[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2901-S2926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 528. A bill to require the display of the POW/MIA flag on various
occasions and in various locations; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the NATIONAL POW/MIA RECOGNITION ACT OF 1997
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to begin my statement today
describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves us to the core of
our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the
Armed Forces of our Nation.
Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that
train our future military leaders. These academies have varied missions
and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders
for their particular service. On the grounds of each academy is a
chapel, a spectacular place that at once identifies itself as a place
of worship.
In each chapel, a place has been reserved for the prisoners of war
and the missing in action from their particular service. A pew has been
set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have
returned from battle. This hallowed place has been set aside so that
all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a
moving and emotional moment to pause at this reserved pew, to be
encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of
those soldiers, sailors, and pilots and to be inspired today by what
they have done.
We can do more to honor the memory of the POW's and MIA's who have
served in our Nation's wars.
Therefore, today I am introducing the National POW/MIA Recognition
Act of 1997. This act would authorize the POW/MIA flag to be displayed
over military installations, post offices, and memorials around the
Nation and other appropriate places of significance on Armed Forces
Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, National
POW/MIA Recognition Day, and on the last business day before each of
the preceding holidays. A companion bill has been introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jane Harman from California.
Congress has officially recognized the National League of Families
POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag would be a powerful symbol to all
Americans that we have not forgotten--and will not forget.
As you know, the United States has fought in many wars, and thousands
of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or
listed as missing in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than
147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that
number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the
number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can
be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country.
The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we
care not only for them, but also for their families who personally
carry with them the burden on sacrifice. We want them to know that they
do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they
remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served.
As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the
remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and
most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and
gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom.
Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military
academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too
will the display of their flag over military installations and other
Government offices be a special reminder that we have not forgotten--
and will not forget. Before this coming Memorial Day I invite my Senate
colleagues to please join me in passing this bill to display the POW/
MIA flag on national days of celebration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
[[Page S2902]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 528
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 POW/MIA Recognition
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the United States has fought in many wars, and
thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured
by the enemy or listed as missing in action;
(2) many of these Americans are still missing and
unaccounted for, and the uncertainty surrounding their fates
has caused their families to suffer tragic and continuing
hardships;
(3) as a symbol of the Nation's concern and commitment to
accounting as fully as possible for all Americans still held
prisoner, missing, or unaccounted for by reason of their
service in the Armed Forces and to honor the Americans who in
future wars may be captured or listed as missing or
unaccounted for, Congress has officially recognized the
National League of Families POW/MIA flag; and
(4) the American people observe and honor with appropriate
ceremony and activity the third Friday of September each year
as National POW/MIA Recognition Day.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF POW/MIA FLAG.
In this Act, the term ``POW/MIA flag'' means the National
League of Families POW/MIA flag recognized and designated by
section 2 of Public Law 101-355 (104 Stat. 416).
SEC. 4. DISPLAY.
The POW/MIA flag shall be displayed on Armed Forces Day,
Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day,
National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and on the last business
day before each of the preceding holidays, on the grounds or
in the public lobbies of--
(1) major military installations as designated by the
Secretary of Defense;
(2) Federal national cemeteries;
(3) the national Korean War Veterans Memorial;
(4) the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial;
(5) the White House;
(6) the official office of the--
(A) Secretary of State;
(B) Secretary of Defense;
(C) Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
(D) Director of the Selective Service System; and
(7) United States Postal Service post offices.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF PROVISION RELATING TO DISPLAY OF POW/MIA
FLAG.
Section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (36 U.S.C. 189 note, Public Law
102-190) is repealed.
SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the agency or department responsible for a location
listed in section 2 shall prescribe any regulation necessary
to carry out the provisions of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Grams):
S. 529. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
certain farm rental income from net earnings from self-employment if
the taxpayer enters into a lease agreement relating to such income; to
the Committee on Finance.
the FARM INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1997
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on the
Internal Revenue Code. From time to time we need to change the Internal
Revenue Code, particularly when it deals with agriculture. However,
there may be some people listening who do not understand agriculture.
They may see these efforts as doing something special for farmers. I
want to clarify today that I am a person who comes from the school of
thought that every penny of legal tax that is owed the Federal
Government should be paid. But I think, also, we have a responsibility,
as Representatives of the people, to make sure that we balance
taxpayers' compliance with taxpayers' rights.
The legislation I am introducing today is centered on a proposition
that has been the law for approximately 40 years. It proscribes that
most farm landlords, just like small business people and other
commercial landlords, should not have to pay self-employment tax on
cash rent income. For 40 years it has been that way for farm people and
city people alike. But in 1995, there was an Arkansas Federal tax court
case that said the IRS could take other expansive factors into
consideration. As a result of that tax case, the IRS decided to issue a
related technical advice memorandum. These are widely deemed to be IRS
policy statements on the law. As a result, many farm landlords are now
treated differently from commercial and other city landlords.
Consequently, farmers and retired farmers now find themselves paying
15.3 percent self-employment tax on cash rent.
So, I say to the IRS, as I give an explanation for my legislation
this morning: Don't try to game the system. The law remains what people
have counted on for 40 years. Unless there is an act of Congress, you
ought to respect history before you change the rules. Obviously, the
test of time ought to prove the taxpayer was right and the IRS was
wrong, particularly since there now is a difference between the farm
sector and the city sector.
The correct rationale is simple, the self employment tax applies to
income from labor or employment. Income from cash rents represents the
value of ownership or equity in land, not labor or employment.
Therefore, the self employment tax should not ordinarily apply to
income from cash rents.
So, along with Senator Grams of Minnesota, I am introducing this bill
so farmers and retired farmers are not going to be encroached upon by
the IRS and the Tax Code as a result of this Arkansas Federal tax court
case and the IRS technical advice memorandum. The IRS has thus, through
this court case and broadened by its own pronouncement, introduced a
new barrier to the family farmer. Our legislation would remove this new
IRS barrier so that farm families and retired farmers can continue to
operate.
Specifically, our legislation would clarify that when the IRS is
applying the self-employment tax to the cash rent farm leases, it
should limit its inquisition to the lease agreement. This is not an
expansion of the law for the taxpayers. Rather, it is a narrowing of an
antitaxpayer expansion initiated by the Internal Revenue Service. The
tax law does not ordinarily require cash rent landlords in cities to
pay the self-employment tax. Indeed, cash rent farm landlords are the
only ones occasionally required to pay the tax. This is due to a 40-
year-old exception that allowed the retired farmers of the late 1950's
to become vested in the Social Security system.
However, the law originally imposed the tax on farm landlords only
when their lease agreements with their renters required the landlord to
participate in the operation of the farm and in the farming of the
land.
Forty years later and we are here today, the IRS has expanded the
application of the self-employment tax for farmland owners. Now the Tax
Court has told the IRS that in one particular instance, the IRS could
look beyond the lease agreement. On this very limited authority, the
IRS has unilaterally expanded the one court case even further so it now
approximates a national tax policy.
Our legislation clarifies that the IRS should examine only the lease
agreement. Thus, it would preserve the pre-1996 status quo. We want to
preserve the historical self-employment tax treatment of farm rental
agreements, equating them with landlords in small businesses and
commercial properties within the cities. The 1957 tax law was designed
to benefit retired farmers of that generation so that they would
qualify for Social Security.
So, obviously, those persons of the 1950's have all since passed from
the scene. Their children and grandchildren are now the victims of this
IRS expansion of their old rule. Congress does not intend that farm
owners be treated differently from other real estate owners, other than
as they have been historically. We need the clarity provided in our
legislation in order to turn back an improper, unilateral, and targeted
IRS expansion of old tax law. In other words, I see this legislation as
removing this new IRS barrier to the family farm and the American
dream.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 529
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 ``Farm Independence Act of
1997''.
[[Page S2903]]
SEC. 2. LEASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FARM
RENTAL INCOME FROM NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-
EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 1402(a)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net earnings from
self-employment) is amended by striking ``an arrangement''
and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
(b) Social Security Act.--Section 211(a)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act is amended by striking ``an arrangement''
and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1997.
____
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning in strong support of
the Farm Independence Act of 1997 which my good friend, Senator
Grassley, and I introduce here today. This legislation is critical in
protecting American farmers and ranchers from yet another IRS attack--
the third this year--on the family farm.
I suspect when President Grover Cleveland remarked that, ``just when
you thought you were making ends meet, someone moves the ends,'' the
former President must have been thinking about the Internal Revenue
Service.
This time, the IRS has issued a decision in one of its technical
advice memoranda that, if fully enforced, will result in a 15.3-percent
tax increase for thousands of farmers. Let me repeat that. A recent IRS
decision could result in a 15.3-percent tax increase for thousands of
farmers.
Essentially, if a producer incorporates--and many Minnesota
producers, both small and large, do--and then rents his land to the
farm corporation, the rental income the farmer receives is not only
subject to income tax but to an additional 15.3-percent self-employment
tax.
The purpose of the Grassley-Grams Farm Independence Act of 1997 is
simple and it is straightforward. Our bill would stop the IRS from
imposing this 15.3-percent tax increase on our farmers and ranchers.
Mr. President, last Congress, we passed the most sweeping reforms in
agricultural policy in 60 years and gave farmers the freedom to farm.
At that time, we also promised farmers regulatory relief, improved
research and risk management, free and fair trade, and--perhaps most
importantly--we promised farmers tax relief.
Now, many of us in Congress have made tax relief a top priority. I do
so, in part, because it is a top priority for Minnesota farmers, and
toward this end, I am an original cosponsor of a bill to repeal the
estate tax, and I strongly support legislation to cut capital gains
taxes.
But, unfortunately, we haven't made much progress in convincing the
President and some in Congress that this is not fat-cat legislation but
absolutely necessary for the survival and success of the family farm.
But, even more frustrating than these obstacles to providing farmers
with critical relief from the death tax and capital gains taxes are
back-door attempts by the IRS to actually raise taxes on our farmers
and ranchers.
First, came the alternative minimum tax which attacked cash-based
accounting. Second, came a decision that income from culled cows--cows
that don't milk--is income that disqualifies low-income farmers from
receiving the earned income tax credit. And, now, the IRS wants to
exact a 15.3-percent tax increase on thousands of American farmers and
ranchers.
Mr. President, I am 100 percent committed to providing Minnesota
farmers with tax relief they desperately need. I hope the President and
others in Congress come around on this issue as well.
But, at a bare minimum, the President should send a signal to the IRS
that these back-door attempts to raise revenues on the backs of the
Nation's farmers and ranchers is totally unacceptable.
I am convinced that a second gold age of agriculture is within reach
in the final days of this century and also the whole of the next if
only we in Government help--rather than hinder--our farmers' and
ranchers' efforts.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Farm
Independence Act of 1997. I also commend the Senator from Iowa for his
leadership on this issue.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 530. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to limit the
value of certain real and personal property that a debtor may elect to
exempt under State or local law, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
the BANKRUPTCY ABUSE REFORM ACT OF 1997
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy
Abuse Reform Act of 1997, legislation which addresses a serious problem
that threatens Americans' confidence in our bankruptcy laws. The
measure would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an
individual filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. It passed the
Senate last term when it was included into the Bankruptcy Technical
Corrections Act (S. 1559), and I hope that we can all support this
measure again this year. The goal of our measure is simple but vitally
important: to make sure that our Bankruptcy Code is more than just a
beachball for crooked millionaires who want to hide their assets.
Let me tell you why this legislation is critically needed. In chapter
7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is allowed to
exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to satisfy his
outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor seeks to
protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few question
that debtors should be able to keep the roofs over their heads. But, in
practice, this homestead exemption has become a source of abuse.
Under section 522 of the Code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home
according to local, State, or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The
Federal exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in
his house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not
allow the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while eight States
set no ceiling and allow an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of
States have exemptions under $40,000.
My amendment under section 522 would cap State exemptions so that no
debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home.
Mr. President, in the last few years, the ability of debtors to use
State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy
Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the eight States
that have unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought
multi-million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even
after declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the
Bankruptcy Code cheats creditors out of compensation and rewards only
those who can game the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed
is the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, insider
trading convicts, and other shady characters have managed to protect
their ill-gotten gains through this loophole.
One infamous S&L banker with more than $4 billion in claims against
him bought a multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Another man
who pled guilty to insider trading abuses lives in a 7,000-square-foot
beachfront home worth $3.25 million--all tucked away from the $2.75
billion in suits against him. We read even now about the possibility
that O.J. Simpson may seek to avoid the civil suit judgment against him
buying a lavish home in Florida, a State with an unlimited exemption,
and declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying his multimillion-dollar
obligations. These deadbeats get wealthier while legitimate creditors--
including the U.S. Government--get the short end of the stick.
Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes
the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a
head start, under the Bankruptcy Code.
In addition, these unlimited homestead exemptions have made it
increasingly difficult for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
and the Resolution Trust Corporation to go after S&L crooks. With the
S&L crisis costing us billions of dollars and with a deficit that still
remains unacceptably high, we owe it to the taxpayers to make it as
hard as possible for those responsible for fraud to profit from their
wrongs.
Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today is
simple, effective, and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption
at $100,000, which is close to the average price of an
[[Page S2904]]
American house. And it will protect middle class Americans while
preventing the abuses that are making the American middle class
question the integrity of our laws--the abuses the average American
taxpayer is paying for out of pocket.
Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Other than the eight States
that have no limit to the homestead exemption, no State has a homestead
exemption exceeding $100,000. In fact, 38 States have exemptions of
$40,000 or less. My own home State of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption
and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient.
Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws
more equitable. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
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. 530
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 ``Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act
of 1997''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION.
Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by inserting ``subject to
subsection (n),'' before ``any property''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) As a result of electing under subsection (b)(2)(A) to
exempt property under State or local law, a debtor may not
exempt an aggregate interest that exceeds $100,000 in value
in--
``(1) real or personal property that the debtor or a
dependent of the debtor uses as a residence;
``(2) a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a
dependent of the debtor uses as a residence; or
``(3) a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent of the
debtor.''.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 531. A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge as wilderness; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LEGISLATION
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing we
have learned from nearly five hundred years of contact with the
American wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and
preserve our precious environment and future resources rather than
destroy them for momentary gain.
With this in mind, Ioffer legislation today that designates the
coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is
a national wildlife refuge--one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By
changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever.
And I can't stress how important this is.
The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our
Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish
and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and
promises that not all dreams have been dreamt.
The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and
glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep,
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans,
black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain.
It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse
and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up
for winters of unspeakable severity.
The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the
lands that belong to our future.
Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came
across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner.
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation,
he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat;
it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits
that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely
excessive.''
The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are
excessive. There is only a 1-in-5 chance of finding any economically
recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the daily
production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than 0.7 percent of world
production--far too small to meet America's energy needs for more than
a few months.
In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might
ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent
of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and
development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones.
What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its
long-term needs.
Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy,
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an
environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join again with Senator
Roth in this effort to designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as
a wilderness area.
This legislation would save the American people the huge social and
environmental costs of unwise and unnecessary development of one of
nature's crown jewels. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last
complete Alaskan wilderness with elements of each tundra ecosystem, the
biological heart of the North Slope of Alaska. It is on a par with our
other great national resources, including the Grand Canyon,
Yellowstone, Jackson Hole, the Badlands, Glacier Bay, and Denali. This
is a unique piece of God's Earth that must be preserved for our entire
Nation for centuries to come.
Make no mistake, environmental impacts to the Arctic National Refuge
from oil development would be severe and irreversible. The refuge
includes the calving grounds for one of the largest caribou herds in
North America, the Porcupine herd--152,000 strong. Native American
customs have centered around the herd's annual migration for at least
20,000 years. The refuge is a treasure chest of plants, animals, and
wilderness unique to the world in terms of abundance, diversity, and
value to humankind. Over 200 species of plants and animals thrive in
the refuge, including muskoxen, snow geese, Arctic foxes, Arctic
grayling, and Arctic char. It is the only natural area in the United
States with all three species of North American bears--the black bear,
the grizzly bear and the polar bear. It is one of the most natural
areas in our Nation, untouched by development, and the last of its
kind.
Many environmental studies demonstrate that the negative
environmental effects of opening the Arctic Refuge to development will
be severe. Biologists from Federal and State agencies and universities
have concluded that oil development will harm the calving of the
caribou herd, and reduce its long term numbers very significantly. The
Office of Management and Budget has stated that ``exploration and
development activities would bring physical disturbances to the area,
unacceptable risks of oil spills and pollution, and long-term effects
that would harm wildlife for decades.'' Raymond Cameron, formerly of
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, documented that 19 percent
[[Page S2905]]
fewer calves are born to caribou cows on developed lands as opposed to
undeveloped lands, with a 2-percent margin of error. His study also
documented that caribou cows miss yearly calving at a 36-percent rate
in developed areas, versus only 19 percent in undeveloped areas. Even a
small change in calving success can lead to long-term population
declines. A study by the State of Alaska showed that the Arctic caribou
herd at Prudhoe Bay declined from 23,400 to 18,100--23 percent--since
1992. All the population decline occurred in habitat affected by oil
development, while herds in undeveloped areas grew slightly. Biologists
fear that development impacts would be proportionately greater on the
herd that uses the Arctic Refuge.
The amount of oil that potentially can be recovered from the Arctic
Refuge is simply too small to affect our energy security, and too
destructive to the environment to be worth it. A 1995 assessment of
petroleum reserves by the U.S. Geological Survey reported that there is
a 95-percent chance that only 148 million barrels of oil exist in the
refuge. This would amount to a drop in the national oil bucket--an 8-
day supply. Even if the USGS high estimate were correct, the refuge
would hold at most a 290-day supply for the United States.
We can all hope for another strike like Prudhoe Bay. But the simple
reality, based on the very best geological science and economics
available today, is that alternative energy supplies, as well as the
real energy savings from national energy conservation programs, are far
more reliable, tangible, and less destructive energy sources than a
wild gamble with the Alaskan wilderness.
The remaining 90 percent of the Alaskan North Slope is already open
to oil and gas leasing. Is it too much to protect what little we have
left? Every reliable national poll conducted on this issue shows
Americans of all political persuasions are against development in the
refuge by a more than three to one margin. Let's honor our history of
conservation and protect the future for generations to come, by saving
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Kerrey, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 532. A bill to authorize funds to further the strong Federal
interest in the improvement of highways and transportation, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION AND REGULATORY STREAMLINING ACT
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the
Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act,
or STARS 2000. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues on the
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Kempthorne and Thomas.
And by Senators Dorgan, Conrad, Daschle, Johnson, Burns, Craig, Enzi,
Harkin, Bingaman, Roberts, and Kerrey of Nebraska.
This bill reauthorizes this Nation's surface transportation programs
for the year 2000, and beyond.
As most of my colleagues know, we must act soon to renew these
programs since today's law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, or ISTEA, will expire on September 30.
STARS 2000 builds on the progress already made by ISTEA. But it also
makes some important improvements. Let me focus on the three most
significant aspects of the bill.
funding levels
First, the bill increases funding for our highway programs to $27
billion annually. Transportation is a critical part of our Nation's
economic growth and prosperity. The investments we make today in
transportation will help keep us globally competitive well into the
next century.
Furthermore, these investments directly generate hundreds of
thousands of jobs--in Montana, in Idaho, in Illinois, in every State.
They also indirectly help sustain businesses and millions more jobs all
across the country.
The funding in STARS 2000 will support all types of transportation
projects. It also will enable States and local governments to make the
investment decisions that best reflect their transportation priorities.
The funding level in STARS 2000 corresponds to the amount of money
estimated to be in the highway trust fund over the next 6 years.
As my colleagues know, this is money already being collected from the
tax on gasoline and other fuels. My view is that we should spend it for
the purpose for which it was collected.
Even with this increase, however, we will not eliminate the shortfall
in meeting our transportation needs. The Department of Transportation
estimates that over $50 billion would be needed each year in order to
just maintain current highway and bridge conditions.
Yet, today annual spending by all levels of government is only $39
billion per year.
Our competitors know the advantage of a sound transportation system.
That is why Japan invests over four times what we do in transportation
as a percentage of GDP. The Europeans spend twice as much.
We cannot afford to squander this important competitive edge. While
STARS 2000 is not the complete solution, it is a big step in the right
direction.
streamlining
Second, STARS 2000 dramatically streamlines and simplifies today's
transportation programs. It reduces administrative burdens on the
States and the complexity of the programs by consolidating several
funding categories and by allowing for greater flexibility in
decisionmaking.
The bill has two key categories for funding. The National Highway
System, which makes up 60 percent of the core program, and the Surface
Transportation Program, which accounts for the remaining 40 percent.
The National Highway System carries the bulk of our recreational and
commercial traffic. It consists of 160,000 miles of highways, including
the entire 45,000 mile Interstate System.
These roads connect our cities and towns. Our farms to their markets.
And our manufacturing facilities to our seaports. It just makes sense
that the NHS should be a priority.
STARS 2000 devotes over $14 billion annually to these roads.
As with current law, the Surface Transportation Program remains the
most flexible category of funds. States can shift funds among projects
to best serve their transportation needs. STARS 2000 retains ISTEA's
programs and project eligibilities and includes over $9 billion
annually for them.
funding formulas
Third, STARS 2000 updates ISTEA's funding formulas. One criticism of
the current formulas is that they are based on outdated and unnecessary
data.
This bill rectifies that problem by using up-to-date information.
The STARS formula also reflects the transportation needs of a State.
We have included such factors as lane miles, vehicle miles traveled,
and freeze-thaw cycles, to better account for the cost of maintaining
and improving our highway system.
environment
STARS 2000 also continues the commitment to the environment that
began in ISTEA. It dedicates some $380 million annually to congestion
mitigation and air quality projects.
Furthermore, it requires that these funds be spent on projects in
areas that have not attained our transportation-related air quality
standards.
Frankly, I had hoped to include more funding for these projects in
this bill. But as this legislation progresses, I intend to work with my
colleagues to see if we can't be more generous here.
STARS 2000 also continues the transportation enhancement program.
This is an innovative program that has given States the ability to
invest in nontraditional highway projects such as bike paths,
pedestrian walkways and historic preservation.
conclusion
In conclusion, STARS 2000 is a good bill. But it also is one of
several bills that our committee will consider in the coming weeks.
Under the leadership of our chairman, Senator Chafee and our
subcommittee chairman, Senator Warner, along with Senator Moynihan, and
others, I have no doubt that these various
[[Page S2906]]
proposals will be brought together to produce a fair bill.
A bill that will bring this Nation and its transportation system into
the next century.
Before yielding the floor, I wish to thank the primary cosponsors of
this bill, Senators Kempthorne and Thomas, for their hard work in
developing this legislation. I am also grateful for the help of our
State transportation departments, particularly in Montana and Idaho,
and their staff, in fashioning this bill.
STARS 2000 brings a new approach and some new ideas to our surface
transportation policy. I commend it to my colleagues for their
consideration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a
short summary of it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 532
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Surface
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining
Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Policy.
TITLE I--LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Effective use of additional highway account revenue.
Sec. 103. Apportionment of program funds.
Sec. 104. Apportionment adjustment program.
Sec. 105. Program administration, research, and planning funds.
Sec. 106. Recreational trails.
Sec. 107. Rules for any limitations on obligations.
TITLE II--PROGRAM STREAMLINING
Sec. 201. Planning-based expenditures on elements of transportation
infrastructure.
Sec. 202. National Highway System.
Sec. 203. Interstate maintenance activities.
Sec. 204. Surface transportation program amendments.
Sec. 205. Conforming amendments to discretionary programs.
Sec. 206. Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program.
TITLE III--REDUCTION OF REGULATION
Sec. 301. Periodic review of agency rules.
Sec. 302. Planning and programming.
Sec. 303. Metric conversion at State option.
TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION RULES
Sec. 401. Effective date; transition rules.
SEC. 2. POLICY.
Section 101 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress finds and declares
that--
``(1) investments in highways and transportation systems
contribute to the Nation's economic growth, international
competitiveness, and defense, and improve the personal
mobility and quality of life of its citizens;
``(2) there are significant needs for increased Federal
highway and transportation investment across the United
States, including a need to improve and preserve Interstate
System and other National Highway System routes, which are
lifelines for the national economy;
``(3) the Federal Government's interest in transportation
includes--
``(A) ensuring that people and goods can move efficiently
over long distances between metropolitan areas and thus
across rural areas;
``(B) ensuring that people and goods can move efficiently
within metropolitan and rural areas;
``(C) preserving environmental quality and reducing air
pollution;
``(D) promoting transportation safety; and
``(E) ensuring the effective use of intelligent
transportation systems and other transportation technological
innovations in both urban and rural settings;
``(4) rural States do not have the fiscal resources to
support highway investments within their borders that benefit
the United States as a whole by enabling the movement of
people and goods between metropolitan areas and thus across
rural States;
``(5) since State governments already take into account the
public interest before making transportation decisions
affecting citizens of the States--
``(A) the need for Federal regulation of State
transportation activities is limited; and
``(B) it is appropriate for Federal transportation programs
to be revised to minimize regulations and program
requirements and to provide greater flexibility to State
governments; and
``(6) the Federal Government should continue to allow
States and local governments flexibility in the use of
Federal highway funds and require transportation planning and
public involvement in transportation planning.''.
TITLE I--LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
The following sums are authorized to be appropriated out of
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account):
(1) National highway system.--For the National Highway
System under section 103 of title 23, United States Code,
$14,163,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(2) Surface transportation program.--For the surface
transportation program under section 133 of that title,
$9,442,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(3) Federal lands highway investments.--
(A) Federal lands highways program.--
(i) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian reservation roads
under section 204 of that title, $191,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(ii) Public lands highways.--For public lands highways
under section 204 of that title, $172,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(iii) Parkways and park roads.--For parkways and park roads
under section 204 of that title, $84,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(B) Cooperative federal lands transportation program.--For
the Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program under
section 206 of that title, $155,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003.
(4) Territories.--For the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
collectively, $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998
through 2003. Such sums shall be allocated among those
territories at the discretion of the Secretary of
Transportation.
SEC. 102. EFFECTIVE USE OF ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY ACCOUNT
REVENUE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 162. Effective use of additional highway account
revenue
``(a) Determination of Additional Amounts To Be
Apportioned.--
``(1) Publication of information.--Not later than 90 days
after the beginning of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal
year 1999, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register the following information:
``(A) The total estimated revenue of the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) during the period
consisting of that fiscal year and the 5 following fiscal
years, including all interest income credited or to be
credited during the period.
``(B) The amount obtained by dividing the amount determined
under subparagraph (A) by 6.
``(C) The amount obtained by subtracting $27,000,000,000
from the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(2) Apportionment.--If the amount determined under
paragraph (1)(C) is greater than zero, the Secretary shall--
``(A) multiply that amount by 0.85; and
``(B) apportion the amount determined under subparagraph
(A) in accordance with subsection (b)(1).
``(b) Method of Apportionment.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the amount
determined under subsection (a)(2) shall be apportioned as
follows:
``(A) 60 percent of the amount shall be added to the amount
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year for the
National Highway System under section 101(1) of the Surface
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act.
``(B) 40 percent of the amount shall be added to the amount
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year for the
surface transportation program under section 101(2) of that
Act.
``(2) Apportionment adjustment program.--After making the
apportionment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make
such additional apportionments as are necessary under section
157.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this
section such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 1999 and
each fiscal year thereafter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``162. Effective use of additional highway user taxes.''.
SEC. 103. APPORTIONMENT OF PROGRAM FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 104(b) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) National highway system.--
``(A) Apportionment.--For the National Highway System, as
follows:
``(i) Interstate lane miles.--20 percent in the ratio that
lane miles on Interstate routes in each State bears to the
total of all such lane miles in all States.
``(ii) Interstate vehicle miles traveled.--25 percent in
the ratio that vehicle miles traveled on Interstate routes in
each State bears to the total of all such vehicle miles in
all States.
``(iii) National highway system lane miles.--30 percent in
the ratio that lane miles on National Highway System routes
in each State bears to the total of all such lane miles in
all States.
[[Page S2907]]
``(iv) National highway system vehicle miles traveled.--10
percent in the ratio that vehicle miles traveled on the
National Highway System in each State bears to the total of
all such vehicle miles in all States.
``(v) Special fuel.--15 percent in the ratio that special
fuels volume for each State bears to the total special fuels
volume for all States.
``(B) Use of data.--In making the calculations for this
paragraph, for paragraph (3), and for section 157, the
Secretary shall use the most recent calendar or fiscal year
for which data are available as of the first day of the
fiscal year for which the apportionment is to be made.
``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Lane miles on interstate routes.--The term `lane
miles on Interstate routes' shall have the meaning used by
the Secretary in developing Highway Statistics Table HM-60.
``(ii) Lane miles on national highway system routes.--The
term `lane miles on National Highway System routes' shall
have the meaning used by the Secretary in developing Highway
Statistics Table HM-48.
``(iii) Special fuels volume.--The term `special fuels
volume' shall have the meaning used by the Secretary in
developing column 8 of Highway Statistics Table MF-2.
``(iv) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
``(v) Vehicle miles traveled.--The terms `vehicle miles
traveled on Interstate routes' and `vehicle miles traveled on
the National Highway System' shall have the meanings used by
the Secretary in developing Highway Statistics Table VM-3.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2);
(3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Surface transportation program.--For the surface
transportation program, as follows:
``(A) Federal-aid highway lane miles.--25 percent in the
ratio that lane miles on Federal-aid highways in each State
bears to the total of all such lane miles in all States.
``(B) Federal-aid highway vehicle miles traveled.--53
percent in the ratio that vehicle miles traveled on Federal-
aid highways in each State bears to the total of all such
vehicle miles in all States.
``(C) Bridge deck surface area.--10 percent in the ratio
that the square footage of bridge deck surface in each State,
including such square footage with respect to bridges not on
Federal-aid highways, bears to the total of such square
footage in all States, except that, in this subparagraph, the
term `bridge' includes only structures of at least 20 feet in
length.
``(D) Air quality.--4 percent in accordance with the
following table:
``State Percentage
Alabama...................................................0.41 ....
Alaska....................................................0.00 ....
Arizona...................................................1.50 ....
Arkansas..................................................0.00 ....
California...............................................23.02 ....
Colorado..................................................0.00 ....
Connecticut...............................................2.63 ....
Delaware..................................................0.45 ....
District of Columbia......................................0.48 ....
Florida...................................................3.34 ....
Georgia...................................................1.73 ....
Hawaii....................................................0.00 ....
Idaho.....................................................0.00 ....
Illinois..................................................5.48 ....
Indiana...................................................1.26 ....
Iowa......................................................0.00 ....
Kansas....................................................0.00 ....
Kentucky..................................................0.82 ....
Louisiana.................................................0.47 ....
Maine.....................................................0.48 ....
Maryland..................................................3.47 ....
Massachusetts.............................................4.60 ....
Michigan..................................................3.25 ....
Minnesota.................................................0.00 ....
Mississippi...............................................0.00 ....
Missouri..................................................1.11 ....
Montana...................................................0.00 ....
Nebraska..................................................0.00 ....
Nevada....................................................0.17 ....
New Hampshire.............................................0.43 ....
New Jersey................................................6.45 ....
New Mexico................................................0.00 ....
New York.................................................10.96 ....
North Carolina............................................1.38 ....
North Dakota..............................................0.00 ....
Ohio......................................................4.91 ....
Oklahoma..................................................0.00 ....
Oregon....................................................0.66 ....
Pennsylvania..............................................6.76 ....
Rhode Island..............................................0.65 ....
South Carolina............................................0.00 ....
South Dakota..............................................0.00 ....
Tennessee.................................................1.25 ....
Texas.....................................................5.47 ....
Utah......................................................0.55 ....
Vermont...................................................0.00 ....
Virginia..................................................2.38 ....
Washington................................................1.78 ....
West Virginia.............................................0.30 ....
Wisconsin.................................................1.40 ....
Wyoming...................................................0.00.....
``(E) Population in relation to lane miles.--2 percent, as
follows: The Secretary shall (i) divide the total population
of all States by the total number of lane miles on Federal-
aid highways in all States; (ii) for each State divide the
State's population by the number of lane miles on Federal-aid
highways within its borders; (iii) for each State divide the
number determined by (ii) into the number determined by (i);
(iv) add together the number determined under (iii) for every
State; and (v) divide the number for each State under (iii)
by the number for all States determined under (iv). The
Secretary shall apportion to each State, of the funds
apportioned under this subparagraph, the percentage equal to
the number determined under (v).
``(F) Federal lands.--5 percent as follows: The Secretary,
after consultation with the General Services Administration,
the Department of the Interior, and other agencies as
appropriate, shall (i) determine the percentage of the total
land in each State represented by the sum of the percentage
of land owned by the Federal Government in the State and the
percentage of land in the State held in trust by the Federal
Government; (ii) add together the individual State
percentages determined under clause (i) for all States; and
(iii) divide the amount for each State under clause (i) by
the amount for all States under clause (ii). The 5 percent
shall be apportioned among the States in accord with each
State's percentage under clause (iii).
``(G) Freeze-thaw.--1 percent, to be apportioned among the
States in accordance with the table set forth in clause (i),
or in accordance with clause (ii).
``(i) Table.--
``State Percentage
Alabama....................................................1.2 ....
Alaska.....................................................2.4 ....
Arizona....................................................1.0 ....
Arkansas...................................................1.4 ....
California.................................................0.8 ....
Colorado...................................................3.3 ....
Connecticut................................................2.3 ....
Delaware...................................................1.8 ....
District of Columbia.......................................1.9 ....
Florida....................................................0.2 ....
Georgia....................................................1.1 ....
Hawaii.....................................................0.0 ....
Idaho......................................................2.9 ....
Illinois...................................................1.9 ....
Indiana....................................................1.9 ....
Iowa.......................................................2.1 ....
Kansas.....................................................2.1 ....
Kentucky...................................................1.9 ....
Louisiana..................................................0.7 ....
Maine......................................................2.5 ....
Maryland...................................................2.0 ....
Massachusetts..............................................2.4 ....
Michigan...................................................2.2 ....
Minnesota..................................................2.0 ....
Mississippi................................................1.1 ....
Missouri...................................................2.0 ....
Montana....................................................3.0 ....
Nebraska...................................................2.4 ....
Nevada.....................................................2.2 ....
New Hampshire..............................................2.0 ....
New Jersey.................................................2.6 ....
New Mexico.................................................2.1 ....
New York...................................................2.9 ....
North Carolina.............................................2.3 ....
North Dakota...............................................2.2 ....
Ohio.......................................................2.1 ....
Oklahoma...................................................1.6 ....
Oregon.....................................................1.6 ....
Pennsylvania...............................................2.3 ....
Rhode Island...............................................2.1 ....
South Carolina.............................................1.4 ....
South Dakota...............................................2.5 ....
Tennessee..................................................1.8 ....
Texas......................................................1.1 ....
Utah.......................................................3.2 ....
Vermont....................................................2.0 ....
Virginia...................................................1.9 ....
Washington.................................................1.8 ....
West Virginia..............................................2.2 ....
Wisconsin..................................................2.1 ....
Wyoming....................................................3.5.....
``(ii) Alternate approach.--Notwithstanding section 315,
the Secretary may, through notice and comment rulemaking,
adopt an approach in lieu of the table set forth in clause
(i) in order to apportion funds subject to this subparagraph
among the States in a manner that reflects the relative
frequency of freeze-thaw cycles within the States. The
Secretary may use that alternate approach to apportioning
funds for a fiscal year only if a final rule, adopted after
notice and comment, is in effect prior to the beginning of
that fiscal year.
``(H) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Lane miles on federal-aid highways.--The term `lane
miles on Federal-aid highways' shall have the meaning used by
the Secretary in developing Highway Statistics Table HM-60.
``(ii) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
``(iii) Vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways.--
The term `vehicle miles traveled on Federal-aid highways'
shall have the meaning used by the Secretary in developing
Highway Statistics Table VM-2.'';
(4) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) Except as
provided in subparagraph (B)--''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(5) by striking paragraph (6).
(b) Population Determinations.--Section 104 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(k) Population Determinations.--For the purposes of
subsection (b)(3) and section 157, population shall be
determined on the basis of the most recent estimates prepared
by the Secretary of Commerce.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection'' and inserting
``paragraph (5)''.
(2) Section 137(f)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(B) of this title''
and inserting ``section 104(b)(1)''.
(3) Section 139 of title 23, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``sections
[[Page S2908]]
104(b)(1) and 104(b)(5)(B) of this title'' each place it
appears and inserting ``section 104(b)(1)''.
(4) Section 142(c) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(A)'' and inserting
``section 104(b)(5)''.
(5) Section 159(b) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(A)'' and
inserting ``section 104(b)(5)(A) (as in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation
Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act)''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(B)''
and inserting ``section 104(b)(5)(B) (as in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation
Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act)'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section
104(b)(5)(A)'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(5)(A) (as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Surface
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining
Act)'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(5)(B)'' and
inserting ``(5)(B) (as in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of the Surface Transportation Authorization and
Regulatory Streamlining Act)''; and
(iii) in the last sentence, by striking ``section
104(b)(5)'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(5) (as in effect
on the day before the date of enactment of the Surface
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining
Act)''; and
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``section 104(b)(5)'' and
inserting ``section 104(b)(5) (as in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation
Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act)''.
(6) Section 161(a) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``paragraphs (1), (3), and (5)(B) of
section 104(b)'' each place it appears and inserting
``paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b)''.
(7) Section 1009 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 119 note; 105 Stat. 1933)
is amended by striking subsection (c).
SEC. 104. APPORTIONMENT ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 157 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 157. Apportionment adjustment program
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Low-density state.--The term `low-density State'
means a State that is listed in the table in paragraph (4)
and that has an average population density of 20 individuals
or fewer per square mile.
``(2) Small state.--The term `small State' means a State
that is listed in the table in paragraph (4) and that has a
population of 1,500,000 individuals or fewer and a land area
of 10,000 square miles or less.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
``(4) Stated percentage.--The term `stated percentage',
with respect to a State, means the percentage listed for the
State in the following table:
``State Percentage
Alaska....................................................1.25 ....
Delaware..................................................0.40 ....
Hawaii....................................................0.55 ....
Idaho.....................................................0.70 ....
Montana...................................................0.95 ....
Nevada....................................................0.67 ....
New Hampshire.............................................0.48 ....
New Mexico................................................1.05 ....
North Dakota..............................................0.63 ....
Rhode Island..............................................0.55 ....
South Dakota..............................................0.70 ....
Vermont...................................................0.43 ....
Wyoming...................................................0.66.....
``(b) Program.--On October 1 (or as soon as possible
thereafter) of each fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1997, the Secretary shall apportion among the States, in
addition to amounts apportioned under paragraphs (1) and (3)
of section 104(b), and section 104(f)(2), the amounts
required by this section.
``(c) Additional Apportionments and Sequence of Calculating
Additional Apportionments.--
``(1) First calculation.--The Secretary shall apportion
$95,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(2) Second calculation.--For each low-density State and
each small State, the Secretary shall calculate the total
amount obtained by multiplying the stated percentage for the
State by the total amount of funds apportioned to all States
under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b) and section
104(f)(2) plus the amount apportioned under paragraph (1).
For any low-density or small State that received, under
paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b) and section
104(f)(2) combined, apportionments less than the amount for
the State determined pursuant to the first sentence of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall apportion to the State such
additional amount as is required to make up that difference.
``(3) Third calculation.--In addition to any amount
required to be apportioned by paragraph (2) for a fiscal
year, the Secretary shall make additional apportionments so
that no State receives an amount that is less than the amount
determined by multiplying (A) the percentage that is 95
percent of the percentage of estimated tax payments
attributable to highway users in the State paid into the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) in
the latest fiscal year for which data are available by (B)
the total amount of funds apportioned to all States
immediately after the Secretary has made any additional
apportionments required by paragraph (2).
``(4) Fourth calculation.--The Secretary shall determine
for each State the percentage apportioned to that State of
the total amount of funds apportioned to all States under
paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b). The Secretary shall
calculate, for each State, the total amount obtained by
multiplying (A) the percentage for that State under the first
sentence of this paragraph by (B) the total amount of funds
apportioned to all States after the apportionment made by
paragraph (3). If the amount for a State under the
calculation made under the preceding sentence, minus the
total amount apportioned to that State after the
apportionments made by paragraph (3), is greater than zero,
the Secretary shall make an additional apportionment, equal
to that amount, to that State.
``(5) Fifth calculation.--For each low-density State and
each small State, the Secretary shall calculate the total
amount obtained by multiplying the stated percentage for the
State by the total amount of funds apportioned to all States
after the apportionment made by paragraph (4). For any low-
density or small State that receives, after the apportionment
made by paragraph (4), total apportionments less than the
amount for the State determined pursuant to the first
sentence of this paragraph, the Secretary shall apportion to
the State such additional amount as is required to make up
that difference.
``(d) Terms and Conditions.--Amounts apportioned in
accordance with subsection (c), and amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 101(4) of the Surface
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining
Act--
``(1) shall be available for obligation, when allocated,
for the year authorized and the 3 following fiscal years;
``(2) shall be subject to this title; and
``(3) may be obligated for National Highway System projects
under section 103, surface transportation program projects
under section 133, or any other purpose authorized under this
title.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this
section such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 1998 and
each fiscal year thereafter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 157 and inserting the following:
``157. Apportionment adjustment program.''.
(c) Repeal of Certain Apportionment Adjustment Programs.--
(1) Reimbursement for segments of the interstate system
constructed without federal assistance.--
(A) In general.--Section 160 of title 23, United States
Code, is repealed.
(B) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 160.
(2) Donor state bonus amounts.--Section 1013 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23
U.S.C. 157 note; 105 Stat. 1940) is amended by striking
subsection (c).
(3) Hold harmless apportionment adjustment.--Section 1015
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1943) is amended by
striking subsection (a).
(4) 90 percent of payments adjustment.--Section 1015 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23
U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1944) is amended by striking
subsection (b).
SEC. 105. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, RESEARCH, AND PLANNING
FUNDS.
(a) Program Administration.--Section 104 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``an apportionment is made of the sums
authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface
transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program, the National Highway System, and
the Interstate System'' and inserting ``apportionments are
made pursuant to this section and section 157''; and
(ii) by striking ``not to exceed 3\3/4\ per centum of all
sums so authorized'' and inserting ``not to exceed 2 percent
of the total of the apportionments'';
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``For the purpose of calculating apportionments referred to
in the preceding sentence, the deductions made under this
subsection shall be made only after the completion of all
other aspects of calculating the apportionments and from
amounts calculated without taking into account the
deductions.''; and
(C) in the third sentence (after the amendment made by
subparagraph (B)), by striking ``such determination'' and
inserting ``the determination described in the first
sentence''; and
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of subsection
(b), by striking ``, after making the deduction'' and all
that follows through
[[Page S2909]]
the colon and inserting ``shall make apportionments for the
fiscal year in the following manner:''.
(b) Metropolitan Planning.--Section 104(f) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``(f)(1)'' and all
that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting
the following:
``(f) Metropolitan Planning.--
``(1) Set aside.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall set aside to carry out section 134 not to
exceed 1 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated
for the National Highway System under section 103 and the
surface transportation program under section 133.''.
(c) Research and Planning.--Section 307 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Freeze-Thaw Research.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation
Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act, the Secretary
shall undertake an enhanced level of research to determine
means of reducing the long-term and short-term costs of
constructing and maintaining asphalt pavement in areas with
severe or frequent freeze-thaw cycles.
``(h) Consideration of Rural Issues in Transportation
Research, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and Technology
Programs.--In selecting topics for research, allocating funds
among contractors and State and local governments for
research, and researching, developing, testing, and promoting
intelligent transportation systems and other technological
applications, the Secretary shall give careful consideration
to the national interest in--
``(1) understanding transportation issues that affect rural
areas;
``(2) developing a scientific and technological
infrastructure in rural areas; and
``(3) permitting rural as well as metropolitan areas to
benefit from the deployment of modern transportation
technology.''.
SEC. 106. RECREATIONAL TRAILS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) to carry out the recreational
trails program under part B of title I of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261
et seq.) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through
2003.
(b) Apportionment Formula.--
(1) Administrative costs.--Whenever an apportionment is
made of the sums authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 1302 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261), the Secretary shall
deduct an amount, not to exceed 3 percent of the sums
authorized, to cover the cost to the Secretary for
administration of and research under the recreational trails
program and for administration of the National Recreational
Trails Advisory Committee. The Secretary may enter into
contracts, partnerships, or cooperative agreements with other
government agencies, institutions of higher learning, or
nonprofit organizations, and may enter into contracts with
for-profit organizations, to carry out the administration and
research described in the preceding sentence.
(2) Appropriation to the states.--After making the
deduction authorized by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
apportion the remainder of the sums authorized to be
appropriated for expenditure on the recreational trails
program for each fiscal year among the States in the
following manner:
(A) Equal amounts.--Fifty percent of that amount shall be
apportioned equally among eligible States (as defined in
section 1302(g)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261(g)(1))).
(B) Amounts proportionate to nonhighway recreational fuel
use.--Fifty percent of that amount shall be apportioned among
eligible States (as defined in section 1302(g)(1) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16
U.S.C. 1261(g)(1))) in amounts proportionate to the degree of
nonhighway recreational fuel use in each of those States
during the preceding year.
(c) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized by this section
shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if
the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code, except that the Federal share of the cost
of any recreational trails project shall be determined in
accordance with subsection (d).
(d) Federal Share Payable.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3),
(4), and (5), the Federal share payable on account of a
recreational trails project shall not exceed 80 percent.
(2) Federal agency project sponsor.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a Federal agency sponsoring a project
under this section may contribute Federal funds toward a
project's cost, if the share attributable to the Secretary of
Transportation does not exceed 50 percent and the share
attributable to the Secretary and the Federal agency jointly
does not exceed 80 percent.
(3) Allowable match from federal grant programs.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following
Federal grant programs may be used to contribute Federal
funds toward a project's cost and may be accounted for as
contributing to the non-Federal share:
(A) The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972
(Public Law 92-512).
(B) Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
(C) The Public Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6701
et seq.).
(D) The Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National
Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 102 Stat.
4552).
(E) The Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
(F) The National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).
(G) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193).
(4) Programmatic non-federal share.--A State may allow
adjustments of the non-Federal share of individual projects
if the total Federal share payable for all projects within
the State under this program for a Federal fiscal year's
apportionment does not exceed 80 percent. A project funded
under paragraph (2) or (3) may not be included in the
calculation of the programmatic non-Federal share.
(5) State administrative costs.--The Federal share payable
on account of the administrative costs of a State, incurred
in administering this program and carrying out statewide
trail planning, shall be determined in accordance with
section 120(b) of title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 107. RULES FOR ANY LIMITATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS.
(a) None Established.--Nothing in this Act establishes a
limitation on the total of all obligations for any fiscal
year for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction
programs.
(b) Rules for Obligation Authority Limits.--Chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code (as amended by section 102(a)),
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 163. Rules for any limitations on obligations
``(a) In General.--Any provision of a statute enacted
before or after the date of enactment of this section that
establishes a limitation on obligations for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 1998, or any fiscal year thereafter, shall be in
accordance with this section (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this section) or stated as an amendment to this
section.
``(b) Prohibition on Certain Limitations.--Obligations
under section 125, for Federal lands highway investments, and
for recreational trails under part B of title I of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16
U.S.C. 1261 et seq.), shall not be subject to any limitation
on obligation authority.
``(c) Distribution of Obligation Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--If, with respect to fiscal year 1998 or
any fiscal year thereafter, a provision of a statute
establishes a limitation on obligations for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs, paragraphs
(2) through (4) shall apply.
``(2) Distribution formula.--For a fiscal year, any
limitation described in paragraph (1) shall be distributed
among the States by allocation in the ratio that--
``(A) the total of the amounts apportioned to each State
under sections 104, 157, and 162 for the fiscal year; bears
to
``(B) the total of the amounts apportioned to all States
under those sections for the fiscal year.
``(3) Redistribution of unused obligation authority.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any limitation described
in paragraph (1), for each fiscal year, the Secretary--
``(i) shall provide each State with authority sufficient to
prevent lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
that have been apportioned or allocated to the State, except
in those cases in which the State indicates its intention to
lapse sums apportioned to the State;
``(ii) after August 1 of the fiscal year--
``(I) shall revise a distribution of the funds made
available under the limitation described in paragraph (1) for
the fiscal year if a State will not obligate the amount
distributed during the fiscal year; and
``(II) shall redistribute sufficient amounts to States able
to obligate amounts in addition to the amounts previously
distributed for the fiscal year, giving priority to those
States that have unobligated balances of funds apportioned
that are relatively large when compared to the amount of
funds apportioned to those States under sections 104 and 157
for the fiscal year; and
``(iii) shall not distribute amounts authorized for
administrative expenses.
``(B) State infrastructure banks.--For the purposes of
subparagraph (A)(ii), funds made available and placed in a
State infrastructure bank approved by the Secretary but not
obligated out of the bank shall be considered to be not
obligated.
``(4) Additional obligation authority.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), a State that
after August 1 and on or before September 30 of a fiscal year
obligates the amount distributed to the State for the fiscal
year under paragraph (2) may obligate for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs on or
before September 30 of the fiscal year an additional amount
not to exceed 5 percent of the aggregate amount of funds
apportioned or allocated to the State under sections 104 and
157
[[Page S2910]]
that are not obligated on the date on which the State
completes obligation of the amount so distributed.
``(B) Limitation on additional obligation authority.--
During the period August 2 through September 30 of each
fiscal year, the aggregate amount that may be obligated by
all States under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 2.5
percent of the aggregate amount of funds apportioned or
allocated to all States under sections 104 and 157 that would
not be obligated in the fiscal year if the total amount of
obligation authority provided for the fiscal year were used.
``(C) Limitation on applicability.--In the case of a fiscal
year, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that on
or after August 1 of the fiscal year has the amount
distributed to the State under a limitation for the fiscal
year reduced under paragraph (3).
``(d) Maintenance of Overall Program Balance.--If a
limitation on obligations is established for a fiscal year--
``(1) the Secretary shall determine the percentage by which
the limitation reduces the amount of funds that otherwise
would be available for obligation by each State; and
``(2) notwithstanding sections 133, 144, and 149, for the
fiscal year, the amounts that are required to be made
available for use in the State under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 133(d), the amounts that the State is required to
reserve under section 144, and the amounts subject to section
149, shall be reduced by the percentage determined by the
Secretary under paragraph (1).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code (as amended by section 102(b)),
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``163. Rules for limitations on obligation authority.''.
TITLE II--PROGRAM STREAMLINING
SEC. 201. PLANNING-BASED EXPENDITURES ON ELEMENTS OF
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Bridge Expenditures.--
(1) In general.--Section 144 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Certification by the State.--Not later than 180 days
after the end of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year
1998, each State shall certify to the Secretary, either
that--
``(1) the State has reserved, from funds apportioned to the
State for the preceding fiscal year, to carry out bridge
projects eligible under section 133(b), an amount that is not
less than the amount apportioned to the State under this
section for fiscal year 1997; or
``(2) the amount that the State will reserve, from funds
apportioned to the State for the period consisting of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003, to carry out bridge projects
eligible under section 133(b), will be not less than 6 times
the amount apportioned to the State under this section for
fiscal year 1997.
``(b) Set Asides.--
``(1) Discretionary bridge program.--
``(A) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year
beginning with fiscal year 1998, before making any
apportionment under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 104(b),
the Secretary shall set aside--
``(i) $36,300,000 from the amount available for
apportionments under section 104(b)(1); and
``(ii) $24,200,000 from the amount available for
apportionments under section 104(b)(3).
``(B) Use of set aside.--The amounts set aside under
subparagraph (A) shall be available for obligation in the
same manner and to the same extent as sums apportioned under
section 104(b)(3), except that the amounts shall be obligated
at the discretion of the Secretary, in accordance with
procedures to be established by the Secretary, for bridge
projects eligible under section 133(b).'';
(B) by striking subsections (c) through (f) and (h) through
(p);
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection
(g) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, of subsection
(b);
(D) by striking subsection (g);
(E) in subsection (q), by striking ``(q) As used in'' and
inserting ``(c) Definition of Rehabilitate.--In''; and
(F) in subsection (b) (as amended by subparagraph (C))--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``apportioned to each
State in each of fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997,'' and inserting
``reserved by each State under subsection (a) for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``apportioned to''
and inserting ``reserved under subsection (a) by''; and
(II) in the second sentence, by striking ``a State bridge
apportionment and before transferring funds to the States,''
and inserting ``the amount to be reserved under subsection
(a) for a fiscal year by a State described in the preceding
sentence,''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 104(g) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by striking ``apportioned'' and inserting ``reserved'';
(II) by striking ``to each State in accordance with'' and
inserting ``by each State for the purposes of''; and
(III) by striking ``apportionment'' each place it appears
and inserting ``amount reserved'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``apportionment''
each place it appears and inserting ``amount reserved''; and
(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``State's
apportionment'' and inserting ``amount reserved by the
State''.
(B) Section 115(c) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``144,,''.
(C) Section 120(e) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended in the last sentence by striking ``and in section 144
of this title''.
(D) Section 140(b) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended in the last sentence by striking ``and the bridge
program under section 144''.
(E) Section 151(d) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``section 104(a), section 307(a), and
section 144 of this title'' and inserting ``sections 104(a)
and 307(a)''.
(F) Section 307(c)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``sections 104 and 144 of this title''
and inserting ``section 104''.
(b) Safety Programs.--
(1) Surface transportation program.--Section 133(d) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Safety programs.--
``(A) Required set-aside.--With respect to funds
apportioned for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003--
``(i) an amount equal to 2.5 percent of the amount
apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal
year 1997 shall be available only to carry out activities
eligible under section 130;
``(ii) an amount equal to the amount described in clause
(i) shall be available only to carry out activities eligible
under section 152; and
``(iii) an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount
apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal
year 1997 shall be available only to carry out activities
eligible under section 130 or 152.
``(B) Waiver.--For a fiscal year, the Secretary shall waive
the set-aside required under clause (i) or (ii) of
subparagraph (A), and permit the amount of the set-aside to
be used in accordance with subparagraph (A)(iii), upon
receipt of a certification by the State that the amount that
will be made available for the purpose of the waived set-
aside for that fiscal year, when combined with the amount
made available for that purpose for the preceding fiscal
year, or the amount to be made available for that purpose for
the following fiscal year, will average, per fiscal year, not
less than 2.5 percent of the amount apportioned to the State
under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal year 1997.''.
(2) Program improvements.--Title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in section 130--
(i) in subsection (e), by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``Funds authorized for or expended
under this section may be used for the installation of
protective devices at railway-highway crossings.''; and
(ii) in subsection (f), by striking ``Apportionment'' and
all that follows through the first sentence and inserting
``Federal Share.--''; and
(B) in section 152--
(i) in subsection (c), by striking ``(other than a highway
on the Interstate System)''; and
(ii) in subsection (e), by striking the first sentence.
(c) Transportation Enhancement Activities.--Section 133(d)
of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Transportation enhancement activities.--With respect
to funds apportioned for each of fiscal years 1998 through
2003, an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount apportioned
to a State under section 104(b)(3) shall be available only to
carry out transportation enhancement activities.''.
(d) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Activities.--
(1) In general.--Section 149 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``program'' and
inserting ``activities'';
(B) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Use of Funds.--Funds apportioned to a State under
section 104(b)(3)(D) may be used only in accordance with this
section.'';
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ``Except'' and all that
follows through ``program only'' and inserting ``Funds
described in subsection (a) may be used only''; and
(D) in subsection (c), by striking ``section 104(b)(2)''
and inserting ``section 104(b)(3)(D)''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 149
and inserting the following:
``149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement activities.''.
(B) Section 115(a) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement,''; and
(ii) in paragraph (1)(A)(i), by striking ``104(b)(2),''.
(C) Section 146(a) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``104(b)(2),'' and
inserting ``104(b)(3)(D),''.
(D) Section 217 of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(i) in subsection (a)--
[[Page S2911]]
(I) in the subsection heading, by striking ``STP and
Congestion Mitigation Program'' and inserting ``Surface
Transportation Program''; and
(II) by striking ``sections 104(b)(2) and 104(b)(3) of this
title'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(3)''; and
(ii) in subsection (d), by striking ``sections 104(b)(2)
and 104(b)(3) of this title'' and inserting ``section
104(b)(3)''.
SEC. 202. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) Definition of National Highway System.--Section 101(a)
of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the
undesignated paragraph defining ``National Highway System''
and inserting the following:
``The term `National Highway System' means the Federal-aid
highway system established under section 103(b).''.
(b) Program Specifications.--Section 103 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section designation and heading and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 103. National Highway System''
(2) by striking subsections (g) and (h); and
(3) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (c) and
moving the subsection to appear after subsection (b).
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 103 and inserting the following:
``103. National Highway System.''.
SEC. 203. INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Funding of Activities.--Section 119 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``program'' and
inserting ``activities'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``sections 103 and 139(c) of this title and
routes on the Interstate System designated before the date of
enactment of this sentence under section 139(a) and (b) of'';
and
(ii) by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence;
(3) by striking subsections (d), (f), and (g); and
(4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 119
and inserting the following:
``119. Interstate maintenance activities.''
(2) Sections 134(i)(4) and 135(f)(3) of title 23, United
States Code, are amended--
(A) by striking ``and pursuant to the bridge and Interstate
maintenance programs'' each place it appears and inserting
``, pursuant to the bridge program under section 144, and as
Interstate maintenance activities under section 119''; and
(B) by striking ``or pursuant to the bridge and Interstate
maintenance programs'' each place it appears and inserting
``, pursuant to the bridge program under section 144, or as
Interstate maintenance activities under section 119''.
SEC. 204. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.
Section 133 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(12) With respect to each area of a State that is a
nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) for ozone or carbon monoxide, or for PM-10 resulting
from transportation activities, or for any combination of
these substances, also for any congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement project or program without regard to any
limitation of the Department of Transportation relating to
the type of ambient air quality standard addressed by the
project or program. For the purpose of this paragraph, an
area that has been designated as nonattainment for carbon
monoxide under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7407(d)) shall be considered to be a nonattainment area
regardless of whether the area has been `classified' under
subpart 3 of part D of title I of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et
seq.).
``(13) Placement of funds in a State infrastructure bank
approved by the Secretary.'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``unless such roads are
on a Federal-aid highway system on January 1, 1991, and'';
(3) in subsection (d)(3)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) General rule.--
``(i) Urban areas.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
for each fiscal year, a State shall allocate for use in each
area of the State with an urbanized area population of over
200,000 individuals an amount of the funds apportioned under
section 104(b)(3) for the fiscal year obtained by
multiplying--
``(I)(aa) if funds were allocated for use in the area under
the surface transportation program for fiscal year 1997, the
amount of such funds required to be allocated for use in the
area for that year; or
``(bb) if funds were not allocated for use in the area
under the surface transportation program for fiscal year
1997, the amount of such funds that would have been required
to be allocated for use in the area for fiscal year 1997 if
the area had had an urbanized area population of 200,001
individuals as of October 1, 1996; by
``(II) the amount obtained by dividing--
``(aa) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
for the fiscal year; by
``(bb) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
for fiscal year 1997.
``(ii) Other areas.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(C), for each fiscal year, a State shall allocate for use in
each area of the State that is not an area described in
clause (i) an amount of the funds apportioned under section
104(b)(3) for the fiscal year obtained by multiplying--
``(I) the amount of funds required to be allocated for use
in the area under the surface transportation program for
fiscal year 1997; by
``(II) the amount obtained by dividing--
``(aa) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
for the fiscal year; by
``(bb) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
for fiscal year 1997.'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subparagraph
(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``this section'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Special rule for certain states.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply in the case of a State that is noncontiguous
with the continental United States.'';
(D) by striking subparagraph (D);
(E) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D);
and
(F) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``obligate'' each place it appears and
inserting ``allocate'';
(ii) by striking ``(A)(i)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``(A)''; and
(iii) by striking ``obligated'' and inserting
``allocated'';
(4) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Certification.--Before the beginning of each fiscal
year, the Governor of each State shall certify to the
Secretary that the State will meet all the requirements of
this section and shall notify the Secretary that the amount
of obligations expected to be incurred for surface
transportation program projects during the fiscal year is in
accordance with the surveys, plans, specifications, and
estimates for each proposed project included in the surface
transportation program category in the transportation
improvement program of the State developed under section 135
for the fiscal year. A State may request an adjustment to an
obligation amount referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) later
in the fiscal year. Acceptance by the Secretary of the
notification and certification shall be deemed to be a
contractual obligation of the United States to pay the
Federal share of costs incurred by the State for projects not
subject to review by the Secretary under this chapter.''; and
(5) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``6-fiscal year period 1992 through 1997''
and inserting ``6-fiscal-year period 1998 through 2003''; and
(B) by striking ``obligate in'' each place it appears and
inserting ``allocate to''.
SEC. 205. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS.
(a) Operation Lifesaver.--Section 104 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by striking subsection (d) and
inserting the following:
``(d) Operation Lifesaver.--From administrative funds
deducted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall expend
$500,000 for each fiscal year to carry out a public
information and education program to help prevent and reduce
motor vehicle accidents, injuries, and fatalities and to
improve driver performance at railway-highway crossings.''.
(b) Repeal of Set-Asides for the Interstate and National
Highway System Discretionary Programs.--Section 118 of title
23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
SEC. 206. COOPERATIVE FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 205 the following:
``SEC. 206. COOPERATIVE FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Findings and Purpose.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that public roads owned by
States--
``(A) can provide valuable assistance to the Federal
Government in ensuring adequate and safe transportation to,
in, and across federally owned land and Indian reservations;
and
``(B) supplement the efforts of the Federal Government in
developing and maintaining roads to serve federally owned
land and Indian reservations.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to further
the Federal interest in State-owned or State-maintained roads
that provide transportation to, in, or across federally owned
land or Indian reservations by establishing the Cooperative
Federal Lands Transportation Program.
``(b) Program.--There is established the Cooperative
Federal Lands Transportation Program (referred to in this
section as the `program'). Funds available for the program
may be used for projects, or portions of projects, on State-
owned or State-maintained highways that cross, are adjacent
to,
[[Page S2912]]
or lead to federally owned land or Indian reservations, as
determined by the State. Such projects shall be proposed by a
State and selected by the Secretary. A project proposed by a
State under this section shall be on a highway owned or
maintained by the State and may be a highway construction or
maintenance project eligible under this title or any project
of a type described in section 204(h).
``(c) Distribution of Funds for Projects.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary--
``(i) after consultation with the Administrator of General
Services, the Secretary of the Interior, and other agencies
as appropriate, shall determine the percentage of the total
land in each State that is owned by the Federal Government or
that is held by the Federal Government in trust;
``(ii) shall determine the sum of the percentages
determined under clause (i) for States with respect to which
the percentage is 4.5 or greater; and
``(iii) shall determine for each State included in the
determination under clause (ii) the percentage obtained by
dividing--
``(I) the percentage for the State determined under clause
(i); by
``(II) the sum determined under clause (ii).
``(B) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) reduce any percentage determined under subparagraph
(A)(iii) that is greater than 7.5 percent to 7.5 percent; and
``(ii) redistribute the percentage points equal to any
reduction under clause (i) among other States included in the
determination under subparagraph (A)(ii) in proportion to the
percentages for those States determined under subparagraph
(A)(iii).
``(2) Availability to states.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make
funds available to carry out eligible projects in a State in
an amount equal to the amount obtained by multiplying--
``(A) the percentage for the State, if any, determined
under paragraph (1); by
``(B) the funds made available for the program for the
fiscal year.
``(3) Selection of projects.--The Secretary may establish
deadlines for States to submit proposed projects for funding
under this section, except that in the case of fiscal year
1998 the deadline may not be earlier than January 1, 1998.
For each fiscal year, if a State does not have pending, by
that deadline, applications for projects with an estimated
cost equal to at least 3 times the amount for the State
determined under paragraph (2), the Secretary may distribute,
to 1 or more other States, at the Secretary's discretion, \1/
3\ of the amount by which the estimated cost of the State's
applications is less than 3 times the amount for the State
determined under paragraph (2).
``(d) Transfers.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a State and the Secretary may agree to transfer amounts
made available to a State under this section for use in
carrying out projects on any Federal lands highway that is
located in the State.
``(2) Special rule.--This paragraph applies to a State that
contains a national park that was visited by more than
2,500,000 people in 1996 and comprises more than 3,000 square
miles of land area, including surface water, that is located
in the State. For such a State, 50 percent of the amount that
would otherwise be made available to the State for each
fiscal year under the program shall be made available only
for eligible highway uses in the national park and within the
borders of the State. For the purpose of making allocations
under section 202(c), the Secretary may not take into account
the past or future availability, for use on park roads and
parkways in a national park, of funds made available for use
in a national park by this paragraph.''.
(b) Definition of Federal Lands Highway Investment.--
Section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following:
``The term `Federal lands highway investment' means funds
authorized for the Federal lands highways program or the
Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program under
chapter 2.''; and
(2) by reordering the undesignated paragraphs so that they
are in alphabetical order.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 2 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 205 the following:
``206. Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program.''.
TITLE III--REDUCTION OF REGULATION
SEC. 301. PERIODIC REVIEW OF AGENCY RULES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out a periodic review of all significant rules issued
by the Department of Transportation and shall determine which
of the rules should be amended, rescinded, or continued
without change, based on a consideration of--
(1) the continued need for each rule; and
(2) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal rules.
(b) Plan.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and
publish in the Federal Register a plan for the periodic
review of all significant rules issued by the Department of
Transportation.
SEC. 302. PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING.
Section 135 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Continuation of Current Review Practice.--Since plans
and programs described in this section are subject to a
reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual
projects included in the plans and programs are subject to
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the
Secretary concerning plans and programs described in this
section have not been reviewed under that Act as of January
1, 1997, any decision by the Secretary concerning a plan or
program described in this section shall not be considered to
be a Federal action subject to review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
SEC. 303. METRIC CONVERSION AT STATE OPTION.
Section 205(c)(2) of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 109 Stat. 577)
is amended by striking ``Before September 30, 2000, the'' and
inserting ``The''.
TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION RULES.
SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION RULES.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Funds.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this
Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply only to
funds authorized to be appropriated or made available after
September 30, 1997.
(c) Unobligated Balances.--Section 118 of title 23, United
States Code (as amended by section 205(b)), is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Unobligated Balances as of October 1, 1997.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by law,
unobligated balances of funds apportioned or allocated to a
State before October 1, 1997, under this title, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-240), or other law concerning Federal-aid
highways, shall be available for obligation in the State
under the law (including regulations, policies, and
procedures) relating to the obligation and expenditure of the
funds in effect on September 30, 1997.
``(2) Transferability.--
``(A) Interstate construction and interstate maintenance
programs.--A State may transfer unobligated balances of funds
apportioned to the State before October 1, 1997, for the
Interstate construction program under section 104(b)(5)(A)
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subsection) or the Interstate maintenance program under
section 104(b)(5)(B) (as in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of this subsection), to the apportionment of the
State under section 104(b)(1).
``(B) Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--A
State may transfer unobligated balances of funds apportioned
to the State before October 1, 1997, for the bridge
replacement and rehabilitation program under section 144 (as
in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subsection) to the apportionment of the State under paragraph
(1) or (3) of section 104(b) (or both).
``(C) Surface transportation program.--A State may transfer
unobligated balances of funds apportioned to the State before
October 1, 1997, for the surface transportation program under
section 104(b)(3) (as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this subsection) to the apportionment of the
State under section 104(b)(3).
``(D) Other programs.--A State may transfer unobligated
balances of funds apportioned or allocated to the State
before October 1, 1997, under sections 157 and 160 (as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subsection), and sections 1013(c) and 1015(b) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-240) (as in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of this subsection), to the apportionment of the
State under section 104(b)(3).
``(E) Applicability of certain laws.--Funds transferred
under this paragraph shall be subject to the laws (including
regulations, policies, and procedures) relating to the
apportionment to which the funds are transferred as the laws
are in effect after the date of enactment of this subsection,
except that a transfer of funds permitted under this
paragraph shall not extend the time period within which the
transferred funds either must be obligated or lapse.
``(F) Effect on certain determinations.--A decision by a
State to transfer funds under this paragraph shall have no
effect on any determination of the apportionments or
obligation authority of the State.''.
____
Summary of Key Provisions of STARS 2000
STARS 2000 is a six-year transportation reauthorization
proposal.
FUNDING LEVELS
The Department of Transportation estimates that the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund could sustain annual
funding levels of $27 billion into the next century. This
figure includes annual revenue, interest accumulated from
unobligated balances, and the gradual spend-down of
unobligated balances.
STARS 2000 funding levels are approximately $27 billion
annually.
The breakdown is as follows:
[[Page S2913]]
National Highway System--$14.163 billion
Surface Transportation Program--$9.442 billion
Equity programs--approximately $2.8 billion
Federal lands programs
1. Indian reservation roads--$191 million
2. Public lands highways--$172 million
3. Parks and Parkways--$84 million
Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program (new)--
$155 million
Territories--$35 million
Recreational Trails--$30 million
FUNDING FORMULAS
STARS 2000 funding formulas are based heavily on the extent
and use of a State's highway system. Interstate lane miles
and vmt, NHS lane miles and vmt, federal-aid lane miles and
vmt, square footage of bridges, diesel sales and 4 other
formula factors consisting of air quality, federal land
ownership, population in relation to lane miles and freeze/
thaw cycles.
STARS 2000 also includes a 95% minimum allocation equity
account.
STREAMLINED PROGRAM
Under STARS 2000, the federal program is streamlined in
order to allow the program to be highly flexible. This
enables different States to choose projects that meet their
transportation priorities. Projects such as highway
reconstruction, safety improvements, transit, bridges,
enhancements, CMAQ projects or other eligible investments.
national highway system
Funding for the National Highway System represents sixty
percent of the core formula program under STARS 2000. Funds
may be used for Interstate maintenance activities, bridge
improvements and other uses eligible under today's current
NHS program.
surface transportation program
Funding for the Surface Transportation Program (STP)
represents forty percent of the core formula program under
STARS 2000. Under this flexible program, funds may be used
for projects eligible under today's Surface Transportation
Program and projects eligible under today's Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program.
enhancements
STARS 2000 retains the transportation enhancement program.
Today, the core of the enhancement program is a 10% set-aside
of the $4 billion STP program--$400 million. STARS 2000
requires 5% of the new $9.44 billion STP program be set-aside
annually--approximately $480 million. Eligibility under the
enhancement program is not changed.
safety programs
Current law requires a 10% set-aside of STP funds for
railway crossing elimination and hazard elimination programs.
STARS 2000 retains this set-aside (10% of what a State
received under the STP category in 1997), but gives States
additional flexibility in meeting this requirement. States
must spend at least 2.5% of the requirement on railway-
highway crossing projects, at least 2.5% of the requirement
on hazard elimination projects and the remaining 5% may be
used for either program at the discretion of the State.
bridge program
STARS 2000 eliminates the bridge program as a separate
category. However, STARS 2000 retains the national commitment
to bridges repairs by requiring every State to spend at least
as much on bridges as it does today, using National Highway
System or Surface Transportation Program funds.
The bridge discretionary program is also retained at FY
1997 levels--$60.5 million annually to be funded from the NHS
and STP program.
congestion mitigation and air quality
STARS 2000 eliminates the CMAQ program as a separate
category. However, included in the Surface Transportation
Program funding formula is an ``air quality'' factor. States
that receive funds under the air quality factor--which are
those States that receive CMAQ funds under today's CMAQ
formula for their nonattainment areas--would be required to
spend such funds in their nonattainment areas for CMAQ
eligible projects. This provision translates into a $380
million air quality program.
recreational trails
STARS 2000 proposes a $30 million annual funding level for
the National Recreational Trails program. Funds are to be
used for both motorized and nonmotorized trails, consistent
with current law. The matching requirement has been adjusted
from today's 50/50 matching ratio to a new 80/20 matching
ratio.
federal lands
STARS 2000 retains the current federal lands categories--
public lands, Indian reservation roads, parks and parkways.
Current funding levels are retained as well.
A new Federal lands category, the Cooperative Federal Lands
Transportation Program is also proposed at $155 million
annually. These funds are to be used by States to improve
State-owned or maintained roads that lead to, are adjacent to
or pass through Federal lands or reservations.
regulatory review
The Department of Transportation is required to review all
significant rules it has issued. Any rules that are obsolete,
overlapping, duplicative or conflict with other Federal rules
shall be either amended, rescinded or continued without
change after such periodic review.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the
reauthorization of the Federal highway bill. I am very pleased to join
with Senators Baucus and Kempthorne in the introduction of the Surface
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act for the
Next Century, STARS 2000. I am also pleased that there will be 14
original cosponsors in support of this important legislation.
This is the time for the reauthorization of the Federal highway bill,
called ISTEA, that has been in place for the past 6 years and has made
a very important contribution to this country and its transportation.
It has made some important changes in our surface transportation
policies, but as we move into the 21st century, we need to update the
law and make it more flexible and more efficient in order to meet the
transportation challenges of the new century. I believe STARS 2000,
achieves this goal. It will create new rules of the road to help us to
build the highways and bridges to the 21st century.
With respect to the gas tax, it is a user fee, of course, that each
of us pay as we buy gas wherever we are in this country. American
taxpayers have been shortchanged with regard to the benefits they are
getting from the gas tax. Not all of the gas taxes have been used for
surface transportation. We need to get back to a user-fee system where
the taxes paid, in this case by the users of highways, are used then
for surface transportation. STARS 2000 addresses this problem by
restoring the integrity of the fee system by spending as much out of
the highway fee system as it can sustain. We have been spending less
than $20 billion annually. STARS 2000 raises the authorization to $27
billion. We believe those dollars ought to go into the highway system.
In addition, it provides a framework for any additional revenues such
as the 4.3 cents that currently goes to deficit reduction. Should these
user fees be transferred to the highway trust fund, they would be
distributed according to the bill's formula. STARS 2000 will help my
State and many States maintain a national system.
If you are going to go from Washington to California, you obviously
have to go throughout the whole country and therefore it is key to have
a Federal system. In my State, a small State in terms of population but
large in terms of space, we pay more per capita than any other State,
nearly $200 for every person in our State for highway gas taxes, and
yet we have deteriorating bridges and roads, as do many States.
In addition, the Federal Government owns 50 percent of Wyoming. One
of the principle authors of this bill and my friend, Senator
Kempthorne, his State of Idaho has even larger holdings. In Nevada, it
is 86 percent federally owned so we have to take Federal lands into
account as we talk about a Federal system.
In fact, Yellowstone Park, located in Wyoming, has a backlog of
nearly $250 million in road repairs and maintenance that needs to be
considered. Unfortunately, we are not meeting these needs. For example,
the Clinton administration admits that this country only invests 70
percent of what needs to be invested just to maintain our
transportation infrastructure. These shortfalls hurt all taxpayers, of
course. The STARS 2000 coalition States are bridge States--people and
goods cross these States to other destinations. A set of efficient and
well maintained roads are as important to the cities that export goods
across the country and around the world as they are to people in our
States. These transactions contribute to the Nation's economy and its
job creation. STARS 2000 will make a smooth flow of people and goods
across the country a reality.
One of the keys to the highway program is that each State knows best
what it should be doing with the resources it has, and its priorities
are. Clearly, the highways and roads in New York City are quite
different than those in Wyoming or Nevada, so we need to have the
flexibility for State and local officials to make the decisions there.
STARS 2000 does that by significantly increasing the surface
transportation program, the STP portion, and puts the decisionmaking
authority for how this money is allocated into the hands of state and
local people.
Unfortunately, the administration bill, NEXTEA, is advertised as
building
[[Page S2914]]
a bridge to the 21st century. Unfortunately, it is my belief that in
its present form that bridge will collapse. NEXTEA does not restore the
integrity of the trust fund, so for the American taxpayer, there is no
trust in the trust fund. It does not streamline the program. It does
not make the kinds of changes that are needed. It hangs on to what we
have done in the past. It also handcuffs local authorities in terms of
making decisions. NEXTEA adds regulations. God knows, we need to move
away from regulations and allow the highway program to be more
efficient.
STARS 2000 emphasizes the Federal component of our program and
achieves a fair and equitable method of distribution. Based on a
percentage share of the Federal highway program, 37 States do better
and 1 tied compared to NEXTEA; 33 States do better than under the
current law; 25 States higher, 6 the same compared to STEP 21. In
addition, STARS 2000 addresses the donor/donee issue by creating a 95
percent minimum allocation to all States. That means all States will
get at least 95 percent of what they put into the highway trust fund.
The STARS 2000 coalition will be a significant factor in the ISTEA
reauthorization debate. Without our coalition, without our States, you
cannot get there from here--physically or politically. STARS 2000 is
more than a marker. It is a coalition of States that are needed to make
an interstate map to the 21st century.
Quite often, in my experience in the House, the highway money flows
where the votes are. But that really does not work in a transportation
program. You have to have one that covers the country and is, indeed, a
Federal program. The funding formulas under STARS 2000 are based on the
transportation needs of the country.
STARS 2000 maintains the integrity of the original ISTEA. It improves
it by a smarter investment of taxpayers' money. It meets our growing
infrastructure needs. It increases job and economic growth and
increases flexibility and efficiency. We get more bang for the buck.
So we are emphasizing the National Highway System, allowing more
decisions to be made closer to home, and I certainly would submit to my
fellow Members of the Senate this is a bill that we can all support and
will provide a better infrastructure for highway surface
transportation.
Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I thank Senators Kempthorne and
Baucus for their hard work on this legislation and look forward to
working with them in the future.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, may I commend my colleague from
Wyoming, Senator Thomas, for giving an excellent view as to the bill
that we are submitting to Congress today, the Surface Transportation
Authorization and Streamlining Act, or STARS 2000.
I appreciate the fact that Senator Thomas and Senator Baucus of
Montana and I will be able to form this partnership, with many more
partners in the Senate joining our effort, including the Senator from
Kansas, who will be joining us. I also want to recognize that I
appreciate Senator John Warner, who is the chairman of this particular
subcommittee dealing with this issue of the national highway bill, for
holding a hearing in the State of Idaho, for coming to Idaho so that
the western perspective could be made part of the public record. Also,
Senator Baucus, who came to that hearing in Idaho--I appreciate my
neighbor from Montana coming over and making that effort; it was an
excellent hearing--and, too, acknowledging Senator Chafee, the chairman
of the full committee, making that hearing in the West a reality. So,
again, it demonstrates that all of us, while we may be coming at this
from slightly different views, are working together. That is important
and significant.
With STARS 2000, I believe, as Senator Thomas has pointed out, we are
going to restore the integrity of what a trust fund is: a trust fund.
So the money that is gathered for that dedicated purpose ought to be
used for that dedicated purpose. Doesn't that sound amazing that we
would have to even say that? But it is not happening. Currently we only
authorize about $18 billion that are to be used on the national highway
program. The full amount that could be used, the maximum, is $27
billion. So this legislation by Senator Baucus and Senator Thomas and
myself would authorize the full $27 billion to be used for the highways
of this country, because that is why we have been collecting this
highway tax.
It provides a fair distribution throughout the United States, and it
is going to address the very key issues, such as extent and usage of
the highways; the lane miles that are there; the poor air quality in
some regions of the country, some of the cities that are having
difficulty with poor air quality; the tax-exempt Federal lands, as have
been referenced. In the State of Idaho we are 67 percent federally
owned. In the State of Texas--I do not believe there is any federally
owned land in the State of Texas. So you can see we come at this from
different perspectives. Low population density--Idaho is the 13th
State, as far as ranking in landmass, yet we rank 41st in population.
So you can see there are not a lot of folks. Take the District of
Columbia, for example, this city right here around Capitol Hill. It has
a little over one-half-million people. The State of Idaho has 1 million
people in the entire State, versus one-half-million in just this city.
It also authorizes full funding for the National Recreational Trails
Act, $30 million annually, something that had been talked about and was
to have occurred years ago. It has not done so. We are going to do
right by that.
We also know there is this issue of the donor/donee States. Some
States put in their share, and they get more than they put in. Other
States put in their share, and they get less back than they put in. We
address that head on by increasing the minimum allocation program from
90 percent up to 95 percent. Under STARS 2000 formulas and proposed
increased funding levels, it would result in 47 States receiving
greater funding than they do under the current ISTEA program. Mr.
President, 47 States will actually receive more funds.
Again, as has been pointed out, we really do provide for the
streamlining, for greater flexibility, so those programs, such as the
Surface Transportation Act--in essence, we double the funds in that
account. We double that, and then we say to the States and the local
communities: Now, with that additional funding, you make the decisions
of where you think your priorities are in your State, rather than
people back in Washington, DC, who may never have been to your State
determining how it should be spent.
This is the national highway bill that we are talking about. I want
to underscore national, because it is to apply to all 50 States. That
is how we are going to have good interstate commerce. The
administration says they understand the needs of rural America. If they
understand the needs of rural America, I question why the
administration's proposed reauthorization of the highway bill cuts
funding to eight of the most rural States in the country.
What is this question of rural and urban? Let me give an example, if
I may, Mr. President. Here is the State of Idaho. I would use as an
example highway 95 that runs, in essence, from the Canadian border
virtually down to the Nevada border, a little over 500 miles. Again,
the State of Idaho, population of 1 million people. Let us take
relatively the same distance, and let us go from right here,
Washington, DC, and if we drive to Boston, it is 463 miles--about the
same distance. So I am making it a good comparison. The difference is,
here you have one million people to support systems such as this. In
this area, where you actually go through seven States, not one State
and the District of Columbia, you have virtually 43 million people as a
tax base to support that infrastructure. It just shows you that in the
less densely populated areas we do need to have assistance.
Do you know there are trucking firms that enter the State of Idaho at
Eastport to go through customs? Then they immediately exit the State of
Idaho and they travel the Canadian highways heading toward Seattle, for
example, and then reenter the United States. Why do they do that? As
one trucking company, Swift Transportation, testified at our hearing
out in Idaho, they have 5,000 trucks that run throughout the United
States, but they said there are so many significantly unsafe portions
of, for example, highway 95, they do not allow their truck
[[Page S2915]]
drivers to go on highway 95 because of safety considerations. They said
that is the only stretch of highway that they really have that sort of
restriction on anywhere in the United States.
Yet this is a national highway bill. It is not the national and
Canadian highway bill. So we need to address this, and that is what
this does. But it is not parochial. Certainly I am trying to look out
for rural America, but I reiterate, this legislation does better for 47
States than under the current program that is in existence today.
So I believe we have something here that is good for the country. It
is going to put the faith back into what a trust fund is supposed to
be. It is going to give greater flexibility for those of us who believe
in States rights, the 10th amendment; that folks in those 50 States can
make just as good if not better decisions than we do at the Federal
level. So it has so much to offer to so many.
Again, I am proud to be part of this, and I thank Senator Thomas and
Senator Baucus for their efforts in this partnership.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the
Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act.
As I do, Mr. President, I want to emphasize my belief that the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], has in large
part been a great success for our Nation. ISTEA has been a
revolutionary effort to distribute transportation funding to assist
States in major highway, bridge, environmental, research, and safety
projects. After 6 years, however, we have learned that there are areas
of ISTEA in which we can make significant improvement. STARS 2000 is
the best mechanism so far by which we can do that.
I am cosponsoring STARS 2000 because it reemphasizes the national
interest in a national transportation system. Mr. President, each State
is a vital part of the national system; without one part the whole
system fails. The highway system in New Mexico for instance, serves not
just its resident and industrial traffic needs, but its highways also
serve as a vital link for commerce between the Pacific coast and the
eastern seaboard, and between Mexico and Canada. The system of highways
crossing New Mexico is also crucial for the movement of manpower,
equipment, and supplies in support of our Nation's defense. STARS 2000
offers a balanced, sensible approach so that all the States continue to
play a central role to the overriding national goals.
Just as importantly, STARS 2000 effectively addresses the unique
character of western, rural States and their importance to our national
system of highway. New Mexico, for example, has only six-tenths of 1
percent of the total U.S. population. However, it must maintain 2
percent, 3,000 miles, of the National Highway System. Many people do
not realize that road travel takes on a different meaning in the West.
For instance, a trip from Farmington, NM, to Hobbs, NM, is 513 miles,
and there are few options other than driving to make that tip. By
contrast, that same distance would take you from Washington, DC, to
Detroit, MI.
STARTS 2000 also builds on the successes of ISTEA. For instance, the
Surface Transportation Program maintains Federal support for the bride
replacement and rehabilitation program. STARS 2000 also maintains
support for Federal lands roads, a program that is vital to States in
the West where a vast majority of our Nation's Federal lands are
located. Forty percent of New Mexico, for example, is Federal land.
STARS 2000 eliminates the old system that penalizes a State for using
Federal funds on roads located on Federal lands and Indian
reservations. This is a step in the right direction and it is
desperately needed in the West. I am concerned that STARS proposes only
level funding for the Indian reservation road program. Although I am
supporting S. 437, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act,
I will continue to try to increase funding for roads and bridges on
Indian reservations.
STARS 2000 also includes a program that addresses congestion
management and air quality. I am concerned, however, with the degree to
which resources for this activity have been cut and the fact that it is
eliminated as a separate category within STARS. CMAQ has been a
significant reason cities like Albuquerque have attained and are
maintaining clear air standards, and I hope we will find ways to keep
this program working.
Additionally, STARS 2000 addresses the need to maintain our Nation's
current system of roads and bridges. Unless the current system is
sufficiently maintained, we will inevitably have to spend many more
dollars to rebuild the system, something we can ill-afford. In New
Mexico, like most other States, maintenance costs overwhelm the State's
total highway budget. To its credit, New Mexico applies much of its
highway funding to maintenance. Nevertheless, if the entire New Mexico
road budget were applied to maintenance alone, only 7,500 of the
State's 11,600 miles of highways could be adequately maintained. As
many as 5,800 miles of New Mexico's roads have deteriorated to the
point that they must be replaced at a cost of $1.15 million per mile.
As a result, New Mexico, like most other States in the West, is unable
to fund other critical transportation objects.
As we continue to recommit ourselves to maintaining and improving our
Nation's transportation system, let me say that it is also incumbent
upon the individual States to share in this ever-increasing
responsibility. Clearly, there is a strong national transportation
interest, but the States must recognize its own obligations. We are
doing our part at the Federal level, and States must do the same.
Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I commend my
esteemed colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kempthorne, and Thomas, for
working diligently to assemble this legislation. I believe that STARS
is a measure that will eventually lead to a better, more efficient
transportation system in our country and ultimately a stronger economy.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 533. A bill to exempt persons engaged in the fishing industry from
certain Federal antitrust laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Fishing Industry Bargaining Act
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens and
myself, I am reintroducing the Fishing Industry Bargaining Act, a bill
to allow antitrust immunity for certain cooperative activities
involving domestic fishermen and processors.
This bill will allow collective agreement between fishermen and
processors. It is patterned after legislation adopted by the Alaska
State Legislature, but which requires congressional action to fully
take effect.
Under existing law, fishermen are able to form associations for the
purpose of collective bargaining with individual processors. This bill
will allow them to work with similar associations of processors to
establish first-wholesale purchase prices--that is, the prices paid to
the processors for fish products, and ex-vessel prices paid to the
fishermen.
This is intended to counter the fact that prices currently are all
too often set by first-wholesale buyers rather than producers. As a
result, processors forced to accept a price set by their buyers are in
turn forced to set ex-vessel prices based on the buyers' offer, rather
than prices that respond fully to other market forces.
I want to make it clear that this bill in no way would allow
processors to associate solely amongst themselves to set either ex-
vessel or wholesale prices. That is the kind of activity our current
antitrust law is primarily designed to prevent, and this bill will
leave that unchanged. Processors would continue to be prohibited from
agreeing on prices unless fishermen participated in and were party to
any agreement.
What the bill will accomplish is to strengthen the position of the
United States seafood industry generally--fishermen and processors
together. In this, it would apply to fishermen and fish processors in
all parts of the country, not just in Alaska.
We look forward to a hearing which will air the views of the Alaska
fishing industry and the fishing industry in other parts of the
country, and urge prompt action by this Congress.
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 S2916]]
S. 533
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 ``Fishing Industry Bargaining
Act''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS.
(a) The Act of June 25, 1934 (48 Stat. 1213 and 1214,
chapter 742; 15 U.S.C. 521 and 522) is amended--
(1) in section 2, by striking ``If the Secretary'' and
inserting ``Subject to section 3, if the Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 3. PRICING.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 2, a price paid
pursuant to a collective agreement entered into under
subsection (b) shall not constitute a monopolization or
restraint of trade in interstate or foreign commerce.
``(b) Collective Agreement.--Persons described in the first
undesignated paragraph of section 1, acting through one or
more associations described in that section, may enter into a
collective agreement with fish processors, including fish
processors acting though an association of fish processors,
that establishes--
``(1) the price to be paid to those persons by fish
processors for an aquatic product; and
``(2) the minimum price that a fish processor may accept
for the sale of an aquatic product.
``(c) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section is intended to
permit fish processors to collectively agree with other fish
processors on a price referred to in subsection (b)(1)
without entering into an agreement under subsection (b).
``(2) Federal antitrust laws.--The establishment and
implementation of a collective agreement under subsection (b)
shall not be construed to be a violation of any of the
Federal antitrust laws, including--
``(A) the Act of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the
`Sherman Act' (26 Stat. 209 et seq., chapter 647; 15 U.S.C. 1
et seq.);
``(B) the Act of October 15, 1914, commonly known as the
`Clayton Act' (38 Stat. 730 et seq., chapter 323; 25 U.S.C.
12 et seq.);
``(C) the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et
seq.); and
``(D) the Act of June 19, 1936, commonly known as the
`Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act' (49 Stat. 1526 et
seq., chapter 592; 15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 13c, and 21a).''.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 534. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
to improve the safety of handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
HANDGUN SAFETY ACT OF 1997
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the need for increased
attention to gun safety. Increasingly, children are gaining access to
loaded and unlocked guns with fatal consequences. Recently, an 8-year-
old girl in Bridgeport, CT, took a gun that was left behind a couch and
shot and killed her 10-year-old sister.
These tragedies happen far too frequently. A report from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention notes that nearly 1.2 million latch-
key children have access to loaded and unlocked firearms each day.
Children cause over 10,000 unintentional shootings each year in which
800 people die.
This violence is not limited to the home. The Connecticut Department
of Health recently completed a survey of 12,000 Connecticut teenagers
called the Voice of Connecticut Youth. More than one-third of boys in
9th and 11th grades said they either had a gun or could get one in less
than a day. When you consider intentional and unintentional shootings,
16 children are killed with firearms every day in this country.
We must put an end to the tragedy of gun violence. We need to take
steps to ensure that gun owners are storing their guns safely--
unloaded, locked, and out of the reach of children. That is why I am
cosponsoring Senator Kohl's legislation, S. 428, which requires
licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to sell handguns with a
child safety or locking device. The bill also requires a warning that
the improper locking or storage of a handgun may result in civil or
criminal penalties.
Today I am also introducing a separate measure that would simply add
another section to Senator Kohl's bill. The section would authorize the
National Institute of Justice to conduct a study on possible standards
for gun locks. As we move to have greater use of gun locks, we ought to
make sure that those locks are high quality.
These small steps forward could save thousands of lives. They will
not affect responsible gun owners who are already doing the right
thing, but they will remind careless gun owners of the need for
increased safety.
My home State of Connecticut is out in front on this issue. One of
our State laws requires locks on handguns, another State law requires
that guns be stored away from children. But one State can only do so
much. A gun bought outside our State can become an instrument of
tragedy within our State. And we also need to make kids across the
Nation safer. In many ways, this issue is simple--if we require safety
caps on medicine to protect kids, we should clearly require safety
locks on guns.
I urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Kohl in support of
these gun safety measures.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill, the
Handgun Safety Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 534
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 ``Handgun Safety Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.
(a) Definition of Locking Device.--Section 921(a) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(34) The term `locking device' means--
``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured
by means of a key or a mechanically-, electronically-, or
electromechanically-operated combination lock, prevents the
firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or
removing the device by means of a key or mechanically-,
electronically-, or electromechanically-operated combination
lock; or
``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a
firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person
who does not have access to the key or other device designed
to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the
firearm.''.
(b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (x) the
following:
``(y) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the Handgun
Safety Act of 1997, it shall be unlawful for any licensed
manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer to sell,
deliver, or transfer any handgun--
``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer,
licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee
is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by
the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and
legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed
on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of
paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:
`` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE
ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE
STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH
SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.
`FAILURE TO PROPERLY LOCK AND STORE YOUR FIREARM MAY RESULT
IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW. IN ADDITION,
FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR
IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.'
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) the--
``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the
United States or a State or a department or agency of the
United States, or a State or a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
``(iii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law
enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in
clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether
on or off-duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of
a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off-
duty).''.
(c) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and
inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices and Warnings.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil
penalties.--With respect to each violation of subparagraph
(A) or (B) of section 922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary
may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--
``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee
under this chapter; or
[[Page S2917]]
``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount
equal to not more than $10,000.
``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this
paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or
revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty
under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative
remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
SEC. 3. STUDY ON STANDARDS FOR LOCKING DEVICES.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the National Institute of Justice shall--
(1) conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
developing minimum quality standards for locking devices (as
that term is defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United
States Code (as amended by this Act)); and
(2) submit to the Attorney General of the United States and
the Secretary of the Treasury a report, which shall include
the results of the study under paragraph (1) and any
recommendations for legislative or regulatory action.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Glenn, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Burns, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Robb,
Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Ford, Mr.
D'Amato, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Faircloth,
Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 535. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the establishment of a program for research and training with respect
to Parkinson's disease; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the morris k. udall parkinson's research and education act of 1997
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I proudly reintroduce the Morris K.
Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act of 1997. This legislation
addresses the importance of Parkinson's research by authorizing $1
million for Parkinson's research.
Approximately 1 million people in this country are afflicted with
Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a debilitating,
degenerative disease which is caused when nerve centers in an
individual's brain lose their ability to regulate body movements.
People afflicted by this disease experience tremors, loss of balance
and repeated falls, loss of memory, confusion, and depression.
Ultimately, this disease results in total incapacity for an individual
including the inability to speak. This disease knows no boundaries,
does not discriminate, and strikes without warning.
This important piece of legislation honors Mo Udall, a dear friend of
mine who served as a dedicated Congressman from Arizona for 30 years.
Mo is remembered most for his warmth, compassion, integrity, and his
wit. He was a champion of civil rights, political reform, and a
protector of the environment. In 1980, Congressman Mo Udall was
diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and he began his valiant battle
against this disastrous disease. Mo was forced to resign from Congress
in 1991, his exemplary career prematurely ended by Parkinson's.
I was fortunate enough to have not only worked with Mo Udall as a
Representative from Arizona, but to have Mo as a mentor and a close,
personal friend. Mo's stewardship and integrity would not allow him to
become involved in partisan politics. When I arrived in Washington, DC,
as a freshman Congressman from Arizona, Mo reached across the aisle,
took me under his wing and provided me with guidance, leadership,
humor, and, most importantly, friendship. I can never begin to
adequately thank Mo for all that he provided me and his profound impact
on my early years as a Member of Congress. In some way, I hope that my
efforts on his behalf and the millions of others with Parkinson's can
be a token of appreciation for all that Mo has given me and our
country.
Personally, I have witnessed the devastating effects and personal
tolls which Parkinson's disease has on its victims, as I have watched
this horrible disease wreck havoc on my dear friend, Mo. I have watched
Mo, his family, and friends wage a daily battle against this painful
disease. Every day, Mo and millions like him throughout the country
face a disease which is physically crippling and financially
devastating. I can truly empathize with the fear and frustration that
Mo and others like him must be feeling as they become prisoners within
their own bodies, clinging to the hope that a scientific breakthrough
may soon be discovered and they will be liberated from their personal
prison.
The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act provides
the hope Mo and millions like him are looking for. This bill will help
us make significant scientific progress by increasing the Federal
Government's financial investment in Parkinson's research for fiscal
year 1998 by authorizing $1 million.
An important component of this legislation will be the establishment
of up to 10 Morris K. Udall Centers for Research on Parkinson's Disease
throughout the Nation. These centers will be responsible for conducting
basic and clinical research in addition to delivering care to
Parkinson's patients. Uniting these three areas will assure that
research developments will be coordinated and the care delivered to
patients will be effective, high quality services based upon the most
recent research developments. The Morris K. Udall Centers will be
structural in a manner which allows them to become a source for
developing teaching programs for health care professionals and
disseminating information for public use.
In addition, this bill will create a national Parkinson's Disease
Information Clearinghouse to gather and store pertinent data on
Parkinson's patients and their families. This collected data will
facilitate and enhance knowledge and understanding of Parkinson's
disease.
This bill will establish a Morris K. Udall Excellence Award to
recognize publicly the investigators with a proven record of excellence
and innovation in Parkinson's research and whose work has demonstrated
significant potential for the diagnosis or treatment of the disease.
I am heartened by the tremendous progress scientists are making in
Parkinson's research. There is significant scientific evidence
indicating that there is very strong potential for major breakthroughs
in the cause and treatment of Parkinson's in this decade. According to
a wide array of experts, we are on the verge of substantial, ground-
breaking scientific discoveries regarding the cause and potential cure
of Parkinson's disease. We need to seize this rare opportunity to
discover the cause, treatment, and a potential cure for one of the
Nation's most disabling diseases. It is imperative that we give our
scientific researchers the necessary funding and support to combat this
and other neurological diseases, and to improve the lives of many
Americans.
This is why we must enact the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research
and Education Act of 1997. We can't allow this opportunity to make
significant progress in the area of Parkinson's research slip away
because of a lack of support for our Nation's scientific researchers.
Finally, I would like to thank the hundreds of individuals who have
written or called my office in support of this measure. These
individuals are committed to seeing this legislation enacted this year
and are hopeful that Parkinson's research will finally receive a fair
and justifiable investment from the Federal Government.
I ask unanimous consent that a small sampling of the many letters I
have received in support of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's bill from
actual Parkinson's patients, family, and friends of Parkinson's
patients, advocate groups, scientists, and physicians be included in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Phoenix, AZ, April 1, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: My friend Richard and I first met in
the lobby of St. Joseph's Hospital Barrows Neurological
Institute in Phoenix Arizona. I was in my late thirties, he
was in his early fifties, we had both been diagnosed with
Young-Onset-Parkinsons Disease. We were both afraid.
We became friends as we vowed to fight this disease which
was trying to imprison us
[[Page S2918]]
in our own bodies. We had just learned about the ``Udall
Bill.'' We had just learned that scientists promised a cure
within three to five years if they received sufficient
funding. The ``Udall bill'' could make that happen. We saw
the promise of a miracle.
We talked about it in depth. We knew we had been marked for
a slow death and we shared with each other how we feared for
our families. I raised my three children as a single parent,
and my kids were struggling under the weight that my illness
had brought us. Richards' wife had just told him that she
couldn't stand living with him as he slowly became a freak to
observers and she couldn't stand the strain having to care
for him through the pain and slow death. So she left him. He
felt it wasn't her fault.
We knew the enemy. The worst thing of this disease was it's
slow tortuous progression. We preferred death rather than the
years of Hell we were facing. But it was not a choice. With
the Udall bill, we might make it. We still had the will to
fight. We grasped at hope. We hoped that we could stand the
side effects of our medication and hold out until the bill
was passed. Once it did, we knew it would take three years
for significant improvement in care--but we grasped at the
hope. We dedicated the only functioning time we thought we
might have left to getting the bill passed.
We wrote letters, we visited our representatives, we put up
flyers, we scrimped and saved to mail letters to friends and
to travel to other states to tell them about the bill, but
Richard's disease progressed very quickly. Within a year he
had to have an attendant at home to feed him, bathe him,
dress him. Then he had to go to a nursing home. He was barely
able to whisper, unable to walk, unable to sit up without
being tied to his chair--his head hung over and his eyes
reflected his suffering--He was fully aware of what was
happening every minute of his torture.
I continued my advocacy efforts, including three trips from
Arizona to Washington DC to try to help our Representatives
to understand why they should pass the bill. And I would go
to the nursing home and report to Richard. Last year we came
very close, but we didn't make it. I told Richard and his
face and neck were wet with tears as I told him to try to
just `hang in there' one more year. I had told him that the
year before. We both cried. We were afraid. We were alone.
Richard whispered that he knew he'd never hold his
grandchildren, but he'd not go down without knowing we'd
``kick Parkinsons in the ass'' first. Richard died of
Parkinsons Disease last month.
I'm 44 years now, I have difficulty walking short distances
and my strength struggles for me to sit up. Although my
medication's losing effectiveness and side effects don't
cease, I'm still here. Still holding on. With your help, I
will see the passage of the ``Udall bill for Parkinsons''.
Thank you for doing all that you are, to help us ``kick
Parkinsons in the ass''.
Maryhelen Davila.
____
Kingwood, TX, April 8, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you so much for your support and
concern for the Parkinson's disease community. I have
suffered with PD for 22 years. My hopes for a cure have been
raised and dashed on several occasions. Without adequate
funding PD will dash the hopes of millions of American as the
baby boomer generation approaches the age when PD typically
strikes.
Unless you experience if you can't know how awful this
disease is. Day after day it takes away the very fiber of who
you are, what you might be and what you might do for society
your family and yourself. At the age of 52 I can no longer be
counted on to perform even the basic duties of life for
myself. Wheelchairs, walkers, hospital beds combined with
hundreds of dollars of medicine each month are what I count
on for mobility. While my husband and family and our support
group have been my heroes through these 22 years, their
resources are exhausted. The Udall bill gives us all the hope
that we need to combat this lousy disease one day at a time
until a cure if found.
Again, thank you for your support for this disease which
has been so neglected for so long. In 1817 James Parkinson
wrote his paper describing the most prevalent symptoms of
this disease. This work 180 years later is still used today
to describe in disease. Let 1997 be the year that we change
all that. Let it be the year we raise the consciousness of
all Americans about the devastation caused by PD and
neurological disorders. Let this decade of the brain unravel
the mysteries of neurological disorders and let our leaders
in Washington pave the way for the cure.
Do it for Mo, and do it for me. Thanks for listening. This
letter was typed by my husband Bob.
Original signed by,
Nancy Martone.
____
Manlius, NY, April 1, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your support and
leadership on behalf of people with Parkinson's Disease.
At the age of forty-nine I was stricken with Parkinson's
Disease. I managed to continue working till I retired last
year at the age of fifty-six. I was earning about $165,000.00
per year as a trial attorney.
My disability and those with early onset of the disease
place a heavy financial burden on the Government and the
private sector. I am applying for Social Security Disability
plus private disability plans. My medical costs are
$18,000.00 plus per year and in two years my medical costs
will be another burden on the Social Security trust funds. I
estimate that the cost of my illness to society will exceed
$1,100,000 if I live to age sixty-seven when I would normally
retire.
I also notice on the internet that Parkinson's Disease is
striking younger and younger people and that the mean age of
diagnosis is now fifty-seven years old. If this trend
continues, more people will be receiving Social Security
Trust Funds at an early age and fewer people than expected
making contributions.
As I attend support group meetings, I see many people
drained of energy, strength and who are unable to articulate
their plight. Scientists and researchers express the
possibility of new medicines and a cure if more research
dollars are invested as proposed by the Parkinson's Bill.
Let's apply more research funds to keep people with
Parkinson's Disease working longer and leading a healthier
life.
For those who no longer speak for themselves and myself, I
wish to thank you for your support.
Very truly yours,
A. Dale Severance.
____
Berkeley, CA, March 20, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to you regarding the
Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Bill which
is going to be reintroduced in the Senate next month. As you
remember the Udall Bill passed the Senate but stalled in the
House in 1996. May I take a minute of your time to explain
why the Udall Bill is so important to me?
My wife Frances, now 57, was diagnosed with Parkinson's
Disease nine years ago. She is a clinical psychologist and
Jungian analyst who still manages to work, but most people
stricken with Parkinson's are not so lucky. Unfortunately 40%
of the newly diagnosed cases are people under 60 years of
age--this disease of the elderly is hitting middle aged
people with disastrous results. The disease is incurable and
progressive forcing doctors, lawyers, professors, business
people, teachers and artists to give up productive lives. I
have seen the devastation of families and careers first hand
among the many Parkinson's patients I have met. And I have
also seen unbelievable courage, intelligence and absolute
brilliance as people try to find a way to live with the
disease.
Without further research there is no hope to cure the
disease. The current medications mask the symptoms and that
is all. The present national research effort is a joke. There
is no unified research agenda and the 30 million dollars
allotted to the disease (compared 217 million dollars for
Alzheimer's and one and a half billion dollars for AIDS) is
not nearly enough. There is terrific research potential but
no money. The Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Bill
will provide the coordination, the research agenda, and the
money. Please help us by cosponsoring the bill, or if you
cannot cosponsor it, could you at least vote for it? We
desperately need your help!
I would very much like to talk with you about the Bill if
you have any questions (510-527-0966 or
[email protected]).
Thanks so much for your help.
Stephen Tobriner,
Professor of Architectural History,
University of California, Berkeley.
____
Orinda, CA, March 29, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for agreeing to introduce
the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act to
the House. I am grateful for your efforts on behalf of this
bill.
My closest friend, Frances Tobriner, was diagnosed with
Parkinson's Disease when she was 46 years old. She is now 57
years old and is courageously managing to work as a
psychologist. I have learned that this disease is not limited
to the elderly. Young, talented people are vulnerable. There
is no cure for this disease and those of us who are able
bodied bear helpless witness to the progressive deterioration
of those we care about.
There are many research possibilities that await funding. I
believe that the advances in research will help not only the
many victims of Parkinson's disease, but other neurological
ailments as well. To date there is no unified research agenda
and the relatively small amount of money is not enough. The
Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act will help
enormously.
Thank you for your efforts. Know that you have support
among constituents.
Sincerely yours,
Sue N. Elkind, Ph.D.
____
Merriam, KS, April 3, 1997.
Re Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Assistance, and
Education Act of 1997.
Hon. John McCain
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator McCain: This is to thank you and Sen. Paul
Wellstone for taking the
[[Page S2919]]
lead in reintroducing the Udall bill in the 105th Congress,
as well as the many other Senators who are already supporting
the bill.
A stepped-up effort in research and coordination of that
research means added hope for me and my family that a
possible cure may be found in time to help me. You see, I was
diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease at the age of 44, nearly
13 years ago. It was only two years after my marriage to my
wonderful husband, who has stood by me ``in sickness'' much
sooner than we ever imagined. I managed to follow through on
a long-term project, as President of a Kansas City group
which established a 100,000-watt FM community radio station
in 1988 after 11 years of effort. I kept up with the station
and other community interests and part-time teaching pretty
much full force until 1990, but since then I have had to cut
back more and more. You can't imagine how grateful I am for
access to the internet (my husband's idea) which re-
established my ability to connect to the world.
My husband who is a community college teacher of 29 years
has had to take on domestic duties I once did. His daughter,
4 when we married, never remembers when I was a normal,
active person. And my aging parents help drive me to the
doctors, as my right side is too weak most of the time to
allow me to push the gas pedal.
This disease CAN go the way of polio, tuberculosis, small
pox and others--GONE. Maybe not for me, but surely for the
thousands of millions who don't yet know they are at risk for
it.
Sincerely,
Barbara Blake-Krebs.
____
East Brunswick, NJ, March 31, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for introducing the Morris
Udall Bill for Parkinson's Disease Research. I will make a
special trip to Washington on April 9, 1997 to be present at
your introduction.
In 1946 my grandfather, Benjamin Miller, died of
complications from bedsores and infection as a result of
Parkinson's Disease. He was forced to live with
uncontrollable tremors, locked rigid muscles, loss of all
motor function and eventually the total incapacity to care
for himself. The last 10 years of his life he was in a
totally rigid state and toward the end he could only move his
eyes. Contrary to our religious law, my mother agreed to
allow his body to be used for research believing that the
help it might provide others would more than make up for this
breach of tradition. She often said that because of her
decision, her father played a part in the development and
refinement of L-dopa.
As fate would have it, my brother is now diagnosed with
Parkinson's and while his lifestyle is somewhat better than
it might have been 50 years ago, his hideous fate is sealed
unless the research continues until a definitive cure has
been found.
Through your foresight to introduce the Udall Bill in the
105th congress there is great potential for a breakthrough in
Parkinson's disease treatment and ultimately the discovery of
a cure.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Barbara Schirloff.
____
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Rush
University--Department of Neurological Sciences, Center
for Brain Repair,
Chicago, IL, April 2, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I was very pleased to hear that you
have re-introduced the Udall Bill. As a researcher of
Parkinson's disease for 25 years, I can assure you that the
bill is timely and that the money will be well spent if the
bill is passed. I have witnessed the revolution in this field
from the early years of levodopa through the discovery of the
neurotoxin MPTP, the implantation of adrenal tissue and now
pallidotomy and neural grafting. They have been exciting and
productive times and quite frankly, it has just plain been
fun doing the work and actually seeing it impact the lives of
our patients.
Currently, my laboratory is working on the mechanisms
responsible for the neuroprotection that appears to be
occurring with the drug pramipexole. Although the drug itself
appears to offer the PHD patient a new and very effective
addition to the antiparkinson arsenal, the more interesting
aspect of our research is that the drug appears to be turning
on the production of a new trophic molecule that has the
potential to reverse the neurodegenerative process. We are
currently trying to isolate this protein so that it can be
tested. Our lab has also recently discovered important
signals that influence the development of DA neurons (which
die in PD). We can now take so-called progenitor cells and
convert them into DA cells from grafting. If we are
successful at doing this in human cells, we would be able to
provide the world with adequate tissue for grafting on demand
and thereby totally bypass the abortion issue since cells
from only one abortion could be expanded in the lab to serve
the needs of all transplant centers. Finally, we are also
trying to determine in humans the cause for levodopa induced
hallucinations. We know nothing about this phenomenon except
that it is the number one cause for patients being placed in
nursing homes and once PD patients enter a nursing home they
generally die there.
As you will hopefully recognize, my laboratory is very
vested in the treatment and management of PD. Our approach to
this disease is, we feel, novel and appropriate to the
current status of knowledge in this field. We are not
restricted by ideas. We are restricted by lack of funds. I am
not at all reluctant to ask the government for money for
research. Having been in this business as long as I have, I
have come to recognize that we in science actually spend our
research dollars in a frugal and effective manner. We have so
little of it we have to make it last and work effectively. I
can therefore assure you that this will not be a ``pork''
project but will actually result in the desired and intended
effects. I therefore thank you for your efforts to increase
funding for my field. Even though I don't necessarily agree
with the notion of legislative earmarking for research
dollars, PD is a disease where throwing adequate funding at
it will have a tremendous impact and likely reduce health
care costs dramatically.
If I can ever be of any help to you in your efforts to make
this bill a reality or if you simply need background
information, please feel free to contact me. Again, thanks
for your help.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Carvey, Ph.D.
(Associate Professor of Neurological Sciences and
Pharmacology Director, Neuropharmacology Research
Laboratories).
____
Redwood City, CA
April 3, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am so grateful that you are
sponsoring the Udall Bill. I pray that it will pass. We (I am
a member of the Parkinsn (sic) Listserv) have been asked to
catalog our symptoms for you, so here goes: I was diagnosed
with Parkinson's 6 years ago after progressive weird symptoms
which I did not realize were significant, such as loss of
ability to wash my hair with my left hand, difficulty
shuffling and holding cards when I play bridge, a couple of
episodes of feeling like I was walking underwater, it was so
hard to move; I was diagnosed immediately when seen by a
neurologist and put on medication which gave me strange
twisting motions of one of my feet. We lowered the dosage.
The dyskinesia went away, but the medicine supposedly has a
tapering off of effectiveness. So far, it works. I can once
again wash my hair with my left hand thanks to the medicine.
My illness is progressing, not too fast, but the changes I've
had to make are accumulating: walk one mile instead of three,
cut back on activities (dropped out of a bridge group, buy
instead of make pies, etc., don't crochet or paint--doesn't
seem worth the effort) great difficulty in doing up buttons,
loss of strength, tire easily, not able to `write' legibly,
nor be heard by most people when I speak (young people can
usually hear me), have difficulty standing up from chairs,
usually can't taste or smell, though I can now and then which
makes me impatient for THE CURE, knowing that all is
apparently not lost, just somehow not available. I am
terribly worried about inability to get long term care health
insurance. Nobody will take me and I dread the effect on my
husband if he has to spend everything to take care of me. I
am blessed with a wonderful, caring husband, who never
complains about my increasing dependency on him.
Bless you for what you have given your country.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Elizabeth Southwood.
____
The Parkinson's Institute,
Sunnyvale, CA, April 7, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your unflagging support
of the Udall Parkinson's Research bill. I am writing today to
explain why this bill is so important to me, to my colleagues
in research and clinical care, and to the patients and
families who suffer from Parkinson's disease and other
movement disorders.
I have been a practicing neurologist for more than 25 years
and have specialized in Parkinson's disease care and research
for the last 15 years. As a scientist in close touch with the
international research community in the field of
neurodegenerative diseases, I see tremendous potential in a
dozen scientific directions for finding a cure for
Parkinson's disease within the next decade. That is not a
statement I make lightly, nor is it a statement that can be
applied across the board to the diseases of aging. Instead,
it is based on a careful assessment of the technologies that
are open now and to the new technologies opening daily to the
scientists who specialize in movement disorders.
As a physician who sees only patients with Parkinson's
disease and related movement disorders--some of which are
even more devastating--I realize that every patient I see is
[[Page S2920]]
under a kind of death watch. Their disease is inexorably
progressive; there is no cure; and even the gold standard of
medications available cannot control symptoms indefinitely. I
have learned, as all physicians must learn, to achieve a
certain detachment from the inevitability that faces my
patients, but it remains a constant trial to look at these
individuals and know that my armamentarium is so limited.
Part of the way to deal with this challenge, both for
physician and patient, is to take comfort in the fact that
there is enormous hope through the efforts of the researchers
in my own laboratory and in similar institutions around the
world.
What is needed to take advantage of the new technologies
and the enormous pool of talented investigators waiting to
use them is to make them available to a much larger number of
laboratories; to increase the probability that the critical
breakthroughs will occur sooner rather than later. No one
laboratory can travel every possible avenue of investigation
no matter how impressive their equipment and no matter how
many bright young postdoctoral fellows are on staff. Rather,
we must seek to multiply the approaches to the puzzling
problems that still face us by utilizing the different
insights, experience, and research philosophies of a variety
of laboratories across the country at academic medical
centers, at NIH, and in independent research institutes like
our own.
Ultimately, that takes money and that is where we turn to
the Congress for help directed specifically to Parkinson's
disease. You know, I'm sure, of the discrepancies in research
funding per patient between Parkinson's disease and other
disorders. The message I want to send to you today is that
research dollars for movement disorders will not be thrown
into a black hole of hopelessness, but invested in a national
program with tremendous hope for the future.
Sincerely,
J. William Langston, M.D.,
President.
____
APDA Parkinson's Disease Information & Referral Center at
the University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, April 7, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: We are writing to tell you how
grateful we are that you have taken on the role of lead
republican sponsor in the Senate for the Morris K. Udall bill
for Parkinson's Research. There is tremendous support for
this bill in Arizona, not only among Parkinson's patients and
their family members, but among an ever-widening circle of
physicians, scientists and thoughtful members of the general
public. It is clear that research holds the key to improved
treatments--even a cure--for Parkinson's disease. Only
through research will we find a way to reduce the human
suffering and economic burden of this terrible illness.
In Arizona we have taken a special interest in the Udall
bill, partly because it is our state which Mo Udall served so
well, partly because our state's attractiveness as a
``retirement'' state means we have a higher proportion of
residents in the age range most at risk for PD, and partly
because several of our state's medical institutions--the
University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson, the
Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, and the Mayo clinic
in Scottsdale--already oversee extensive Parkinson's research
programs.
Members of the Arizona Chapter of the American Parkinson
Disease Association (APDA) and the staff of its associated
Information & Referral Center at the University of Arizona
have worked hard to educate Arizona residents about
Parkinson's disease and the promise of Parkinson's research.
The recent Agenda 97 symposium at the University of Arizona
brought together Parkinson's researchers, advocates and
government officials for a public forum. The outstanding
efforts of the APDA committee Arizona Parkinson's Advocates,
led by Bob Dolezal, have made the Mo Udall bill a popular
cause throughout the State.
We applaud your efforts and support you one hundred
percent. Thank you again for leading the way to passage of
the Udall bill in 1997.
Sincerely,
Erwin B. Montgomery, Jr., MD,
Medical Director, APDA Information & Referral Center at the
University of Arizona.
Cynthia A. Holmes, PhD,
Coordinator, APDA Information & Referral Center at the
University of Arizona.
____
Princeton, NJ, March 31, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Your dedication to bring about the
reintroduction of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease
Research and Education Act is most appreciated. The bitter
sweet partial victory at the end of the 104th Congressional
session was difficult to accept.
To Americans suffering from this hideous disease, the issue
is so clearly defined: there are 1 to 1.5 million people
struck with a disease that costs the government 6 billion
dollars annually to maintain status quo; whereas an annual
investment of 100 million dollars for research would yield a
net savings of $124,500,000,000 in five years based on the
forecast of eminent scientists who predict major advances in
the treatment of or even a possible cure for Parkinson's
disease.
It is with this great anticipation that I face my 17th year
living with the disease. During the last number of years,
managing my daily minimal activities have become more and
more difficult. Since I am only 55 years old, I still have a
window of opportunity to re-enter the world of participation
rather than inaction. Currently my life revolves around
frantically attempting to accomplish somethings during the
infrequent and much too short periods of time that my
medication kicks in.
I must believe that with your leadership and guidance the
Udall bill will make its perileous journey through the Halls
of Congress and will gain enough bi-partisan support for
passage and thus insure more adequate research and
development funding. For those 50,000 People with Parkinson's
who received their diagnosis during this past 12 months and
for my own salvation, I join you and your staff in an all-out
effort to guarantee the passage of the new Udall bill.
Sincerely,
Margaret Tuchman.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden,
Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cleland, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Reid, Mr. Feingold, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 536. A bill to amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988
to establish a program to support and encourage local communities that
first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce
substance abuse among youth, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
the drug-free communities act of 1997
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as you know the issue of drug use by our
children is very important to me. I believe that we must do whatever we
can to protect our children from the harmful effects of illegal drugs.
The survey by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America recently released
showed that children continue to cite their parents as a reliable
source of information about the dangers of drugs. This confirms a 1996
study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse which showed that
the extent parents shouldered responsibility for their kids resisting
drugs was a key indicator of whether or not their child experimented
with drugs. Not Presidents, not Federal officials, not television, but
parents and others who play an integral role in a child's life make the
difference.
Today, in conjunction with 13 of my fellow Senators, we are
introducing the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. This act will take
funds currently being spent for less productive areas of the Federal
drug control budget and route them to community coalitions with proven
track records. Seeking to make the most efficient use of taxpayer
dollars, Federal grants will match funding efforts from the private
sector and the local community.
It will put resources in the hands of those who make a difference; of
the people that our children say their opinions they respect. It puts
the resources at the community level, where parents, teachers, coaches,
and community leaders can use these resources to educate our children
about the evils of drug use.
There are four key features to this legislation, features that make
it different from existing funding opportunities. First, communities
must take the initiative. In order to receive support, a community
coalition must demonstrate that there is a long-term commitment to
address teen-drug use by having a sustainable coalition that includes
the involvement of representatives from a wide variety of community
activists.
In addition, every coalition must show that it will be around for a
while. Community coalitions must be in existence for at least 6 months
prior to applying for funds provided for in this bill, and they are
only eligible to receive support if they can match these donations
dollar for dollar with non-Federal funding, up to $100,000 per
coalition.
The third key feature of this legislation is an assurance that the
funds for this bill will come from existing legislation. We plan on
working closely
[[Page S2921]]
with the members of the Appropriations Committee to find appropriate
off-sets within the current $16 billion Federal drug control budget.
An advisory commission, consisting of local community leaders, and
State and National experts in the field of substance abuse, will
oversee the implementation of the program at the Office of National
Drug Control Policy. They will insure the funds are directed to
communities and programs that make a difference in the lives of our
children.
At other times I've talked about the statistics--how drug use is up
again this year among teens, and how emergency room admissions are
rising after years of decline, and other depressing statistics. But the
bill we introduce today is in support of organizations that are on the
front lines, making a difference in the lives of our children. I urge
my fellow members to join my colleagues and me in supporting this
legislation for our children.
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. 536
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 ``Drug-Free Communities Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The National Narcotics Leadership Act of
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by inserting between sections 1001 and 1002 the
following:
``CHAPTER 1--OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``CHAPTER 2--DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES
``SEC. 1021. FINDINGS.
``Congress finds the following:
``(1) Substance abuse among youth has more than doubled in
the 5-year period preceding 1996, with substantial increases
in the use of marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, methamphetamine,
LSD, and heroin.
``(2) The most dramatic increases in substance abuse has
occurred among 13- and 14-year-olds.
``(3) Casual or periodic substance abuse by youth of 1997
will contribute to hard core or chronic substance abuse by
the next generation of adults.
``(4) Substance abuse is at the core of other problems,
such as rising violent teenage and violent gang crime,
increasing health care costs, HIV infections, teenage
pregnancy, high school dropouts, and lower economic
productivity.
``(5) Increases in substance abuse among youth are due in
large part to an erosion of understanding by youth of the
high risks associated with substance abuse, and to the
softening of peer norms against use.
``(6)(A) Substance abuse is a preventable behavior and a
treatable disease; and
``(B)(i) during the 13-year period beginning with 1979,
monthly use of illegal drugs among youth 12 to 17 years of
age declined by over 70 percent; and
``(ii) data suggests that if parents would simply talk to
their children regularly about the dangers of substance
abuse, use among youth could be expected to decline by as
much as 30 percent.
``(7) Community anti-drug coalitions throughout the United
States are successfully developing and implementing
comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse
among youth on a sustained basis.
``(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination
through national, State, and local or tribal leadership and
partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of
substance abuse among youth in communities throughout the
United States.
``SEC. 1022. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this chapter are--
``(1) to reduce substance abuse among youth in communities
throughout the United States, and over time, to reduce
substance abuse among adults;
``(2) to strengthen collaboration among communities, the
Federal Government, and State, local, and tribal governments;
``(3) to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and
coordination on the issue of substance abuse among youth;
``(4) to serve as a catalyst for increased citizen
participation and greater collaboration among all sectors and
organizations of a community that first demonstrates a long-
term commitment to reducing substance abuse among youth;
``(5) to rechannel resources from the fiscal year 1998
Federal drug control budget to provide technical assistance,
guidance, and financial support to communities that
demonstrate a long-term commitment in reducing substance
abuse among youth;
``(6) to disseminate to communities timely information
regarding the state-of-the-art practices and initiatives that
have proven to be effective in reducing substance abuse among
youth;
``(7) to enhance, not supplant, local community initiatives
for reducing substance abuse among youth; and
``(8) to encourage the creation of and support for
community anti-drug coalitions throughout the United States.
``SEC. 1023. DEFINITIONS.
``In this chapter:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator appointed by the Director under section
1031(c).
``(2) Advisory commission.--The term `Advisory Commission'
means the Advisory Commission established under section 1041.
``(3) Community.--The term `community' shall have the
meaning provided that term by the Administrator, in
consultation with the Advisory Commission.
``(4) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
``(5) Eligible coalition.--The term `eligible coalition'
means a coalition that meets the applicable criteria under
section 1032(a).
``(6) Grant recipient.--The term `grant recipient' means
the recipient of a grant award under section 1032.
``(7) Nonprofit organization.--The term `nonprofit
organization' means an organization described under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt
from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
``(8) Program.--The term `Program' means the program
established under section 1031(a).
``(9) Substance abuse.--The term `substance abuse' means--
``(A) the illegal use or abuse of drugs, including
substances listed in schedules I through V of section 112 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812);
``(B) the abuses of inhalants; and
``(C) the use of alcohol, tobacco, or other related product
prohibited by State or local law.
``(10) Youth.--The term `youth' shall have the meaning
provided that term by the Administrator, in consultation with
the Advisory Commission.
``SEC. 1024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out
this chapter--
``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
``(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(5) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than the following
percentages of the amounts authorized under subsection (a)
may be used to pay administrative costs:
``(1) 10 percent for fiscal year 1998.
``(2) 6 percent for fiscal year 1999.
``(3) 4 percent for fiscal year 2000.
``(4) 3 percent for fiscal year 2001.
``(5) 3 percent for fiscal year 2002.
``Subchapter I--Drug-Free Communities Support Program
``SEC. 1031. ESTABLISHMENT OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT
PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a
program to support communities in the development and
implementation of comprehensive, long-term plans and programs
to prevent and treat substance abuse among youth.
``(b) Program.--In carrying out the Program, the Director
shall--
``(1) make and track grants to grant recipients;
``(2) provide for technical assistance and training, data
collection, and dissemination of information on state-of-the-
art practices that the Administrator determines to be
effective in reducing substance abuse; and
``(3) provide for the general administration of the
Program.
``(c) Administration.--Not later than 30 days after
receiving recommendations from the Advisory Commission under
section 1042(a)(1), the Director shall appoint an
Administrator to carry out the Program.
``SEC. 1032. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
``(a) Grant Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive an
initial grant or a renewal grant under this subchapter, a
coalition shall meet each of the following criteria:
``(1) Application.--The coalition shall submit an
application to the Administrator in accordance with section
1033(a)(2).
``(2) Major sector involvement.--
``(A) In general.--The coalition shall consist of 1 or more
representatives of each of the following categories:
``(i) Youth.
``(ii) Parents.
``(iii) Businesses.
``(iv) The media.
``(v) Schools.
``(vi) Organizations serving youth.
``(vii) Law enforcement.
``(viii) Religious organizations.
``(ix) Civic and fraternal groups.
``(x) Health care professionals.
``(xi) State, local, or tribal governmental agencies with
expertise in the field of substance abuse (including, if
applicable, the State authority with primary authority for
substance abuse).
``(xii) Other organizations involved in reducing substance
abuse.
``(B) Elected officials.--If feasible, in addition to
representatives from the categories listed in subparagraph
(A), the coalition shall have an elected official (or a
representative of an elected official) from--
[[Page S2922]]
``(i) the Federal Government; and
``(ii) the government of the appropriate State and
political subdivision thereof or the governing body or an
Indian tribe (as that term is defined in section 4(e) of the
Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e))).
``(C) Representation.--An individual who is a member of the
coalition may serve on the coalition as a representative of
not more than 1 category listed under subparagraph (A).
``(3) Commitment.--The coalition shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Administrator--
``(A) that the representatives of the coalition have worked
together on substance abuse reduction initiatives for a
period of not less than 6 months, acting through entities
such as task forces, subcommittees, or community boards; and
``(B) substantial participation from volunteer leaders in
the community involved (especially in cooperation with
individuals involved with youth such as parents, teachers,
coaches, youth workers, and members of the clergy).
``(4) Mission and strategies.--The coalition shall, with
respect to the community involved--
``(A) have as its principal mission the reduction of
substance abuse in a comprehensive and long-term manner, with
a primary focus on youth in the community;
``(B) describe and document the nature and extent of the
substance abuse problem in the community;
``(C)(i) provide a description of substance abuse
prevention and treatment programs and activities in existence
at the time of the grant application; and
``(ii) identify substance abuse programs and service gaps
in the community;
``(D) develop a strategic plan to reduce substance abuse
among youth in a comprehensive and long-term fashion; and
``(E) work to develop a consensus regarding the priorities
of the community to combat substance abuse among youth.
``(5) Sustainability.--The coalition shall demonstrate that
the coalition is an ongoing concern by demonstrating that the
coalition--
``(A) is--
``(i)(I) a nonprofit organization; or
``(II) an entity that the Administrator, in consultation
with the Advisory Commission, determines to be appropriate;
or
``(ii) part of, or is associated with, an established legal
entity;
``(B) receives financial support (including, in the
discretion of the Administrator, in-kind contributions) from
non-Federal sources; and
``(C) has a strategy to solicit substantial financial
support from non-Federal sources to ensure that the coalition
and the programs operated by the coalition are self-
sustaining.
``(6) Accountability.--The coalition shall--
``(A) establish a system to measure and report outcomes--
``(i) consistent with common indicators and evaluation
protocols established by the Administrator, in consultation
with the Advisory Commission; and
``(ii) receives the approval of the Administrator;
``(B) conduct--
``(i) for an initial grant under this subchapter, an
initial benchmark survey of drug use among youth (or use
local surveys or performance measures available or accessible
in the community at the time of the grant application); and
``(ii) biennial surveys (or incorporate local surveys in
existence at the time of the evaluation) to measure the
progress and effectiveness of the coalition; and
``(C) provide assurances that the entity conducting an
evaluation under this paragraph, or from which the coalition
receives information, has experience--
``(i) in gathering data related to substance abuse among
youth; or
``(ii) in evaluating the effectiveness of community anti-
drug coalitions.
``(b) Grant Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Grants.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for a fiscal
year, the Administrator may grant to an eligible coalition
under this paragraph, an amount not to exceed the amount of
non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind
contributions, for that fiscal year.
``(ii) Renewal grants.--Subject to clause (iii), the
Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient
under this subparagraph for each fiscal year following the
fiscal year for which an initial grant is awarded, in an
amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds raised
by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, for that
fiscal year, during the 4-year period following the period of
the initial grant.
``(iii) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award under this
subparagraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.
``(B) Coalition awards.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Administrator may, with respect to a community, make a grant
to 1 eligible coalition that represents that community.
``(ii) Exception.--The Administrator may make a grant to
more than 1 eligible coalition that represents a community
if--
``(I) the population of the community exceeds 2,000,000
individuals;
``(II) the eligible coalitions demonstrate that the
coalitions are collaborating with one another; and
``(III) each of the coalitions has independently met the
requirements set forth in section 1032(a).
``(2) Rural coalition grants.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to awarding grants under
paragraph (1), to stimulate the development of coalitions in
sparsely populated and rural areas, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Advisory Commission, may award a grant
in accordance with this section to a coalition that
represents a county with a population that does not exceed
30,000 individuals. In awarding a grant under this paragraph,
the Administrator, in consultation with the Advisory
Commission, may waive any requirement under subsection (a) if
the Administrator, in consultation with the Advisory
Commission, considers that waiver to be appropriate.
``(ii) Matching requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (C),
for a fiscal year, the Administrator may grant to an eligible
coalition under this paragraph, an amount not to exceed the
amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition,
including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year.
``(B) Renewal grants.--The Administrator may award a
renewal grant to an eligible coalition that is a grant
recipient under this paragraph for each fiscal year following
the fiscal year for which an initial grant is awarded, in an
amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds raised
by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, during the
4-year period following the period of the initial grant.
``(C) Limitations.--
``(i) Amount.--The amount of a grant award under this
paragraph shall not exceed $50,000 for a fiscal year.
``(ii) Awards.--With respect to a county referred to in
subparagraph (A), the Administrator may award a grant under
this section to not more than 1 eligible coalition that
represents the county.
``SEC. 1033. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION WITH
RESPECT TO GRANT RECIPIENTS.
``(a) Coalition Information.--
``(1) General auditing authority.--For the purpose of audit
and examination, the Administrator--
``(A) shall have access to any books, documents, papers,
and records that are pertinent to any grant or grant renewal
request under this chapter; and
``(B) may periodically request information from a grant
recipient to ensure that the grant recipient meets the
applicable criteria under section 1032(a).
``(2) Application process.--The Administrator shall issue
regulations regarding, with respect to the grants awarded
under section 1032, the application process, grant renewal,
and suspension or withholding of renewal grants. Each
application under this paragraph shall be in writing and
shall be subject to review by the Administrator.
``(3) Reporting.--The Administrator shall, to the maximum
extent practicable and in a manner consistent with applicable
law, minimize reporting requirements by a grant recipient and
expedite any application for a renewal grant made under this
subchapter.
``(b) Data Collection and Dissemination.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may collect data
from--
``(A) national substance abuse organizations that work with
eligible coalitions, community anti-drug coalitions,
departments or agencies of the Federal Government, or State
or local governments and the governing bodies of Indian
tribes; and
``(B) any other entity or organization that carries out
activities that relate to the purposes of the Program.
``(2) Activities of administrator.--The Administrator may--
``(A) evaluate the utility of specific initiatives relating
to the purposes of the Program;
``(B) engage in research and development activities related
to the Program; and
``(C) disseminate information described in this subsection
to--
``(i) eligible coalitions and other substance abuse
organizations; and
``(ii) the general public.
``SEC. 1034. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Technical assistance and agreements.--With respect to
any grant recipient or other organization, the Administrator
may--
``(A) offer technical assistance and training; and
``(B) enter into contracts and cooperative agreements.
``(2) Coordination of programs.--The Administrator may
facilitate the coordination of programs between a grant
recipient and other organizations and entities.
``(b) Training.--The Administrator may provide training to
any representative designated by a grant recipient in--
``(1) coalition building;
``(2) task force development;
``(3) mediation and facilitation, direct service,
assessment and evaluation; or
``(4) any other activity related to the purposes of the
Program.
``Subchapter II--Advisory Commission
``SEC. 1041. ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to
be known as the `Advisory Commission on Drug-Free
Communities'.
[[Page S2923]]
``(b) Purpose.--The Advisory Commission shall advise,
consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator
concerning matters related to the activities carried out
under the Program.
``SEC. 1042. DUTIES.
``(a) In General.--The Advisory Commission--
``(1) shall, not later than 30 days after its first
meeting, make recommendations to the Director regarding the
selection of an Administrator;
``(2) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement proposed to be made by the Program;
``(3) may make recommendations to the Administrator
regarding the activities of the Program;
``(4) may review any policy or criteria established by the
Administrator to carry out the Program;
``(5) may--
``(A) collect, by correspondence or by personal
investigation, information concerning initiatives, studies,
services, programs, or other activities of coalitions or
organizations working in the field of substance abuse in the
United States or any other country; and
``(B) with the approval of the Administrator, make the
information referred to in subparagraph (A) available through
appropriate publications or other methods for the benefit of
eligible coalitions and the general public; and
``(6) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and
conferences.
``(b) Recommendations.--If the Administrator rejects any
recommendation of the Advisory Commission under subsection
(a)(1), the Administrator shall notify the Advisory
Commission and the Director in writing of the reasons for the
rejection not later than 15 days after receiving the
recommendation.
``(c) Conflict of Interest.--A member of the Advisory
Commission shall recuse himself or herself from any decision
that would constitute a conflict of interest.
``SEC. 1043. MEMBERSHIP.
``(a) In General.--The President shall appoint 15 members
to the Advisory Commission as follows:
``(1) 6 members shall be appointed from the general public
and shall include leaders--
``(A) in fields of youth development, public policy, law,
or business; or
``(B) of nonprofit organizations or private foundations
that fund substance abuse programs.
``(2) 6 members shall be appointed from the leading
representatives of national substance abuse reduction
organizations, of which no fewer than 4 members shall have
extensive training or experience in drug prevention.
``(3) 3 members shall be appointed from the leading
representatives of State substance abuse reduction
organizations.
``(b) Chairperson.--The Advisory Commission shall elect a
chairperson or cochairpersons from among its members.
``(c) Ex Officio Members.--The ex officio membership of the
Advisory Commission shall consist of any 2 officers or
employees of the United States that the Director determines
to be necessary for the Advisory Commission to effectively
carry out its functions.
``SEC. 1044. COMPENSATION.
``(a) In General.--Members of the Advisory Commission who
are officers or employees of the United States shall not
receive any additional compensation for service on the
Advisory Commission. The remaining members of the Advisory
Commission shall receive, for each day (including travel
time) that they are engaged in the performance of the
functions of the Advisory Commission, compensation at rates
not to exceed the daily equivalent to the annual rate of
basic pay payable for grade GS-10 of the General Schedule.
``(b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Advisory
Commission shall receive travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and
5703 of title 5, United States Code.
``SEC. 1045. TERMS OF OFFICE.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the term of
office of a member of the Advisory Commission shall be 3
years, except that, as designated at the time of
appointment--
``(1) of the initial members appointed under section
1043(a)(1), 2 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
``(2) of the initial members appointed under section
1043(a)(2), 2 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and
``(3) of the initial members appointed under section
1043(a)(3), 1 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year.
``(b) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
for an unexpired term of a member shall serve for the
remainder of the unexpired term. A member of the Advisory
Commission may serve after the expiration of such member's
term until a successor has been appointed and taken office.
``SEC. 1046. MEETINGS.
``(a) In General.--After its initial meeting, the Advisory
Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson (or
Cochairpersons) of the Advisory Commission or a majority of
its members or upon the request of the Director or
Administrator of the Program for which the Advisory
Commission is established.
``(b) Quorum.--8 members of the Advisory Commission shall
constitute a quorum.
``SEC. 1047. STAFF.
``The Advisory Commission may elect an executive secretary
to facilitate the conduct of business of the Advisory
Commission. The Administrator shall make available to the
Advisory Commission such staff, information, and other
assistance permitted by law as the Advisory Commission may
reasonably require to carry out the functions of the Advisory
Commission.
``SEC. 1048. TERMINATION.
``The Advisory Commission shall terminate on the date that
is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this
chapter.''.
(b) References.--Each reference in Federal law to subtitle
A of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, with the exception of
section 1001 of such subtitle, in any provision of law that
is in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
Act shall be deemed to be a reference to chapter 1 of the
National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (as so designated
by this section).
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join the Senator from
Iowa in being an original cosponsor of the drug-free communities
legislation.
In the last 5 years, substance abuse by America's young people has
more than doubled. Even more troubling, it is taking place at younger
and younger ages.
We need to turn this around. And this is a challenge that requires
the involvement of the whole community--young people, their parents,
schools, businesspeople, the media, law enforcement, religious
organizations, civic and fraternal groups, as well as professionals in
the area of drug abuse treatment.
Community-based antidrug coalitions have proven their worth in the
fight against drug abuse. I'm thinking of groups like the Madison
County Prevention Assistance Coalition Team--or PACT--in Madison
County, OH. PACT was established in a rural area in central Ohio in
1991, and rapidly inspired over 50 local substance abuse prevention
initiatives.
What PACT did was mobilize the community. Middle school students
acted as mentors and role models for third graders. Teachers in Head
Start taught their students about drug abuse prevention. A local church
held a father-son retreat.
A research team from Miami University found that Madison County's
alcohol-related crime dropped by 50 percent. And students are reporting
a decline in the use and availability of alcohol and other drugs.
The key is mobilizing the community. The bill we're introducing today
will help tap into this resource--by redirecting Federal funding to
community coalitions that have developed comprehensive programs to
educate children about the dangers of drugs. A similar bill was
introduced in the House by Representatives Portman, Hastert, Rangel,
and Levin.
This bill will channel funds from the fiscal year 1998 drug control
budget--in the form of matching grants--to community coalitions with
proven track records. It will enhance programs that work, without
allocating new funds.
I think this is exactly the type of legislation we need. It's a
sensible and cost-effective approach to solving a major problem. And I
will join my colleague from Iowa in working for its enactment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in introducing today
with Senator Grassley and others the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997.
This legislation will help take an important step forward toward a goal
we all share--keeping kids away from drugs and drugs away from kids.
This 5 year, $140 million authorization to fund local antidrug
prevention efforts could be an important catalyst to getting local
groups together to plan, coordinate, and carry out the wide variety of
drug prevention treatment activities we all know are necessary to
reverse the rise of drug abuse among our children. By unleashing the
talents and energy of local coalitions of local businesses, schools,
law enforcement, religious organizations, doctors, and others we can
build community-wide and community-based drug prevention efforts.
For all these reasons, I am pleased to offer my support for the
concept embodied in this legislation. But, I must offer two important
conditions to my support for this bill. First, as potentially valuable
as antidrug coalitions can be, I do not believe it would be wise for us
to ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' by trying to fund this drug prevention
effort by cutting funding for other, worthy drug prevention efforts. It
is my
[[Page S2924]]
understanding that the other sponsors of this legislation in both the
House and the Senate share this view, and I look forward to working
with them to find the modest dollars necessary to fund this effort.
Second, it is also my understanding that the sponsors of this
legislation are continuing to work with the Drug Director to iron out
the bureaucratic details of how this effort will be undertaken at the
Federal level. I am confident that none of the sponsors of this bill
have any desire to establish any new layers of wasteful bureaucracy, so
I look forward to working with them to pass the most efficient,
effective effort possible.
This bill offers a key example of the bipartisan support for drug
prevention and drug treatment efforts which exists at the grassroots
level throughout our Nation. In the weeks and months ahead, I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the same bipartisan fashion.
As my colleagues have heard me note on numerous occasions--our Nation
stands on the edge of the ``baby boomerang''--with 39 million American
children under the age of 10, the greatest number since the 1960's. We
must prepare for these 39 million as they enter their teen years when
they will be at their greatest likelihood of falling prey to drugs and
crime. If we do not, we will pay for our lack of foresight with what
could be the most severe epidemic of youth drug abuse, youth violence,
and youth crime our Nation has ever suffered.
Preparing each of these 39 million American children means giving
them the techniques and the desire to stay away from drugs--in short,
drug prevention. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 is one of what
must be many elements of a comprehensive, nationwide drug prevention
effort. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation and I look forward
to passing it into law.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the introduction
of the Drug Free Communities Act and urge its passage. This bill
responds to a distressing increase in teenage drug use by providing
startup funding and technical assistance to community coalitions that
work together to prevent drug use.
According to the University of Michigan's 1996 Monitoring the Future
study, more than half of all high school students use illicit drugs by
the time they graduate. The Office of National Drug Control Policy
cited in their strategy report that nearly 1 in 4 high school seniors
used marijuana on a past-month basis in 1996.
The age for which children start using drugs is declining. While the
number of teenagers using marijuana increased 37 percent from 1994 to
1995, the age of first use declined from 17.8 years of age in 1987 to
16.3 years of age in 1994. There was also a drop in age for first use
of cocaine from 23.3 years to 19 years old. Drug use is starting at an
early age.
Drug abuse costs this country approximately $67 billion a year in
social, health and criminal costs. But the 14,000 drug-related deaths
each year cannot be calculated in costs. The destruction of lives of
the drug users, their families, friends, and neighbors is inevitable.
The need to correct the trend is imperative and it is communities
that can do it. Community coalitions are essential for an effective
prevention program. It is the community groups that see the problem
first hand and know what is needed in that area to stop children from
using drugs.
This bill will provide the incentive for community action groups to
work together for the sole purpose of drug prevention. Groups
representing youths, parents, businesses, schools, law enforcement,
religious organizations, health professionals, as well as government
agencies will be expected to prepare a strategy and implement it--
together. But the community must be organized first, prior to receiving
grant funds, in order for the coalition to prove a long-term
commitment.
The grants will be distributed to organized community coalitions that
have matching funds and those funds cannot be derived from the Federal
Government. This requirement ensures that the coalition has support and
can be sustained after the grant sunsets. This will not be another
Federal program, but rather a means to support organized coalitions
that devise and implement a comprehensive antidrug campaign while they
get off the ground.
Several groups in my State have already endorsed this proposal
including the Syracuse Police Department, the mayor of Syracuse and
agencies in Onondaga County. Respected national organizations that deal
with drug and alcohol abuse have also endorsed the proposal including
DARE, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, and Empower America, among others.
This is a comprehensive strategy to a problem that is best dealt with
at the local level. I urge my colleagues to closely review the merits
of this bill and support its passage. Our communities need it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the
Drug Free Communities Act.
The objective of this bill is to protect our greatest national
resource--our children--from the deadly scourge of drug abuse. And it
protects them in a way that has been proven through the centuries--by
strengthening communities. This bill gives local communities the
support they need to keep drugs away from their young people. And it
allows them to use it in a way that has proven to be effective in their
community, and not as some Washington bureaucrat dictates.
Unfortunately, recent studies of drug use in America demonstrate the
need for a program such as this. The statistics on substance abuse
among our Nation's children are particularly disturbing:
According to the University of Michigan's 1996 study ``Monitoring the
Future,'' half of all high school students have tried some type of
illicit drug by the time they graduate. Drug use among eighth graders
has risen 150 percent in the last 5 years. Overall, drug use for
children between the ages of 12 and 17 has increased more than 100
percent, from 5.3 percent in 1992 to 10.9 percent in 1995.
The drug most often used by these children continues to be marijuana.
More children are smoking marijuana and they are starting to do so at a
younger age. According to the ``Monitoring the Future'' study, almost
25 percent of high school seniors had used marijuana during the
previous month. Between 1994 and 1995, the rate of use among 12- to 17-
year-olds increased 37 percent, from 6 percent to over 8 percent.
And the use of marijuana often leads to the use of stronger and more
dangerous drugs. A study completed by Columbia University's Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse found that children who smoke marijuana
are 85 times more likely to try cocaine than children who have never
tried marijuana.
The use of cocaine and heroin among our children is also on the
increase. Among high school seniors in 1996, over 7 percent had tried
cocaine at some time. And the number of younger children experimenting
with these drugs is alarming. During the last 5 years, heroin use among
8th to 12th graders and the number of 8th graders who had tried cocaine
had doubled.
So what can we do to help our youth reject the temptation to use
drugs? We can help families to convince kids that they must never even
try illegal drugs.
That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Drug-Free Communities
Act of 1997, which we are here to introduce today. This bill will help
communities reduce drug use among youth by providing matching grants of
up to $100,000 to community coalitions for the establishment of
programs designed to prevent and treat substance abuse in young people.
These grants will be used to provide support to local communities who
have proven their long-term commitment to reducing drug use among
youth. It includes provisions for an advisory commission of substance
abuse experts to oversee the program, to ensure that grants go only to
those programs that have demonstrated success in keeping our children
and grandchildren off drugs.
There are several reasons why every Member of Congress should support
this bill:
This program helps local communities in a way that is consistent with
the 1997 strategy of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The
No. 1 goal of the strategy is to encourage
[[Page S2925]]
America's youth to reject illegal drugs by assisting community
coalitions to develop programs that will accomplish this goal. The
grants provided for in the Drug Free Communities Act will establish a
partnership between the Federal Government and local communities.
There are safeguards to prevent abuse of the program. Only
established groups that can provide matching funds will be eligible to
receive funding. This ensures that only programs that have a proven
track record of success in fighting drug abuse among our young people
will receive funding.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.
Our children's future depends on keeping them free of drugs, and this
legislation will help those groups who can make a difference in the
lives of our youth. There is no greater service that we can provide to
our country than to keep our children drug-free.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. This bill will lend a helping
hand to local coalitions that are leading the fight against substance
abuse.
Few would argue that substance abuse, particularly among our youth,
is a growing problem in communities across our Nation. Drug use among
teens has increased sharply in recent years. There is reason to
believe, however, that local coalitions, reflecting a broad cross-
section of the communities they serve, can do much to combat drug use
among youths as well as adults.
The Drug Free Communities Act would lend important assistance to
these coalitions. Specifically, the bill would authorize grants of up
to $100,000 to local coalitions whose principal mission is the
reduction of substance abuse. To be eligible for a grant, a coalition
must include representatives from the religious, business, law
enforcement, education, parental, and health care communities, as well
as local government officials, in the geographic region served by the
coalition. To enhance coalition accountability--and thus to direct
resources to the most successful coalitions--a participating coalition
would be required to conduct an initial benchmark survey of drug use in
its community, followed by biennal surveys. No new funding would be
needed for the bill, as grant moneys would be drawn from the existing
budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
In short, Mr. President, this bill recognizes that the efforts of
local leaders are indispensable in the war on drugs. I am proud to
support those efforts, and look forward to passage of this bill.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Ford, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Reed, Mr. Mack, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Levin, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bond, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Burns, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Coats, Mr. Akaka, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. 537. A bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend the mammography quality standards program; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the mammography quality standards act
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined by my
colleagues, both men and women from both sides of the aisle, in
introducing the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards
Act [MQSA]. The bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the original
legislation which passed in 1992 with bipartisan support.
What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms
meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of
personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed,
tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a
result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in bringing
facilities into compliance with the Federal standards.
What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography?
Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically
for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform
mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of
mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control
program to ensure reliability, clarity, and accurate interpretation of
mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified
inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting
body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
This current reauthorization makes a few minor changes to the law to
ensure the following: Patients and referring physicians must be advised
of any mammography facility deficiency. Women are guaranteed the right
to obtain an original of their mammogram. Finally, both State and local
government agencies are permitted to have inspection authority.
I like this law because it has saved lives. The frontline against
breast cancer is mammography. We know that early detection saves lives.
But a mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality
image or is misinterpreted. The first rule of all medical treatment is:
Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by
leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when
something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death
that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so
important. This law must be reauthorized so that we don't go back to
the old days when women's lives were in jeopardy.
I want to make sure that women's health care needs are met
comprehensively. It is expected that 180,000 new cases of breast cancer
will be diagnosed and about 44,000 women will die from the disease in
1997. This makes breast cancer the most common cancer among women. And
only lung cancer causes more deaths in women.
We must aggressively pursue prevention in our war on breast cancer. I
pledge to fight for new attitudes and find new ways to end the needless
pain and death that too many American women face. This bill is an
important step in that direction. On behalf of all the women of the
Senate, I invite the men of the Senate who have not already cosponsored
to do so. The women of America are counting on your support.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support, as
an original cosponsor of the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality
Standards Act [MQSA].
I first lent my support to this effort when the MQSA was initially
introduced and passed in the 102nd Congress. For the past 5 years, this
critically important legislation has provided women with safe and
reliable mammography services. As the Mammography Quality Standards Act
comes up for reauthorization, I urge all of my fellow colleagues to
once again make a commitment to the health and well being of America's
women by supporting this legislation.
Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer to affect women. In
fact, almost 1 in 9 women will develop breast cancer at some point in
their lives. Mammography, while not a cure for cancer, provides the
best detection system for diagnosing this dangerous and deadly disease.
And, early detection of breast cancer is often the key to effective
treatment and recovery.
The Mammography Quality Standards Act ensures that mammography
service providers comply with Federal requirements. These quality
standards guard against inaccurate or inconclusive mammography results,
thereby reducing the costly procedures associated with false positive
diagnoses.
Before this legislation was originally enacted, women were often at
the mercy of their mammography service provider, unaware if these
providers lacked the necessary equipment, or even adequately trained
technicians. The MQSA is helping to effectively eliminate concerns of
substandard mammography and its possibly tragic results by assuring
that only the correct radiological equipment is used in
[[Page S2926]]
mammography testing. Further, this legislation is assuring women that
only physicians adequately trained in this medical area are
interpreting mammograms.
New to this legislation are some additional requirements which seek
to further assure women that their mammogram service produces the most
accurate and timely detection of any irregularities. Mammography
service providers will now be required to retain women's mammogram
records so that an accurate medical history is maintained.
Reauthorization of these quality standards will also ensure that
patients are notified about substandard mammography facilities.
I wish to commend Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this crucial
legislation. Again, it is my pleasure to join my colleagues in ensuring
that quality mammography service is readily available, and I urge the
Senate to act quickly and approve this critically important measure for
American women.
____________________