[Pages S4436-S4445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 708. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview,
Illinois, as the ``Michael J. Healy Post Office Building''; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name
the U.S. Post Office at 7401 W. 100th Place in Bridgeview, IL after
Postal Police Officer Michael Healy.
On June 21, 1981, while guarding the Chicago Main Post Office at
Harrison Avenue and Canal Street, Officer Healy's life was senselessly
cut short by a random act of violence. Officer Healy was murdered by
three assailants in a foiled robbery attempt. Sadly, Michael Healy
became the first officer of the Postal Inspection Service to be killed
while on duty.
Shortly after his murder, the Postal Inspection Service retired
Michael's badge, number 3972. Subsequently, Michael's name was added to
the Federal Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington, DC as well as the
Law Enforcement Memorial in Springfield, IL.
In 2001, the Northern Illinois Division of the United States
Inspection Service honored the 20th anniversary of Michael's death. The
Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, has tried for two years to rename the
local post office after Officer Healy.
In protecting others, Officer Healy made the ultimate sacrifice. I
believe it is fitting to pay tribute to him by designating the postal
facility in honor of Michael J. Healy. I think that it is the most
appropriate way to recognize and remember a man who gave so much to his
family, his friends, the Postal Inspection Service, and his community
of Hometown, IL.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Levin):
S. 710. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
provide that aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings,
or other specified atrocities abroad are inadmissible and removable and
to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice
an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that
Act with respect to all alien participants in war crimes, genocide, and
the commission of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings abroad; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our
immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights
abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined
me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In
the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today
introduce identical legislation.
Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office
of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and
has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought
refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into
account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice
by living among us.
This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported
unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which
passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that,
with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law
during this Congress.
As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace
an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the
human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand,
and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation
with impunity on the other.
When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn
that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power
in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent
civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims
that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified
living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000.
Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that
``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been
plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including
torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in
the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York
Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]
I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the
Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers'
amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an
anonymous hold on the Senate floor.
I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was
pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House
and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999,
as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to
International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not
acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress.
Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided
consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by
introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R.
3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.
The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in
this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal
and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.
For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court
that

[[Page S4437]]

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military
dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts
of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that
country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition
political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only
to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The
court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a
naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the
presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was
subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,
72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of
the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted
Negewo citizenship.
This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture
who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims
of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of
California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a
glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and
practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed
gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United
States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at
657.]
Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980,
four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran
National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who
allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.
Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against
innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and
Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the
same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock
that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United
States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should
promptly show them the door out.
We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed
for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too
long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention
on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or
worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands
of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result
of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in
1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States
relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the
head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations,
noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of
the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake
for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to
the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law
enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have
committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United
States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in
Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,
U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough
to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and
then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip
across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,
1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws.
One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our
ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of
torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that
our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough
bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three
types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from
entering or remaining in the United States. The types of
prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly
severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi
persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly
defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and
Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d
Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,
Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar
to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i)
participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23,
1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii)
aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious
freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill
would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1)
add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United
States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove
limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly
severe violations of religious freedom.''
The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial
killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which
implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These
definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill
incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal
criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental
pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to
lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or
physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the
intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or
application, or threatened administration or application, of
mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the
threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another
person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of
mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2340(2).]

The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for
``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil
liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . .
subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to
mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under
international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a
foreign nation.''
The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and
deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the
current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that
term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would
substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations
under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of
the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,''
as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered,
incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader
scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more
appropriate range of levels of complicity.
Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly
severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its
application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct
within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the
individual's

[[Page S4438]]

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to
prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this
limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United
States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor
Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month
time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A
perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to
seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the
commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.
J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for
the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a
serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of
familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of
these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities
accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding
the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive
conduct over which they had no control.
Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a
waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a
nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the
Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or
genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains
that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit
acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such
waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of
circumstances.
Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights
abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part
of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert
noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to
implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does
not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice
with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and
prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights
atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency
for this function can be seen in the experiences of the
Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at
689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for
dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized
unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi
war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their
victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective
enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi
persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such
individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150
have been denied entry.
OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it
remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when
Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order,
established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of
Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and
litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during
World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi
government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments,
are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the persecution of any person because of race,
religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order
No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney
General Order.
I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done
by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war
criminals of all stripes.
Little is being done about the new generation of international human
rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are
costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make
documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale
cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of
waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights
abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no
sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and
enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe
harbor in the United States.
The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of
Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with
authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi
persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not
only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would
also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in
torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.
The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the
effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases.
The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular
regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary
for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be
accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather
than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have
more diverse missions.
These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this
area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the
Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war
criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of
investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz,
supra, at p. 24.]
I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven
controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have
concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of
the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this
bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has
concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals
can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights
violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines,
the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators
of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J.
Int'l. 657.
Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice
remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from
the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized
in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.
Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in
determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking
entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a
prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien
should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a
prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994
and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime,
federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one
recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected
torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against
Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]
As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is
discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their
way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to
call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals
certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to
offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'
the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the
essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal
of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on
H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability
Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the
House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.
28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington
Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the
Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the
new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of
matters to the OSI, any

[[Page S4439]]

revisions made to immigration forms to reflect amendments made by the
bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an
alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to
this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 710

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 ``Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS WHO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS ABROAD.

(a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct
that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is
inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States
that would, if committed in the United States or by a United
States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a)
of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial
killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has
committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the commission of--

``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of
title 18, United States Code; or
``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any
extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the
Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);

is inadmissible.''; and
(3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants
in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting
``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting
``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
(2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in
nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting
``Participated in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED
PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

(a) Ground of Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed
particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any
alien who, while serving as a foreign government official,
was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time,
particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as
defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.''.
(b) Ground of Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations
of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section
212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.

SEC. 4. WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.

Section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and
inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)'';
and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and
inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''.

SEC. 5. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described
in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi
persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts
of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G)
(relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.

SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of
Special Investigations with the authority to detect and
investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to
denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security in making
determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or
extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take
against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E),
consideration shall be given to--
``(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the
laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the
basis for removal and denaturalization; or
``(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a
foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a
prosecution for such conduct.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the additional duties established under section
103(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by
this Act) in order to ensure that the Office of Special
Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding
Nazi war criminals.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until
expended.

SEC. 7. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on implementation of this Act that includes a
description of--
(1) the procedures used to refer matters to the Office of
Special Investigations and other components within the
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security
in a manner consistent with the amendments made by this Act;
(2) the revisions, if any, made to immigration forms to
reflect changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act made
by the amendments contained in this Act; and
(3) the procedures developed, with adequate due process
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence to determine
whether an alien may be inadmissible under the terms of the
amendments made by this Act.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
award the Congressional Gold Medal to The Right Honorable Tony Charles
Lynton Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, First Lord of the
Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.
For more than two centuries, Congress has expressed public gratitude
on behalf of the Nation for the notable contributions of individuals
and of groups through the Congressional Gold Medal. Congress created
this honor as its highest expression of national appreciation for
distinguished achievement and contributions.
Originally bestowed upon military leaders, the first Congressional
Gold Medal was awarded to George Washington by the Continental Congress
on March 25, 1776, for his heroic service in the Revolutionary War. In
the two centuries since the medal was first awarded, Congressional Gold
Medal recipients have transcended nationality, country and politics. In
addition to modern military leaders including General Douglas MacArthur
and General Colin Powell, this award has recognized the extraordinary
character and efforts of such world leaders as Mother Teresa, Pope John
Paul II, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, another British wartime
leader.
In the year and a half since September 11, 2001, and particularly
over the course of recent weeks, Prime Minister Blair has exhibited
extraordinary courage in the war against terror. With steadfast and
unwavering resolve, he has held firm to his principles without regard
to, indeed in spite of, the shifting political winds. Again and again,
he has been called on to demonstrate his recognition that tyrannical
dictators cannot be allowed to terrorize their citizens and neighbors,
or the world community.
In the process, Prime Minister Blair has proven to be one of the
strongest and most distinguished allies of the United States in our
efforts to rid the world of terrorists, and to bring to justice the
corrupt regimes that support them. Great Britain has long been a
trusted ally of our Nation; however,

[[Page S4440]]

Prime Minister Blair has gone beyond friendship to demonstrate true
leadership for his nation and for Europe.
In the 18th century, English philosopher Edmund Burke once said,
``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing.'' How poignant and how true that remains today.
It is clear that Prime Minister Blair understands the truth in these
words, and that true leaders often hold lonely positions when they
forgo the political expedient to stand for what is right.
Last week, a British newspaper editorialized about Prime Minister
Blair's lonely struggle. ``Mr. Blair has not shrunk from debate,'' said
The Independent, a newspaper that has frequently and loudly criticized
the Prime Minister in the past. ``He has taken the argument to all
quarters of his restive party. He has allowed the Commons its say. And
despite all the doubts about this war, Mr. Blair has shown himself in
the past few days to be at once the most formidable politician in the
country and the right national leader for these deeply uncertain
times.''
These are uncertain, but defining, times. America suffers with Great
Britain during the struggles in Iraq. And we mourn together the loss of
the brave individuals who dedicate their lives to defending freedom.
The courage of the coalition forces in the theater, their skill and
bravery on the front lines, the dedication and patriotism of their
families at home, all extends back to their leaders.
Prime Minister Blair has had the vision to see that Saddam Hussein is
a dangerous man who continues to pose a threat to the region's
stability, to his own people, and to the world through his sponsorship
of terror.
The liberation of Iraq will be the beginning, not the end, of our
commitment to the people of Iraq. We will work together to supply
humanitarian relief and strive for the long-term recovery of Iraq's
economy.
In this effort to bring freedom to a nation of people who have
thirsted for relief from terror, Prime Minister Blair has taken a
courageous and principled stand before the world. The simple lesson
learned, the lesson Prime Minister Blair personifies, is that evil must
be checked.
History will be a kind judge of Tony Blair, for great leaders are
remembered well when they stand by their convictions, especially when
those stands are tested in the face of adversity, during times of
conflict and strife. In such times of testing, we take the measure of
our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves.
Prime Minister Blair's character has proven strong and he deserves
nothing less than our highest accolades.
That is why I am proud and honored today to introduce legislation to
award the Congressional Gold Medal to Prime Minister Blair, and to
thank him, on the floor on this Chamber, for his steadfast stand
against evil.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize Prime Minister Blair for the
courage of his convictions by joining in support of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 709

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

SECTION 1. FINDING.

Congress finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United
Kingdom has clearly demonstrated, during a very trying and
historic time for our 2 countries, that he is a staunch and
steadfast ally of the United States of America.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

(a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on
behalf of Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate design, to
Prime Minister Tony Blair, in recognition of his outstanding
and enduring contributions to maintaining the security of all
freedom-loving nations.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a
gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions
to be determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price
sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and
the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

(a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this
Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title
31, United States Code.
(b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this
Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

(a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of
the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be
deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr.
Chambliss, and Mr. Allen):
S. 711. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to alleviate
delay in the payment of the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus to
members of Selected Reserve who are mobilized; read the first time.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr.
Chambliss, and Mr. Allen):
S. 712. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses of Reserves not
eligible for retirement who die from a cause incurred or aggravated
while on inactive-duty training; read the first time.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Graham of South
Carolina, and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 718. A bill to provide a monthly allotment of free telephone
calling time to members of the United States armed forces stationed
outside the United States who are directly supporting military
operations in Iraq or Afghanistan; read the first time.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 711

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF SELECTED RESERVE REENLISTMENT BONUS TO
MEMBERS OF SELECTED RESERVE WHO ARE MOBILIZED.

Section 308b of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
``(d) Payment to Mobilized Members.--In the case of a
member entitled to a bonus under this section who is called
or ordered to active duty, any amount of such bonus that is
payable to the member during the period of active duty of the
member shall be paid the member during that period of active
duty, notwithstanding the service of the member on active
duty pursuant to such call or order to active duty.''.

S. 712

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

SECTION 1. SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVING
SPOUSES OF RESERVES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT
WHO DIE FROM A CAUSE INCURRED OR AGGRAVATED
WHILE ON INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING.

(a) Surviving Spouse Annuity.--Paragraph (1) of section
1448(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary concerned
shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the surviving
spouse of--
``(A) a person who is eligible to provide a reserve-
component annuity and who dies--
``(i) before being notified under section 12731(d) of this
title that he has completed the years of service required for
eligibility for reserve-component retired pay; or
``(ii) during the 90-day period beginning on the date he
receives notification under section 12731(d) of this title
that he has completed the years of service required for
eligibility for reserve-component retired pay if he had not
made an election under subsection (a)(2)(B) to participate in
the Plan; or
``(B) a member of a reserve component not described in
subparagraph (A) who dies from an injury or illness incurred
or aggravated in line of duty during inactive-duty
training.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for subsection (f)
of section 1448 of such title

[[Page S4441]]

is amended by inserting ``or Before'' after ``Dying When''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as of September 10, 2001, and shall apply
with respect to performance of inactive-duty training (as
defined in section 101(d) of title 10, United States Code) on
or after that date.

S. 718

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 ``Troops Phone Home Free Act
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to support the morale of the
brave men and women of the United States armed services
stationed outside the United States who are directly
supporting military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan (as
determined by the Secretary of Defense) by giving them the
ability to place calls to their loved ones without expense to
them.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) The armed services of the United States are the finest
in the world.
(2) The members of the armed services are bravely placing
their lives in danger to protect the security of the people
of the United States and to advance the cause of freedom in
Iraq.
(3) Their families and loved ones are making sacrifices at
home in support of the members of the armed services abroad.
(4) Telephone contact with family and friends provides
significant emotional and psychological support to them and
helps to sustain and improve morale.

SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BENEFIT.

(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall provide
prepaid phone cards, or an equivalent telecommunications
benefit which includes access to telephone service, to
members of the armed forces stationed outside the United
States who are directly supporting military operations in
Iraq or Afghanistan (as determined by the Secretary) to
enable them to make telephone calls to family and friends
in the United States without cost to the members.
(b) Monthly Amount.--The value of the benefit provided by
subsection (a) shall not exceed $40 per month per person.
(c) End of Program.--The program established by subsection
(a) shall terminate on the date that is 60 days after the
date on which the Secretary determines that Operation Iraqi
Freedom has ended.
(d) Funding.
(1) Use of existing resources.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall maximize the use of existing
Department of Defense telecommunications programs and
capabilities, private support organizations, and programs to
enhance morale and welfare.
(2) Use of appropriated funds.--In addition to resources
described in paragraph (1) and notwithstanding any limitation
on the expenditure or obligation of appropriated amounts, the
Secretary may use available funds appropriated to or for the
use of the Department of Defense that are not otherwise
obligated or expended to carry out this section.

SEC. 5. DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.

The Secretary of Defense shall work with telecommunications
providers to facilitate the deployment of additional
telephones for use in calling the United States under this
Act as quickly as practicable, consistent with the
availability of resources and without compromising the
Department's military objectives and mission.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 714. A bill to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of
Bureau of Land Management land in Douglas County, Oregon, to the county
to improve management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes
National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my friend and colleague
Senator Smith of Oregon, to introduce legislation to improve the
management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area in Douglas County, OR.
For the small, rural, coastal community of Winchester Bay in Douglas
County, OR, this piece of legislation is critical. Hit first in the
early 90's with a steep downturn in the timber economy, closely
followed by a near shut-down of the fishing industry, this community
found itself on the brink of economic ruin. The final blow came in
March of 2000 when the major employer, International Paper, closed its
paper mill, putting 300 residents out of work and sending an economic
shockwave through the community that impacted the city, the school
district, the hospital district, and literally every resident in the
area.
Yet, since that time, Winchester Bay, OR has adopted a ``never give
up'' attitude, changed its long term outlook, and focused its efforts
on developing a thriving tourist industry. The bill I introduce today
directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 68.5
acres from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Douglas County, OR,
to Douglas County to be managed for open space and for recreational
purposes. The acreage is located just west of tourist and recreational
area developments already owned and run by Douglas County. The County
will use the land to provide a staging area for off-highway vehicles,
thereby improving management of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation
Area. The land transfer also facilitates the policing of unlawful
camping and parking along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas. This
land transfer will improve tourism on Oregon's economically challenged
South Coast, as well as improve public safety and reduce traffic
congestion along Salmon Harbor Drive.
This legislation is supported by the entire Oregon delegation. It is
also supported by the BLM, Douglas County Commissioners, and the
community of Winchester Bay. An identical bill was introduced in the
last Congress by Representative DeFazio, though the 107th Congress
ended before both houses could pass it. Representative DeFazio
reintroduced this land transfer legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R.
514, in the House of Representatives.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record.

S. 714

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND IN
DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON.

(a) In General.--
(1) Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
convey, without consideration, to Douglas County, Oregon
(referred to in this section as the ``County''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel
described in paragraph (2) for use by the County for
recreational purposes.
(2) Parcel.--The parcel referred to in paragraph (1) is the
parcel of real property consisting of approximately 68.8
acres under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management in the County, as depicted on the map
entitled ``Umpqua River Lighthouse and Coast Guard Museum
Master Plan Study'', dated April 17, 2002.
(b) Purposes of Conveyance.--The purposes of the conveyance
under subsection (a) are to improve management of and
recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation
Area by--
(1) improving public safety and reducing traffic congestion
along Salmon Harbor Drive (County Road No. 251) in the
County;
(2) providing a staging area for off-highway vehicles; and
(3) facilitating policing of unlawful camping and parking
along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the
parcel conveyed under subsection (a) is not being used by the
County for a recreational purpose--
(A) all right, title, and interest in and to the parcel,
including any improvements on the parcel, shall revert to the
United States; and
(B) the United States shall have the right of immediate
entry onto the parcel.
(2) Determination on the record.--Any determination of the
Secretary under this subsection shall be made on the record
after an opportunity for an agency hearing.
(d) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the
parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be
determined by a survey--
(1) that is satisfactory to the Secretary; and
(2) the cost of which shall be paid by the County.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Chambliss):
S. 715. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
calendar year limitations on the use of commissary stores by certain
reserves and others; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S4442]]

S. 715

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CALENDAR YEAR LIMITATIONS ON USE OF
COMMISSARY STORES BY CERTAIN RESERVES AND
OTHERS.

(a) Members of the Ready Reserve.--Section 1063(a) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking the period at
the end of the first sentence and all that follows and
inserting ``in that calendar year.''.
(b) Certain Other Persons.--Section 1064 of such title is
amended by striking ``for 24 days each calendar year''.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 716. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to improve the
electricity transmission system of the United States; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power
Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future
the two things that matter most to all electricity customers:
affordable electricity and reliable electricity.
Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in
the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They
also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the
mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers
don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry
or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of
nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana,
affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it
comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer
legislation today.
Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for
that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the
North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability
assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least
for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast
demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency
conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast
should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the
short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail
electricity service in my State.
There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I
attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.
First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction,
which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost
and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions,
regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically
comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do
so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity
markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the
exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet,
customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced
electricity service.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued
a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current
jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission
component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically
impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local
policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers.
It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are
given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event
that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to
priority service.
FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire
country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New
Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in
the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any
other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the
consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there
is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan]
would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation
costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the
Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their
electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current
jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a
State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to
do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental
policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are
accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when
California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for
its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into
Louisiana.
To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would
clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by
explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail
sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled
retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to
allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers.
This is current law and the current practice in a large number of
States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates
and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when
the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over
the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain
jurisdiction over retail.
My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased
rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation''
that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the
electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to
wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To
accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and
upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in
Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to
accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their
customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners,
understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and
upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the
electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are
denied cheap and reliable electricity.
A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed
with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel
source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their
facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible,
and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell
electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export
just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in
Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail
rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.
Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while
simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to
expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for
transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily
being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this
bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3
would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional
transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which
market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in
return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment.
This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator
location and transmission expansion decisions.
Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a
proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to
transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by
the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or
cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the
investment.
The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in
transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission
Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

[[Page S4443]]

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the
past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while
transmission investment during the same period has continuously
declined about 45 percent.
What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is
projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a
modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack
of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission
capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize
the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this
trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be
compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited
the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during
a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the
summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission
constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant
cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts
of that State.
To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector,
Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in
establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would
amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost
causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission
investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are
required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These
provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have
proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is
needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal
Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a
rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to
promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission
may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such
policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long
and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance
from Congress.
Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of
wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely
result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country,
electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form
large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional
transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities,
including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State
power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying
degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets.
Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not
have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over
electric utilities.
Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about
significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More
competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail
sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent
power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all
proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can
be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in
achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional
markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts
of utilities.
Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to
convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to
consider the development and progress of regional transmission
organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of
discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional
organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of
retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to
ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6
would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by
authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional
transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand
wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that
public power entities provide a limited form of access to their
transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators
increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the
fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public
power.
In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and
consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States.
Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all
customers, in all parts of the country.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 717. A bill to require increased safety testing of 15-passenger
vans, ensure the compliance of 15-passenger vans used as schoolbuses
with motor vehicle safety standards applicable to schoolbuses, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are
highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than
500 fatalities since 1990.
It was under the most tragic circumstances that this issue came to my
State's attention last year. On September 12th, 2002, 14 migrant
forestry workers were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off a
bridge over the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in northern Maine. The
sole survivor of this catastrophe escaped when he kicked out the rear
window of the sinking van in what was the single worst motor vehicle
accident in Maine's history.
I quickly learned that this was the latest in a long line of deadly
crashes involving the popular vans, which were initially designed to
carry cargo rather than passengers and are highly prone to rollovers,
especially when fully loaded. There are more than 500,000 of these vans
on the road today, and they are frequently used for a wide variety of
purposes, from van pools and church outings, to transportation to and
from airports, to transporting college athletics teams or workers.
In response to the spate of fatal accidents involving the vans in the
past few years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, conducted a study in 2001 to analyze the vans' propensity to
rollover. In May 2001, after concluding the study, NHTSA issued a
national warning to users of such vehicles that they have an increased
risk of rollovers under certain conditions. They issued a similar
warning in April 2002. The results of the NHTSA study are dramatic,
finding that rollover risks rise sharply as the number of van occupants
increases. With 10 or more occupants, the rollover rate is nearly three
times the rate of vans that are lightly loaded. And with more than 15
occupants, the risk of a rollover is almost six times greater than if
the van only has five occupants.
Following up on NHTSA's work, and as the deadly march of van
accidents continued, last year both the National Transportation Safety
Board, NTSB, and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen issued a
number of safety recommendations on the issue. Given the increasing use
of 15-passenger vans in transporting larger groups, I believe it is
time to move beyond warnings and for Congress to take action to address
the safety of these vans.
The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15-
passenger vans in their dynamic rollover testing program. While NHTSA
is currently developing this program, as mandated by The Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation, TREAD, Act of
2000, it does not include 15-passenger vans. Given the demonstrated
propensity of these vans to roll, and the deadly effects of a rollover
in fully loaded passenger vans, it is vital that we subject them to the
same safety standards that NHTSA plans to apply to passenger cars and
sport utility vehicles, SUVs.
My bill would also require NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in
their New Car Assessment Program, NCAP, rollover resistance ratings,
and to test them at various load conditions. The

[[Page S4444]]

NCAP, which provides consumers with a measure of the relative safety
potential of vehicles in frontal crashes, was expanded recently to
include the rollover risk of passenger cars and light trucks. However,
the expansion does not extend to vehicles that carry more than 10
passengers. I believe that before churches or colleges or employers
purchase one of these vans, they should have access to NCAP information
about their rollover propensity relative to other vehicles.
In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers
to evaluate and test the potential of technological systems to help
drivers in maintaining control of the vans. Specifically, NHTSA would
look at electronic stability control, ESC, systems that some high-end
SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover
warning systems. ESC systems are computer-controlled systems that
attempt to stabilize the vehicle by monitoring a vehicle's movement and
the direction the driver is steering. I am also aware of rollover
warning systems under development, attachable to the rear-view mirror,
that will warn a driver if his speed or driving maneuvers risk a
rollover. In short, technology can help us to greatly reduce the
tendency of these vans to roll, and in the process save lives.
These vans are also in widespread use for commercial purposes like
airport shuttles and vanpools. Therefore, my legislation would require
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, to finish their
rulemaking on the application of federal motor carrier safety
regulations to 15 passenger vans used for commercial purposes. Both the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 directed FMCSA to promulgate
regulations on the commercial use of the vans. While they initiated
rulemaking in 1999, to date, FMCSA applies no operating regulations
whatsoever to these vans.
Finally, this bill addresses the use of 15-passenger vans to
transport schoolchildren. Under current law, schools are prohibited
from purchasing these vans new to transport schoolchildren because they
do not meet the same safety standards as schoolbuses do. However,
counter-intuitively, Federal law is silent about the purchase of used
vans, or the use of rental vans.
My bill addresses this loophole by incorporating language introduced
during the 107th Congress by Representative Mark Udall of Colorado to
extend the ban from the sale of vans to leasing, renting and buying of
vans. This is intended to make the buyers accountable as well as the
seller. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I asked NHTSA
Administrator Jeffrey Runge about this disparity in current law, and he
agreed that when we're talking about transporting schoolchildren,
what's good for new vans should be good for used and rented vans.
Also, to make it worth NHTSA's while to pursue violators, my bill
would raise the maximum penalty for violations of the prohibition on
the sale or rental of these vans to schools from $5,000 to $25,000.
I truly believe that this legislation will cut down on the number of
fatal accidents involving 15-passenger vans by subjecting them to
federal rollover standards, providing consumers with adequate safety
information and making sure that our schoolchildren are driven to
school in safe vehicles. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong
show of support for this effort.
______

By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr.
Graham of South Carolina):
S. 721. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the combat zone income tax exclusion to include income for the period
of transit to the combat zone and to remove the limitation on such
exclusion for commissioned officers, and for other purposes; read the
first time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 721

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR COMBAT ZONE
SERVICE.

(a) Combat Zone Service To Include Transit to Zone.--
Section 112(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Such service shall include any
period of direct transit to the combat zone.''.
(b) Removal of Limitation on Exclusion for Commissioned
Officers.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 112 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain combat
zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces) is
repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 112(a) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``below the grade of commissioned
officer'', and
(ii) by striking ``Enlisted Personnel'' in the heading and
inserting ``In General''.
(B) Section 112(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraphs (1) and (5) and by redesignating paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES PERFORMING SERVICES AT
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, CUBA, AND IN THE
HORN OF AFRICA.

(a) General Rule.--In the case of a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States who is entitled to special pay
under section 310 of title 37, United States Code (relating
to special pay: duty subject to hostile fire or imminent
danger), for services performed at Guantanamo Bay Naval
Station, Cuba, or in any country located in the region known
as the Horn of Africa as part of Operation Enduring Freedom
(or any successor operation), such member shall be treated in
the same manner as if such services were in a combat zone (as
determined under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) for purposes of the following provisions of such Code:
(1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule where
deceased spouse was in missing status).
(2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of certain
combat pay of members of the Armed Forces).
(3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of
Armed Forces on death).
(4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces
dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone-incurred
wounds, etc.).
(5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating to combat
pay for members of the Armed Forces).
(6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of phone
service originating from a combat zone from members of the
Armed Forces).
(7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return where
individual is in missing status).
(8) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain
acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Withholding.--Subsection (a)(5) shall apply to
remuneration paid on or after such date of enactment.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 723. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to provide refunds for
unjust and unreasonable charges on electric energy in the State of
California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, FERC, released documents substantiating evidence of market
manipulation during the California electricity crisis.
At the same time, I am stunned that FERC took no action today on
ordering the companies that cheated California to pay refunds. Nor did
FERC order renegotiation of the long-term electricity contracts that
were entered into when prices were artificially inflated. The documents
released provide absolute and irrefutable evidence of market
manipulation by power generators and wholesale traders during
California's electricity crisis. I believe it is long past due to end
the discussions and deliberations and time to start sending the refund
checks.
FERC should use its authority to order full refunds and order them
immediately. To make sure that happens, I am introducing legislation to
guarantee that the people of California get back the money they are
owed.
When the crisis first began in 2000, I introduced my first bill to
order refunds. The bill that I am introducing today would require
energy companies to pay full refunds in the minimum amount of $8.9
billion. In addition, my bill requires the FERC to order the
renegotiation of long-term contracts.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. We must not let
these companies get away with thievery.

[[Page S4445]]

____________________