing
access to after-school programs; and
[[Page 1541]]
(2) fund after-school programs at the level authorized in
the Leave No Child Behind Act.
______
SA 221. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1014, between lines 13 and 14, insert the
following:
SEC. . SCOPE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
used--
(1) to promulgate or implement any regulation relating to
the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) over waters of
the United States (including the proposed rulemaking
described in the notion issued on January 15, 2003 (68 Fed.
Reg. 1991 (January 15, 2003)) or any similar regulation); or
(2) to implement as a policy of the Federal Government the
holding in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001),
relating to the scope of Federal jurisdiction conferred by
Congress under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), so as to apply the holding of that case
to any factual situation other than the precise facts in that
case.
______
SA 222. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1014, between lines 13 and 14, insert the
following:
SEC. . FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
``No funds made available by this Act shall be used by the
Administration of the Environmental Protection Agency or the
Secretary of the Army Corps of Engineers to exempt any bodies
of water that are currently covered by the Clean Water Act
from the Clean Water Act.''
______
SA 223. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. . CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE OIL LEASES.
``No funds made available by this act shall be used by the
Secretary of the Interior to approve any exploration,
development, or production plan for, or application for a
permit to drill on, the 36 undeveloped leases in southern
California planning area of the outer Continental Shelf
during any period in which the leases are engaged in
settlement negotiations with the Secretary of the Interior
for the retirement of the leases.''
______
SA 224. Mr. BOND submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1014, after line 13, insert the following new
section, with the section renumbered as appropriate:
``Sec. 423. Section 214 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1980 (42. U.S.C. 1436a) is Amended by:
(1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking out ``or'' at the
end;
(2) by renumbering paragraph (7) as (8) in subsection (a);
(3) by adding after paragraph (6) in subsection (a), the
following new paragraph: ``(7) a qualified alien described in
8 U.S.C. 1641, or'';
(4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``paragraphs (1)
through (6)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (7)'';
and
(5) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by inserting ``(other than a
qualified alien as described in 8 U.S.C. 1641(c))'' after
``any alien''.''
______
SA 225. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 259, line 19, strike ``projects:'' and insert
``projects; and of which $55,000,000 shall be available for
the Southeast Louisiana project:''.
______
SA 226. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 35, line 7, strike ``$682,814,000'' and insert
``$678,814,000''.
On page 35, line 12 strike ``$86,762,000'' and insert
``$82,762,000''.
On page 43, line 7, strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert
``$34,000,000''.
On page 43, line 18, strike ``$47,498,000'' and insert
``$46,498,000''.
In Division A, at the appropriate place, insert the
following new section:
Sec. . There is hereby appropriated $6,000,000 for grants
made available in accordance with section 7412 of Public Law
107-171.''
______
SA 227. Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On Page 41, line 20, strike ``$55,956,000'' and insert
``53,956,000''.
On Page 42, line 14, strike ``$730,000,000'' and insert
``722,000,000''.
In Division A, at the appropriate place, insert the
following new section:
Sec. . There is hereby appropriated an amount sufficient
for expansion of the program described in section 18(f) of
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1769(f)) to include an additional twenty states; Provided,
That these funds should be used to include states with the
lowest program participation rates averaged over the three
previous years.
______
SA 228. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 75, strike lines 17 through 20.
______
SA 229. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 3, line 24, strike ``$133,155,000'' and insert
``$118,155,000''.
______
SA 230. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 263, beginning with ``$346,437,000,'' in line 24,
strike through line 6 on page 264 and insert ``$331,687,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
using $250,000 of the funds provided herein, is directed to
continue environmental review and project plans for the Yazoo
Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.''.
______
SA 231. Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution
H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 1047, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
Sec. 404. (a) The letter to State Medicaid Directors dated
December 20, 2002, from Dennis G. Smith, Director, Center for
Medicaid and State Operations of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (relating to placing limits on coverage of
emergency services under the medicaid program under title XIX
of the Social Security Act), shall have no force or effect
and State medicaid programs shall be administered without
regard to such letter.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or made available in
this Act may be used for payments for medicaid expenditures
directly or indirectly related to capitation payments (or
other forms of premium or risk payments) to a managed care
entity (including a primary care case manager) that does not
pay for use of emergency services by a medicaid beneficiary
enrolled with the entity that meet the prudent layperson
standard under 1932(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)(2)).
______
SA 232. Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution
H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 2003, and
[[Page 1542]]
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1047, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
Sec. 404. (a) The letter to State Medicaid Directors dated
December 20, 2002, from Dennis G. Smith, Director, Center for
Medicaid and State Operations of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (relating to placing limits on coverage of
emergency services under the medicaid program under title XIX
of the Social Security Act), shall have no force or effect
and State medicaid programs shall be administered without
regard to such letter.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or made available in
this Act may be used for payments for medicaid expenditures
directly or indirectly related to capitation payments (or
other forms of premium or risk payments) to a managed care
entity (including a primary care case manager) that does not
pay for use of emergency services by a medicaid beneficiary
enrolled with the entity that meet the prudent layperson
standard under 1932(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)(2)).
(c) None of the funds appropriated or made available in
this Act may be used to approve medicaid plan amendments,
waivers, or waiver amendments that restrict payment on behalf
of a medicaid beneficiary enrolled with a managed care entity
(including a primary care case manager) for use of emergency
services that meet the prudent layperson standard under
section 1932(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396u-2(b)(2)).
______
SA 233. Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 115, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to remove, deport, or detain an alien spouse or child of
an individual who died as a result of a September 11, 2001,
terrorist attack, unless the alien spouse or child is--
(1) inadmissible under paragraph (2) or (3) of section
212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)) or deportable under paragraph (2) or (4) of section
237(a) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)) (including any
terrorist perpetrator of a September 11, 2001, terrorist
attack against the United States); or
(2) a member of the family of a person described in
paragraph (1).
______
SA 234. Mr. CORZINE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1026, after line 22, add the following:
Sec. 111. (a) In addition to amounts appropriated in Public
Law 107-248, funds are hereby appropriated for the National
Commission To Fight Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
for fiscal year 2003 in the total amount of $3,000,000.
(b) The total amount appropriated under the heading
``Departmental offices, salaries, and expenses'' in title I
of division J of this Act is hereby reduced by $3,000,000.
______
SA 235. Mr. CORZINE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1026, after line 22, add the following:
Sec. 111. (a) In addition to amounts appropriated in Public
Law 107-248, funds are hereby appropriated for the National
Commission To Fight Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
for fiscal year 2003 in the total amount of $300,000,000.
______
SA 236. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CERTAIN FUNDS FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MANDATORY CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) conservation technical assistance provided through the
Department of Agriculture is essential to help the farmers,
ranchers, and landowners of the United States to implement
and maintain critical conservation practices;
(2) Congress provided a historic increase in mandatory
funding for voluntary conservation efforts in the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
171);
(3) in that Act, Congress provided mandatory funding
sufficient to cover all conservation technical assistance
needed to carry out conservation programs;
(4) under that Act, conservation technical assistance is
provided to carry out conservation programs;
(5) the General Accounting Office has determined that,
under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
funding for conservation technical assistance--
(A) is provided directly for conservation programs; and
(B) is not subject to the limitation specified in section
11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C.
714i); and
(6) the General Accounting Office has determined that funds
in the Conservation Operations account cannot be used to fund
conservation technical assistance for conservation programs
under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the President should provide full funding for
conservation technical assistance in order to implement
conservation programs under title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.); and
(2) the President should not use funds from the
Conservation Operations account to provide conservation
technical assistance for carrying out conservation programs
directly funded by that title.
______
SA 237. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 596, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
election reform grant program
Notwithstanding title I of division B, the appropriation
under such title of $50,000,000 to the Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice for an election reform
grant program is rescinded, the proviso relating to such
appropriation shall have no effect, and there is
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the Department of Health and Human Services
for the expenses authorized by part 2 of subtitle D of title
II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-252;
116 Stat. 1698), relating to payments to States and units of
local government to assure access for individuals with
disabilities, $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
______
SA 238. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 111, line 25, strike ``: Provided, That''
and all that follows before the period on page 112, line 4.
______
SA 239. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1032, strike lines 18 through 20, and insert the
following:
carry out the provisions of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-252; 116 Stat. 1666), to remain available
until expended.
______
SA 240. Mr. SMITH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN PATENT PROVISIONS TO
RAILROAD CARS.
Section 272 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by
adding after the period the following: ``This section shall
apply to any vehicle that is a railroad car entering and
leaving the United States on a regular basis.''.
______
SA 241. Mr. CHAFEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title III of Division G, add the following:
SEC. __. HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the
amounts appropriated under
[[Page 1543]]
this Act for programs or activities under title III of
Division G that are in excess of $54,195,685,000 that are
available for distribution to States and local educational
agencies in accordance with sections 5111 and 5112 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
(1) $1,350,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of
Education to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (Federal Pell Grants); and
(2) $150,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of
Education for programs under the Higher Education Act of
1965, other than programs under subpart 1 of part A of title
IV of such Act.
______
SA 242. Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J.Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to provide $2,900,000 of the funds
provided therein for the continuation of the shore protection
project in Dare County (Bodie Island), North Carolina, as
authorized by Section 101 (24) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.''
______
SA 243. Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. RURAL HOUSING SERVICE.
Title III of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001, is amended in the first paragraph under the heading
``rural housing insurance fund program account (including
transfer of funds)'' under the heading ``Rural Housing
Service'' (114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-19) by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That
after September 30, 2002, any funds remaining for the
demonstration program may be used, within the State in which
the demonstration program is carried out, for fiscal year
2003 and subsequent fiscal years to make grants, and to cover
the costs (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a))
of loans authorized, under section 504 of the Housing Act of
1949 (42 U.S.C. 1474)''.
______
SA 244. Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area established by subsection
(b).
(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated
by subsection (d).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area approved under
subsection (e).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of North
Carolina.
(b) Establishment.--There is established the Blue Ridge
National Heritage Area in the State.
(c) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
counties of Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson,
Jackson, McDowell, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Polk,
Rutherford, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes,
Yadkin, and Yancey in the State.
(d) Management Entity.--
(1) In general.--As a condition of the receipt of funds
made available under subsection (i)(1), the Blue Ridge
National Heritage Area Partnership shall be the management
entity for the Heritage Area.
(2) Board of directors.--The management entity shall be
governed by a board of directors composed of 9 members, of
whom--
(A) 2 members shall be appointed by AdvantageWest;
(B) 2 members shall be appointed by HandMade In America,
Inc.;
(C) 1 member shall be appointed by the Education and
Research Consortium of Western North Carolina;
(D) 1 member shall be appointed by the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians; and
(E) 3 members shall--
(i) be appointed by the Governor of the State;
(ii) reside in geographically diverse regions of the
Heritage Area;
(iii) be a representative of State or local governments or
the private sector; and
(iv) have knowledge of tourism, economic and community
development, regional planning, historic preservation,
cultural or natural resources development, regional planning,
conservation, recreational services, education, or museum
services.
(e) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the management entity shall submit to
the Secretary for approval a management plan for the Heritage
Area.
(2) Consideration of other plans and actions.--In
developing the management plan, the management entity shall--
(A) for the purpose of presenting a unified preservation
and interpretation plan, take into consideration Federal,
State, and local plans; and
(B) provide for the participation of residents, public
agencies, and private organizations in the Heritage Area.
(3) Contents.--The management plan shall--
(A) present comprehensive recommendations and strategies
for the conservation, funding, management, and development of
the Heritage Area;
(B) identify existing and potential sources of Federal and
non-Federal funding for the conservation, management, and
development of the Heritage Area; and
(C) include--
(i) an inventory of the cultural, historical, natural, and
recreational resources of the Heritage Area, including a list
of property that--
(I) relates to the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(II) should be conserved, restored, managed, developed, or
maintained because of the significance of the property;
(ii) a program of strategies and actions for the
implementation of the management plan that identifies the
roles of agencies and organizations that are involved in the
implementation of the management plan;
(iii) an interpretive and educational plan for the Heritage
Area;
(iv) a recommendation of policies for resource management
and protection that develop intergovernmental cooperative
agreements to manage and protect the cultural, historical,
natural, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area; and
(v) an analysis of ways in which Federal, State, and local
programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of
this Act.
(4) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional
funding under this Act until a management plan is submitted
to the Secretary.
(5) Approval or disapproval of management plan.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
(B) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve the
management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether the
management plan--
(i) has strong local support from landowners, business
interests, nonprofit organizations, and governments in the
Heritage Area; and
(ii) has a high potential for effective partnership
mechanisms.
(C) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a management plan under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall--
(i) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(iii) allow the management entity to submit to the
Secretary revisions to the management plan.
(D) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 60
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall approve or disapprove
the proposed revision.
(6) Amendment of approved management plan.--
(A) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a
management plan, the management entity shall periodically--
(i) review the management plan; and
(ii) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval, the
recommendation of the management entity for any amendments to
the management plan.
(B) Use of funds.--No funds made available under subsection
(i)(1) shall be used to implement any amendment proposed by
the management entity under subparagraph (A)(ii) until the
Secretary approves the amendment.
(f) Authorities and Duties of the Management Entity.--
(1) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan, the management entity may
use funds made available under subsection (i)(1) to--
(A) make loans and grants to, and enter into cooperative
agreements with, the State
[[Page 1544]]
(including a political subdivision), nonprofit organizations,
or persons;
(B) hire and compensate staff; and
(C) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(2) Duties.--In addition to developing the management plan,
the management entity shall--
(A) develop and implement the management plan while
considering the interests of diverse units of government,
businesses, private property owners, and nonprofit groups in
the Heritage Area;
(B) conduct public meetings in the Heritage Area at least
semiannually on the development and implementation of the
management plan;
(C) give priority to the implementation of actions, goals,
and strategies in the management plan, including providing
assistance to units of government, nonprofit organizations,
and persons in--
(i) carrying out the programs that protect resources in the
Heritage Area;
(ii) encouraging economic viability in the Heritage Area in
accordance with the goals of the management plan;
(iii) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(iv) developing recreational and educational opportunities
in the Heritage Area; and
(v) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the
cultural, historical, and natural resources of the Heritage
Area; and
(D) for any fiscal year for which Federal funds are
received under subsection (i)(1)--
(i) submit to the Secretary a report that describes, for
the fiscal year--
(I) the accomplishments of the management entity;
(II) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
(III) each entity to which a grant was made;
(ii) make available for audit by Congress, the Secretary,
and appropriate units of government, all records relating to
the expenditure of funds and any matching funds; and
(iii) require, for all agreements authorizing expenditure
of Federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity
make available for audit all records relating to the
expenditure of funds.
(3) Prohibition on the acquisition of real property.--The
management entity shall not use Federal funds received under
subsection (i)(1) to acquire real property or an interest in
real property.
(g) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide to the
management entity technical assistance and, subject to the
availability of appropriations, financial assistance, for use
in developing and implementing the management plan.
(2) Priority for assistance.--In providing assistance under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to actions
that facilitate--
(A) the preservation of the significant cultural,
historical, natural, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area; and
(B) the provision of educational, interpretive, and
recreational opportunities that are consistent with the
resources of the Heritage Area.
(h) Land Use Regulation.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act--
(A) grants any power of zoning or land use to the
management entity; or
(B) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or any State or local government to
regulate any use of land under any law (including
regulations).
(2) Private property.--Nothing in this Act--
(A) abridges the rights of any person with respect to
private property;
(B) affects the authority of the State or local government
with respect to private property; or
(C) imposes any additional burden on any property owner.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 shall be made available for any fiscal year.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of any activities carried out using Federal funds made
available under paragraph (1) shall be not less than 50
percent.
(j) Termination of authority.--The authority of the
Secretary to provide assistance under this Act terminates on
the date that is 15 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
SA 245. Mr. DOMENICI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On Page 1027, strike Title II of Division M in its entirety
and insert the following:
TITLE II--PRICE-ANDERSON ACT AMENDMENTS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson Amendments
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.
(a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Licensees.--Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``LICENSES'' and
inserting ``LICENSEES''; and
(2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears
and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
(b) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
Section 170d. (1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2004'' and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
(c) Indemnification of Nonprofit Educational
Institutions.--Section 170k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 2002''
each place it appears and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
(d) Effective Date.--The indemnification authority extended
by this section shall apply to nuclear incidents occurring on
or after August 1, 2002.
SEC. 203. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT.
Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210) is amended--
(1) in the second proviso of the third sentence of
subsection b.(1)--
(A) by striking ``$63,000,000'' and inserting
``$94,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$10,000,000 in any 1 year'' and inserting
``$15,000,000 in any 1 year (subject to adjustment for
inflation under subsection t.''; and
(2) in subsection t.(1)--
(A) by inserting ``total and annual'' after ``amount of the
maximum'';
(B) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the Price-
Anderson Amendments Act of 1988'' and inserting ``July 1,
2002''; and
(C) by striking ``such date of enactment'' and inserting
``July 1, 2002''.
SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT.
(a) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
Section 170d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting
the following:
(2) In an agreement of indemnification entered into under
paragraph (1), the Secretary--
``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain
financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as
the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the
contractual activity; and
``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such
liability above the amount of the financial protection
required, in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to
adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), in the
aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with the
contract and for each nuclear incident, including such legal
costs of the contractor as are approved by the Secretary.''.
(b) Contract Amendments.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is further amended by
striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) All agreements of indemnification under which the
Department of Energy (or its predecessor agencies) may be
required to indemnify any person under this section shall be
deemed to be amended, on the date of enactment of the Price-
Anderson Amendments Act of 2002, to reflect the amount of
indemnity for public liability and any applicable financial
protection required of the contractor under this
subsection.''.
``(c) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(1)(B) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the maximum amount of financial
protection required under subsection b. or''; and
(2) by striking ``paragraph (3) of subsection d., whichever
amount is more'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of subsection
d.''.
SEC. 205. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Amount of Indemnification.--Section 170 d.(5) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended
by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
(b) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(4) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by
striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
SEC. 206. REPORTS.
Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and
inserting ``August 1, 2013''.
SEC. 207. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.
Section 170 t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(t)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) The Secretary shall adjust the amount of
indemnification provided under an agreement of
indemnification under subsection d. not less than once during
each 5-year period following July 1, 2002, in accordance with
the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
since--
``(A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment under
this paragraph; or
[[Page 1545]]
``(B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 208. TREATMENT OF MODULAR REACTORS.
Section 170b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission
shall consider a combination of facilities described in
subparagraph (B) to be a single facility having a rated
capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.
``(B) A combination of facilities referred to in
subparagraph (A) is 2 or more facilities located at a single
site, each of which has a rated capacity of 100,000
electrical kilowatts or more but not more than 300,000
electrical kilowatts, with a combined rated capacity of not
more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts.''.
SEC. 209. APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by sections 203, 204, and 205 do not
apply to a nuclear incident that occurs before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 210. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234A b.(2) of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is
amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Limitation for Not-for-Profit Institutions.--Subsection
d. of section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2282a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``d. (1) Notwithstanding subsection a., in the case of any
not-for-profit contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, the
total amount of civil penalties paid under subsection a. may
not exceed the total amount of fees paid within any one-year
period (as determined by the Secretary) under the contract
under which the violation occurs.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `not-for-
profit' means that no part of the net earnings of the
contractor, subcontractor, or supplier inures, or may
lawfully inure, to the benefit of any natural person or for-
profit artificial person.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 occurring under a contract entered into before the date
of enactment of this section.
____________________
FILING OF MOTION
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move that the conferees on the part of
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2 be instructed to insist that the committee of
conference ensure that the joint resolution as reported from the
committee includes section 102 of division L relating to Homeland
Security Act of 2002 Amendments, as passed by the Senate, (relating to
amendments to sections 1714 through 1717 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (Public Law 107-296)).
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that three hearings have been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to
consider the President's proposed FY 2004 budget.
The Committee will hear testimony from the following:
1. The Department of the Interior on Tuesday, February 11, 2003,
beginning at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building in Washington, D.C.
2. The Forest Service on Thursday, February 13, 2003, beginning at 10
a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C.
3. The Department of Energy on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, beginning
at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C.
For further information on these hearings, please call Jennifer Owen,
Staff Assistant at (202) 224-5305.
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of
the floor be granted to Erica Burens of my staff during today's
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2003
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:15
a.m., on Wednesday, January 22. I further ask unanimous consent that
following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for
the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the
Senate then resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, the appropriations
bill, as under the previous order.
Mr. REID. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--NOMINATION OF TOM RIDGE
Mr. McCONNELL. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that
the agreement with respect to the Ridge nomination be modified so that
the time allocated to Senator Feinstein be given to Senator Nelson of
Nebraska. I further ask unanimous consent that given the statement of
the Senator from Delaware this evening, the time allocated to Senator
Carper be vitiated.
Mr. REID. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there
will be two votes beginning at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Following those
votes, the Senate will begin consideration of the nomination of Tom
Ridge. A vote is expected on that nomination prior to the policy
luncheons on Wednesday. It is the intention of the majority leader to
recess for those luncheons following the vote on the Ridge nomination.
Senators can expect additional votes tomorrow afternoon and into the
evening as the Senate continues to consider amendments to the
appropriations bill.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:15 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:51 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 9:15 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate January 21, 2003:
IN THE MARINE CORPS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major
DANIEL P. HUDSON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LAWRENCE MOHR, JR., OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF
THE HEALTH SCIENCES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 20, 2003, VICE
JOHN E. CONNOLLY, TERM EXPIRED.
LAWRENCE MOHR, JR., OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF
THE HEALTH SCIENCES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 20, 2009.
(REAPPOINTMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
JANET HALE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (NEW POSITION)
THE JUDICIARY
JUDITH NAN MACALUSO, 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 A NEW POSITION
CREATED BY PUBLIC LAW 107-114, APPROVED JANUARY 8, 2002.
JOSEPH MICHAEL FRANCIS RYAN III, 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
A NEW POSITION CREATED BY PUBLIC LAW 107-114, APPROVED
JANUARY 8, 2002.
JERRY STEWART BYRD, 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 A NEW POSITION
CREATED BY PUBLIC LAW 107-114, APPROVED JANUARY 8, 2002.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
KAREN JOHNSON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, VICE REBECCA O. CAMPOVERDE.
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 28,
2007, VICE CHERRYL T. THOMAS, TERM EXPIRED.
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
REAR ADM. ALBERT T. CHURCH III
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
[[Page 1546]]
To be colonel
MARGARET C. GRAM
THE FOLLOWING NAMED AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE
OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND
12212:
To be colonel
JAMES V. ENGLISH
THE FOLLOWING NAMED AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE
RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS
12203 AND 12212:
To be colonel
JAMES C. BALSERAK
JAMES H. BARTLETT
MICHAEL S. BRONSTEIN
GLENN R. MARKENSON
REID T. MULLER
MARTIN E. SELLBERG
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
TIMOTHY H. LEWIS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR A REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN
THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531:
To be captain
HOWARD S. LOLLER
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS
UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 628, AND 3064:
To be colonel
JOHN F. NEPTUNE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL CORPS UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be lieutenant colonel
CHARLES E. SWALLOW
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY CHAPLAINS AND FOR REGULAR
APPOINTMENT UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be major
WAYNE C. HOLLENBAUGH
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY CHAPLAINS UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be major
JOSEPH T. HUGHES
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL CORPS UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be major
GREGORY T. BRAMBLETT
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL CORPS UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be major
ALLEN C. WHITFORD
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SHARON FALKENHEIMER, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF REGENTS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH
SCIENCES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 20, 2007, VICE LONNIE R.
BRISTOW, TERM EXPIRED.