[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1063-S1088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 247. A bill to provide for the protection of children from
tobacco; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just under 3 years ago, on March 31, 1998,
Senators Harkin, John Chafee and Graham teamed up to introduce the
first comprehensive bipartisan legislation to reduce teen smoking.
Today, I am pleased to announce that Senators Harkin, Lincoln Chafee
and Graham are teaming up again with the same goal. We are re-
introducing the first bipartisan Senate bill to restore the Food and
Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from tobacco.
We hope the introduction of this bill is the beginning of a
bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed.
The need is clear. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
recognized, tobacco use among children and adolescents is probably the
single most significant threat to public health in the United States.
Study after study has shown how the tobacco industry continues to
successfully target our children. In a survey done by the Campaign for
Tobacco Free Kids, seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing
tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33
percent of adults. And 77 percent of teens say it is easy for kids to
buy cigarettes.
This is why every day another 3000 kids in this country become
regular smokers. And that is why cigarette smoking among high school
seniors is at a 19-year high.
There is no question. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes
kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big
Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the
nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted.
The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court last year, were
about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an investment
in the future of our kids. They also provided consumers with critical
protections against false advertising and health claims by tobacco
manufacturers.
Tobacco companies are making harm reduction claims about new products
with no real independent examination or oversight. This deceptive,
self-interested behavior is not part of a new pattern. The history of
tobacco companies is rife with examples of deceptive practices designed
to addict both adults and children with their harmful products. Our
bill will ensure that this type of behavior is stopped.
Our legislation re-affirms the FDA's authority over tobacco products.
It classifies nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as drug delivery
devices. It allows FDA to implement a ``public health'' standard in its
review and regulation of tobacco products. Companies will be prevented
from making claims of reduced risk unless they can show scientific
evidence their product is actually safer.
By codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation also allows
for continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It
provides needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco
products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It
also includes sensible advertising limits to reduce teen access to
tobacco.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I
hope we can work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to move this
important issue forward.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 247
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 ``Kids Deserve Freedom from
Tobacco Act of 2001'' or the ``KIDS Act''.
TITLE I--PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM TOBACCO
Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration Jurisdiction and General
Authority
SEC. 101. REFERENCE.
Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed
in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF GENERAL AUTHORITY.
The regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services in the rule dated August 28, 1996 (Vol. 61,
No. 168 C.F.R.), adding part 897 to title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall be deemed to have been lawfully
promulgated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended
by this title. Such regulations shall apply to all tobacco
products.
[[Page S1064]]
SEC. 103. NONAPPLICABILITY TO OTHER DRUGS OR DEVICES.
Nothing in this title, or an amendment made by this title,
shall be construed to affect the regulation of drugs and
devices that are not tobacco products by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
SEC. 104. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CONFIRM JURISDICTION.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Drug.--Section 201(g)(1) (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) is
amended by striking ``; and (D)'' and inserting ``; (D)
nicotine in tobacco products; and (E)''.
(2) Devices.--Section 201(h) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Such term includes a
tobacco product.''.
(3) Other definitions.--Section 201 (21 U.S.C. 321) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(kk) The term `tobacco product' means any product made or
derived from tobacco that is intended for human
consumption.''.
(b) Prohibited Acts.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(aa) The manufacture, labeling, distribution, advertising
and sale of any adulterated or misbranded tobacco product in
violation of--
``(1) regulations issued under this Act; or
``(2) the KIDS Act, or regulations issued under such
Act.''.
(c) Adulterated Drugs and Devices.--
(1) In general.--Section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(j) If it is a tobacco product and it does not comply
with the provisions of subchapter D of this chapter or the
KIDS Act.''.
(2) Misbranding.--Section 502(q) (21 U.S.C. 352(q)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``or (2)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
(3) in the case of a tobacco product, it is sold,
distributed, advertised, labeled, or used in violation of
this Act or the KIDS Act, or regulations prescribed under
such Acts''.
(d) Restricted Device.--Section 520(e) (21 U.S.C. 360j(e))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or use--'' and
inserting ``or use, including restrictions on the access to,
and the advertising and promotion of, tobacco products--'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Tobacco products are a restricted device under this
paragraph.''.
(e) Regulatory Authority.--Section 503(g) (21 U.S.C.
353(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) The Secretary may regulate any tobacco product as a
drug, device, or both, and may designate the office of the
Administration that shall be responsible for regulating such
products.''.
SEC. 105. GENERAL RULE.
Section 513(a)(1)(B) (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``The sale of tobacco
products to adults that comply with performance standards
established for these products under section 514 and other
provisions of this Act and any regulations prescribed under
this Act shall not be prohibited by the Secretary,
notwithstanding sections 502(j), 516, and 518.''.
SEC. 106. SAFETY AND EFFICACY STANDARD AND RECALL AUTHORITY.
(a) Safety and Efficacy Standard.--Section 513(a) (21
U.S.C. 360c(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``For a device which is a tobacco
product, the assurance in the previous sentence need not be
found if the Secretary finds that special controls achieve
the best public health result.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), respectively;
(B) by striking ``(2) For'' and inserting ``(2)(A) For'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), subsections
(c)(2)(C), (d)(2)(B), (e)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)(i), and
(f)(3)(C)(i), and sections 514, 519(a), 520(e), and 520(f),
the safety and effectiveness of a device that is a tobacco
product need not be found if the Secretary finds that the
action to be taken under any such provision would achieve the
best public health result. The finding as to whether the best
public health result has been achieved shall be determined
with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a
whole, including users and non-users of the tobacco product,
and taking into account--
``(i) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing
consumers of tobacco products will stop using such products;
and
``(ii) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who
do not use tobacco products will start using such
products.''.
(b) Recall Authority.--Section 518(e)(1) (21 U.S.C.
360h(e)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``adverse health
consequences or death,'' the following: ``and for tobacco
products that the best public health result would be
achieved,''.
Subtitle B--Regulation of Tobacco Products
SEC. 111. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Section 514(a) (21 U.S.C. 60d(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``device'' and inserting
``nontobacco product device'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) The Secretary may adopt a performance standard under
section 514(a)(2) for a tobacco product regardless of whether
the product has been classified under section 513. Such
standard may--
``(A) include provisions to achieve the best public health
result;
``(B) where necessary to achieve the best public health
result, include--
``(i) provisions respecting the construction, components,
constituents, ingredients, and properties of the tobacco
product device, including the reduction or elimination (or
both) of nicotine and the other components, ingredients, and
constituents of the tobacco product, its components and its
by-products, based upon the best available technology;
``(ii) provisions for the testing (on a sample basis or, if
necessary, on an individual basis) of the tobacco product
device or, if it is determined that no other more practicable
means are available to the Secretary to assure the conformity
of the tobacco product device to such standard, provisions
for the testing (on a sample basis or, if necessary, on an
individual basis) by the Secretary or by another person at
the direction of the Secretary;
``(iii) provisions for the measurement of the performance
characteristics of the tobacco product device;
``(iv) provisions requiring that the results of each test
or of certain tests of the tobacco product device required to
be made under clause (ii) demonstrate that the tobacco
product device is in conformity with the portions of the
standard for which the test or tests were required; and
``(v) a provision that the sale and distribution of the
tobacco product device be restricted but only to the extent
that the sale and distribution of a tobacco product device
may otherwise be restricted under this Act; and
``(C) where appropriate, require the use and prescribe the
form and content of labeling for the use of the tobacco
product device.
``(4) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the KIDS Act, the Secretary (acting through the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs) shall establish a Scientific Advisory
Committee to evaluate whether a level or range of levels
exists at which nicotine yields do not produce drug-
dependence. The Advisory Committee shall also review any
other safety, dependence or health issue assigned to it by
the Secretary. The Secretary need not promulgate regulations
to establish the Committee.''.
SEC. 112. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
(a) Tobacco Products Regulation.--Chapter V (21 U.S.C. 351
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER F--TOBACCO PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND ACCESS
RESTRICTIONS
``SEC. 570. PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS.
``Any regulations necessary to implement this subchapter
shall be promulgated not later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this subchapter using notice and comment
rulemaking (in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code). Such regulations may be revised thereafter as
determined necessary by the Secretary.
``SEC. 571. MAIL-ORDER SALES.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall review and
determine whether persons under the age of 18 years are
obtaining tobacco products by means of the mail.
``(b) Restrictions.--Based solely upon the review conducted
under subsection (a), the Secretary may take regulatory and
administrative action to restrict or eliminate mail order
sales of tobacco products.
``SEC. 572. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION.
``(a) Additional Restrictions on Marketing, Advertising,
and Access.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall revise the
regulations related to tobacco products promulgated by the
Secretary on August 28, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 44396) to include
the additional restrictions on marketing, advertising, and
access described in Title IA and Title IC of the Proposed
Resolution entered into by the tobacco manufacturers and the
State attorneys general on June 20, 1997, except that the
Secretary shall not include an additional restriction on
marketing or advertising in such regulations if its inclusion
would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
``(b) Warnings.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations to require warnings on cigarette and
smokeless tobacco labeling and advertisements. The content,
format, and rotation of warnings shall conform to the
specifications described in Title IB of the Proposed
Resolution entered into by the tobacco manufacturers and the
State attorneys general on June 20, 1997.
``(c) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the ability of the Secretary to change the
text or layout of any of the warning statements, or any of
the labeling provisions, under the regulations promulgated
under subsection (b) and other provisions of this Act, if
determined necessary by the Secretary in order to make
[[Page S1065]]
such statements or labels larger, more prominent, more
conspicuous, or more effective.
``(2) Unfair acts.--Nothing in this section (other than the
requirements of subsections (a) and (b)) shall be construed
to limit or restrict the authority of the Federal Trade
Commission with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the advertising of tobacco products.
``(d) Limited Preemption.--
``(1) State and local action.--No warning label with
respect to tobacco products, or any other tobacco product for
which warning labels have been required under this section,
other than the warning labels required under this Act, shall
be required by any State or local statute or regulation to be
included on any package of a tobacco product.
``(2) Effect on liability law.--Nothing in this section
shall relieve any person from liability at common law or
under State statutory law to any other person.
``(e) Violation of Section.--Any tobacco product that is in
violation of this section shall be deemed to be misbranded.
``SEC. 573. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANUFACTURERS,
DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS.
``Each manufacturer, distributor, and retailer shall ensure
that the tobacco products it manufactures, labels,
advertises, packages, distributes, sells, or otherwise holds
for sale comply with all applicable requirements of this Act.
``SEC. 574. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF TOBACCO AND
NONTOBACCO INGREDIENTS AND CONSTITUENTS.
``(a) Disclosure of All Ingredients.--
``(1) Immediate and annual disclosure.--Not later than 30
days after the date of enactment of this subchapter, and
annually thereafter, each manufacturer of a tobacco product
shall submit to the Secretary an ingredient list for each
brand of tobacco product it manufactures that contains the
information described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements.--The list described in paragraph (1)
shall, with respect to each brand or variety of tobacco
product of a manufacturer, include--
``(A) a list of all ingredients, constituents, substances,
and compounds that are found in or added to the tobacco or
tobacco product (including the paper, filter, or packaging of
the product if applicable) in the manufacture of the tobacco
product, for each brand or variety of tobacco product so
manufactured, including, if determined necessary by the
Secretary, any material added to the tobacco used in the
product prior to harvesting;
``(B) the quantity of the ingredients, constituents,
substances, and compounds that are listed under subparagraph
(A) in each brand or variety of tobacco product;
``(C) the nicotine content of the product, measured in
milligrams of nicotine;
``(D) for each brand or variety of cigarettes--
``(i) the filter ventilation percentage (the level of air
dilution in the cigarette as provided by the ventilation
holes in the filter, described as a percentage);
``(ii) the pH level of the smoke of the cigarette; and
``(iii) the tar, unionized (free) nicotine, and carbon
monoxide delivery level and any other smoking conditions
established by the Secretary, reported in milligrams of tar,
nicotine, and carbon monoxide per cigarette;
``(E) for each brand or variety of smokeless tobacco
products--
``(i) the pH level of the tobacco;
``(ii) the moisture content of the tobacco expressed as a
percentage of the weight of the tobacco; and
``(iii) the nicotine content--
``(I) for each gram of the product, measured in milligrams
of nicotine;
``(II) expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the
tobacco; and
``(III) with respect to unionized (free) nicotine,
expressed as a percentage per gram of the tobacco and
expressed in milligrams per gram of the tobacco; and
``(F) any other information determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(3) Methods.--The Secretary shall have the authority to
promulgate regulations to establish the methods to be used by
manufacturers in making the determinations required under
paragraph (2).
``(4) Other tobacco products.--The Secretary shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to establish
information disclosure procedures for other tobacco products.
``(b) Safety Assessments.--
``(1) Application to new ingredients.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subchapter, and annually thereafter, each
manufacturer shall submit to the Secretary a safety
assessment for each new ingredient, constituent, substance,
or compound that such manufacturer desires to make a part of
a tobacco product. Such new ingredient, constituent,
substance, or compound shall not be included in a tobacco
product prior to approval by the Secretary of such a safety
assessment.
``(B) Method of filing.--A safety assessment submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall be signed by an officer of the
manufacturer who is acting on behalf of the manufacturer and
who has the authority to bind the manufacturer, and contain a
statement that ensures that the information contained in the
assessment is true, complete and accurate.
``(C) Definition of new ingredient.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `new ingredient, constituent,
substance, or compound' means an ingredient, constituent,
substance, or compound listed under subsection (a)(1) that
was not used in the brand or variety of tobacco product
involved prior to January 1, 1998.
``(2) Application to other ingredients.--With respect to
the application of this section to ingredients, constituents
substances, or compounds listed under subsection (a) to which
paragraph (1) does not apply, all such ingredients,
constituents, substances, or compounds shall be reviewed
through the safety assessment process within the 5-year
period beginning on the date of enactment of this subchapter.
The Secretary shall develop a procedure for the submission of
safety assessments of such ingredients, constituents,
substances, or compounds that staggers such safety
assessments within the 5-year period.
``(3) Basis of assessment.--The safety assessment of an
ingredient, constituent, substance, or compound described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall--
``(A) be based on the best scientific evidence available at
the time of the submission of the assessment; and
``(B) demonstrate that there is a reasonable certainty
among experts qualified by scientific training and experience
who are consulted, that the ingredient, constituent,
substance, or compound will not present any risk to consumers
or the public in the quantities used under the intended
conditions of use.
``(c) Prohibition.--
``(1) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations to prohibit the use of any ingredient,
constituent, substance, or compound in the tobacco product of
a manufacturer--
``(A) if no safety assessment has been submitted by the
manufacturer for the ingredient, constituent, substance, or
compound as otherwise required under this section; or
``(B) if the Secretary finds that the manufacturer has
failed to demonstrate the safety of the ingredient,
constituent, substance, or compound that was the subject of
the assessment under paragraph (2).
``(2) Review of assessments.--
``(A) General review.--Not later than 180 days after the
receipt of a safety assessment under subsection (b), the
Secretary shall review the findings contained in such
assessment and approve or disapprove of the safety of the
ingredient, constituent, substance, or compound that was the
subject of the assessment. The Secretary may, for good cause,
extend the period for such review. The Secretary shall
provide notice to the manufacturer of an action under this
subparagraph.
``(B) Inaction by secretary.--If the Secretary fails to act
with respect to an assessment of an existing ingredient,
constituent, substance, or additive during the period
referred to in subparagraph (A), the manufacturer of the
tobacco product involved may continue to use the ingredient,
constituent, substance, or compound involved until such time
as the Secretary makes a determination with respect to the
assessment.
``(d) Right to Know; Full Disclosure of Ingredients to the
Public.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), a
package of a tobacco product shall disclose all ingredients,
constituents, substances, or compounds contained in the
product in accordance with regulations promulgated under
section 701(a) by the Secretary.
``(2) Disclosure of percentage of domestic and foreign
tobacco.--The regulations referred to in paragraph (1) shall
require that the package of a tobacco product disclose, with
respect to the tobacco contained in the product--
``(A) the percentage that is domestic tobacco; and
``(B) the percentage that is foreign tobacco.
``(3) Health disclosure.--Notwithstanding section 301(j),
the Secretary may require the public disclosure of any
ingredient, constituent, substance, or compound contained in
a tobacco product that relates to a trade secret or other
matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18, United States
Code, if the Secretary determines that such disclosure will
promote the public health.
``SEC. 575. REDUCED RISK PRODUCTS.
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--No manufacturer, distributor or retailer
of tobacco products may make any direct or implied statement
in advertising or on a product package that could reasonably
be interpreted to state or imply a reduced health risk
associated with a tobacco product unless the manufacturer
demonstrates to the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary
may require, that based on the best available scientific
evidence the product significantly reduces the overall health
risk to the public when compared to other tobacco products.
``(2) Submission to secretary.--Prior to making any
statement described in paragraph (1), a manufacturer,
distributor or retailer shall submit such statement to the
Secretary, who shall review such statement to ensure its
accuracy and, in the case of advertising, to prevent such
statement from increasing, or preventing the contraction of,
the size of the overall market for tobacco products.
[[Page S1066]]
``(b) Determination by Secretary.--If the Secretary
determines that a statement described in subsection (a)(2) is
permissible because the tobacco product does present a
significantly reduced overall health risk to the public, the
Secretary may permit such statement to be made.
``(c) Development or Acquisition of Reduced Risk
Technology.--
``(1) In general.--Any manufacturer that develops or
acquires any technology that the manufacturer reasonably
believes will reduce the risk from tobacco products shall
notify the Secretary of the development or acquisition of the
technology. Such notice shall be in such form and within such
time as the Secretary shall require.
``(2) Confidentiality.--With respect to any technology
described in paragraph (1) that is in the early stages of
development (as determined by the Secretary), the Secretary
shall establish protections to ensure the confidentiality of
any proprietary information submitted to the Secretary under
this subsection during such development.
``SEC. 576. ACCESS TO COMPANY INFORMATION.
``(a) Compliance Procedures.--Each manufacturer of tobacco
products shall establish procedures to ensure compliance with
this Act.
``(b) Requirement.--In addition to any other disclosure
obligations under this Act, the KIDS Act, or any other law,
each manufacturer of tobacco products shall, not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of the KIDS Act and
thereafter as required by the Secretary, disclose to the
Secretary all nonpublic information and research in its
possession or control relating to the addiction or
dependency, or the health or safety of tobacco products,
including (without limitation) all research relating to
processes to make tobacco products less hazardous to
consumers and the research and documents described in
subsection (c).
``(c) Research and Documents.--The documents described in
this section include any documents concerning tobacco product
research relating to--
``(1) nicotine, including--
``(A) the interaction between nicotine and other components
in tobacco products including ingredients in the tobacco and
smoke components;
``(B) the role of nicotine in product design and
manufacture, including product charters, and parameters in
product development, the tobacco blend, filter technology,
and paper;
``(C) the role of nicotine in tobacco leaf purchasing;
``(D) reverse engineering activities involving nicotine
(such as analyzing the products of other companies);
``(E) an analysis of nicotine delivery; and
``(F) the biology, psychopharmacology and any other health
effects of nicotine;
``(2) other ingredients, including--
``(A) the identification of ingredients in tobacco products
and constituents in smoke, including additives used in
product components such as paper, filter, and wrapper;
``(B) any research on the health effects of ingredients;
and
``(C) any research or other information explaining what
happens to ingredients when they are heated and burned;
``(3) less hazardous or safer products, including any
research or product development information on activities
involving reduced risk, less hazardous, low-tar or reduced-
tar, low-nicotine or reduced-nicotine or nicotine-free
products; and
``(4) tobacco product advertising, marketing and promotion,
including--
``(A) documents related to the design of advertising
campaigns, including the desired demographics for individual
products on the market or being tested;
``(B) documents concerning the age of initiation of tobacco
use, general tobacco use behavior, beginning smokers, pre-
smokers, and new smokers;
``(C) documents concerning the effects of advertising; and
``(D) documents concerning future marketing options or
plans in light of the requirements and regulations to be
imposed under this subchapter or the KIDS Act.
``(d) Authority of Secretary.--With respect to tobacco
product manufacturers, the Secretary shall have the same
access to records and information and inspection authority as
is available with respect to manufacturers of other medical
devices.
``SEC. 577. OVERSIGHT OF TOBACCO PRODUCT MANUFACTURING.
``The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe good
manufacturing practice standards for tobacco products. Such
regulations shall be modeled after good manufacturing
practice regulations for medical devices, food, and other
items under section 520(f). Such standards shall be directed
specifically toward tobacco products, and shall include--
``(1) a quality control system, to ensure that tobacco
products comply with such standards;
``(2) a system for inspecting tobacco product materials to
ensure their compliance with such standards;
``(3) requirements for the proper handling of finished
tobacco products;
``(4) strict tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in
or on tobacco or tobacco product commodities in the
possession of the manufacturer, except that nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to affect any authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency;
``(5) authority for officers or employees of the Secretary
to inspect any factory, warehouse, or other establishment of
any tobacco product manufacturer, and to have access to
records, files, papers, processes, controls and facilities
related to tobacco product manufacturing, in accordance with
appropriate authority and rules promulgated under this Act;
and
``(6) a requirement that the tobacco product manufacturer
maintain such files and records as the Secretary may specify,
as well as that the manufacturer report to the Secretary such
information as the Secretary shall require, in accordance
with section 519.
``SEC. 578. PRESERVATION OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY.
``Notwithstanding section 521 and except as otherwise
provided for in section 572(e), nothing in this subchapter
shall be construed as prohibiting a State or locality from
imposing requirements, prohibitions, penalties or other
measures to further the purposes of this subchapter that are
in addition to the requirements, prohibitions, or penalties
required under this subchapter. State and local governments
may impose additional tobacco product control measures to
further restrict or limit the use of such products.''.
SEC. 113. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subtitle (and the amendments made by this subtitle).
(b) Trigger.--No expenditures shall be made under this
subtitle (or the amendments made by this subtitle) during any
fiscal year in which the annual amount appropriated for the
Food and Drug Administration is less than the amount so
appropriated for the prior fiscal year.
SEC. 114. REPEALS.
The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), except for the first section and
sections 5(d)(1) and (2) and 6.
(2) The Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.), except for sections 1,
3(f) and 8(a) and (b).
(3) The Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1964 (Public
law 98-474).
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. NONAPPLICATION TO TOBACCO PRODUCERS.
(a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall not apply to the producers of tobacco leaf,
including tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses, and tobacco
grower cooperatives.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to provide the
Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority
to--
(1) enter onto a farm owned by a producer of tobacco leaf
without the written consent of such producer; or
(2) promulgate regulations on any matter that involves the
production of tobacco leaf or a producer thereof, other than
activities by a manufacturer that affect production.
(c) Manufacturer Acting as Producer.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, if a producer of tobacco
leaf is also a tobacco product manufacturer or is owned or
controlled by a tobacco product manufacturer, the producer
shall be subject to the provisions of this Act, and the
amendments made by this Act, in the producer's capacity as a
manufacturer.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``controlled
by'' means a producer that is a member of the same controlled
group of corporations, as that term is used for purposes of
section 52(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or under
common control within the meaning of the regulations
promulgated under section 52(b) of such Code.
SEC. 202. EQUAL TREATMENT OF RETAIL OUTLETS.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate
regulations to require that retail establishments that are
accessible to individuals under the age of 18, for which the
predominant business is the sale of tobacco products, comply
with any advertising restrictions applicable to such
establishments.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 249. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the bill I have introduced expands the
existing production tax credit for renewable energy technology to cover
all renewable energy technologies.
We have a crisis in America today. It is called electricity. It is
called power. What took place and is taking place in California is only
a preview of things that are going to happen all over America unless we
do something about it. It is time to recognize the present system isn't
working.
We can criticize California and what they did. It is obvious to
everyone that their deregulation program simply was not workable. It
wasn't workable because they were energy inefficient. They did not
produce enough energy inside the State of California for the
[[Page S1067]]
deregulation bill they passed to work. The only time a deregulation
bill such as they had would work is if you have a State that produces
more electricity than it uses. There are some examples of that.
California, however, decided they were going to deregulate, even though
they didn't have enough electricity produced within the State. They
figured they could buy cheap power elsewhere and have it brought into
California. It was a recipe for disaster. The disaster hit. They are
now trying to work their way out of the problem.
There is no question that the current energy crisis in California has
demonstrated that America must diversify its energy mix. Already in
Nevada electricity rates have risen six times; the natural gas price
has increased more than 75 percent. This is a real problem. All we have
to do is look around. I have a letter from a man named Ronald Feldstein
from Carson City, NV. Among other things, he said: I was horrified to
read that Southwest Gas was increasing our gas bills 35 percent
effective February 1. Nevada is a poor State, mostly composed of senior
retired citizens.
I add editorially, that isn't true, but we do have lots and lots of
senior citizens. To the author of this letter, it seems the State of
Nevada is composed mostly of senior citizens.
Last month, he says, his Southwest Gas bill was over $100; a 35-
percent increase will mean an additional $35 on his electricity bill.
The only way a senior can afford such a huge increase is to give up
something. In other words, lower his standard of living. That usually
means giving up a certain prescription drug or lowering his food bill.
He went on to say other things, but I think that conveys the problem
we have in Nevada, and people all over America are about to have; that
is, a huge increase in the price of fuel energy.
Ensuring that the lights and heat stay on is critical to sustaining
America's economic growth and our quality of life. The citizens of
Nevada and of this Nation demand a national energy strategy to ensure
their economic well-being and security, and to provide for the quality
of life they deserve.
It is a sad state of affairs that people like Mr. Feldstein, which
can be multiplied in the State of Nevada thousands and thousands of
times, have to make significant sacrifices to pay their energy bills.
People are saying: I'm going to have to cut back on my prescriptions. I
will have to cut back on the food I buy because I have a fixed income,
and these power bills must be paid because I can't go without heat.
Carson City, NV, is a cold place in the winter.
Nevadans understand that a national energy strategy must encompass
something other than what we are doing. What we are doing now does not
work. We are depending mostly on importing oil, and people who import
the oil are manipulating the price and that price is going sky high. We
have to do something different. Of course, we have to do something
about conservation. We must be more efficient. We must also expand our
generating capacity. How are we going to do that? There are some who
say that one of the ways is to do something with clean coal technology.
That is something I am willing to take a look at, hopefully, so we can
reduce the global warming problem when it is necessary to use coal. But
it is difficult to significantly reduce harmful emissions with coal.
I have supported clean coal technology. We have a plant near Reno,
NV, that started out with clean coal technology. It is important we do
that. We are not going to develop any more nuclear powerplants in
America in the foreseeable future. There are too many problems. It is
too expensive. We have no way of disposing of the waste.
What else can we do? We have powerplants now, but the primary way
they can be constructed is if they are fueled by natural gas. The cost
of natural gas has gone way up.
What else can we do? I think one of the things we can do is develop
renewable energy resources. This is a responsible way to expand our
power capacity without compromising air or water quality.
Fossil fuel plants pump out over 11 million tons of pollutants into
our air each year. This is not 11 million pounds, but tons, into our
air each year. Powerplants in the United States are responsible for 35
percent of our national carbon dioxide emissions which contribute to
global climate change, global warming. Powerplants in the United States
are responsible for 66 percent of sulphur dioxide, which causes acid
rain, 25 percent of nitrogen oxides, which lead to smog, and 21 percent
of mercury, which poisons fish and other animals. That is what
powerplants in the United States do. There is no disputing that. That
is a fact.
The legislation I have introduced will renew the wind power
production tax credit, expand the credit to additional renewable
technologies, including solar, open-loop biomass, poultry and animal
waste, geothermal, and incremental hydropower facilities. There is so
much that can be done.
We are constructing, as we speak, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas at
the Nevada Test Site, wind-generating capacity that in 3 years will
produce from windmills enough electricity, 265 megawatts, to power a
quarter of a million homes.
These renewable energy sources can enhance America's energy supply on
a scale of 1 to 3 years, considerably shorter than the time required
for a fossil fuel powerplant.
The proposed production tax credit for all these renewable energy
sources would be made permanent. One of the problems we have with many
of our tax credits is we do them for a short period of time. People
don't know whether they are going to be in existence, and therefore
they are unwilling to commit long term. This proposed production tax
credit, if it is made permanent, will encourage use of renewable energy
and signal America's long-term commitment to clean energy, to a healthy
environment, and to our energy independence.
My bill also allows for coproduction credits to encourage blending of
renewable energy with traditional fuels and provides a credit for
renewable facilities on Native American and Native Alaskan lands.
Renewable energy is poised to make major contributions to our
Nation's energy needs over the next decade.
It is so important we recognize that within 3 years one wind-
generating farm in Nevada will produce 8 percent of all the electricity
needs of the state. We can multiply that by 6 years to 20 percent. It
is remarkable what can be done.
Nevada has already developed 200 megawatts of geothermal power with a
longer term potential of more than 2,500 megawatts, enough capacity to
meet the State's energy needs. Growing renewable energy industries in
the United States will also help provide growing employment
opportunities in the United States and help U.S. renewable technologies
compete in world markets.
In States such as Nevada, expanded renewable energy production will
provide jobs in rural areas--areas that have been largely left out of
America's recent economic boom.
The Department of Energy has estimated we could increase our
generation of geothermal energy almost tenfold, supplying 10 percent of
the energy needs of the West, and expand wind energy production to
serve the electricity needs of 10 million homes.
Renewable energy, as an alternative to traditional energy sources, is
a commonsense way to ensure the American people that they can have a
reliable source of power at an affordable price.
The United States needs to move away from its dependence on fossil
fuels that pollute the environment and undermine our national security
interests and balance of trade.
If there were ever a national security interest that we have, it
would be doing something about the importation of fossil fuel. We have
to do something to stop our dependence on these countries that
manipulate the price of oil and other fuels. We have to do that; it is
essential for our national security.
We need to send the signal to utility companies all over America that
we are committed in the long term to the growth of renewable energy. We
must accept this commitment for the energy security of the United
States, for the protection of our environment, and for the health of
the American people and literally the world.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lott, Mr.
[[Page S1068]]
Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Carper, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Miller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 250. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit to holders of qualified bonds issued by Amtrak, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senator Hutchison, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, and 47 other
cosponsors, the High Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001. With this
legislation we continue the work begun by our former colleagues,
Senator Bill Roth, Senator Pat Moynihan, and especially Senator Frank
Lautenberg, who worked so hard in the last Congress to support high
speed intercity passenger rail.
Since the very first steam locomotive in this country rolled in
Newcastle, Delaware, railroading has been a capital-intensive industry.
From the rolling stock to the right of way, railroads require major
long-term investments. But unlike every other passenger rail system in
the world, Amtrak has lacked a secure source of public support for its
capital needs. Over the years, along with many of my colleagues here in
the Senate, I have looked for ways to right that wrong.
The bill that Senator Hutchison and I introduce today is designed to
provide Amtrak with the capital funds to establish a truly national
high speed passenger rail system. The idea is simple, and it is modeled
on a program we already have in place to support another important
public priority, public school construction. Under this legislation,
Amtrak is authorized to issue, over the next ten years, up to $12
billion in bonds. Instead of an interest payment, the holders of those
bonds will be paid by a rebate on their federal income taxes.
The funds generated from the sale of the bonds will be available for
investments in high speed rail corridors throughout the country, from
the established and profitable Northeast Corridor to planned corridors
from Florida to the Pacific Northwest. One thing I learned from my days
on the County Council in Delaware was that each route on a bus system
supports and sustains the others. Cut one route, and ridership will
fall off on the others as the whole system becomes less useful.
Conversely, the more complete the system the more people will find that
it meets their needs.
Another thing I learned on the county council, Mr. President, is that
if state and local governments are required to put up some of their own
funds to match assistance from the federal government, they will think
long and hard about the best use of their funds. That is why this
legislation requires a twenty percent match by the state before a high
speed rail project can qualify for the support this bill provides. This
provision not only provides an additional safeguard that high speed
rail investments meet the many real needs the states have, but it also
assures that the funds will be there to pay off the bonds as they come
due.
Before a project is eligible for the funds raised under this bill, it
must be reviewed by the Secretary of Transportation for its financial
soundness, its role in a national passenger rail system, and its
contribution to balance among the many regional corridors in the
national system.
I know that I don't have to tell my colleagues about the growing
chorus of public complaints about air travel in this country. All over
the country, overworked and over booked airports and flyways keep
passengers sitting in terminals or out on the runways, waiting for some
movement in a clogged system. The vast majority of our most crowded
airports are located near rail lines that could take some of those
passengers where they need to go faster, safer, and more comfortably.
But only if we make the same investment in passenger rail that every
other advanced economy does, Mr. President. Today, those tracks carry
no passengers while our airports are bursting at the seams.
The same is true for the major highway corridors between our nation's
cities. Those arteries are clogged with every kind of traffic, from
freight haulers to vacationers to business travelers. Many of them run
parallel to major rail corridors, that could share some of that load.
But only, Mr. President, if we make the same investment in passenger
rail that every other advanced economy does.
Just look at the lack of balance in our transportation spending, Mr.
President. We spend $80 billion a year on our highways. We spend a
billion just cleaning up road kills, and more than a billion a year
salting icy roads. But we spend less than $600 million a year on rail
infrastructure.
We spend $19 billion a year on aviation, but, again, less than $600
million on rail.
These numbers are even more disturbing when you realize what you get
for each dollar spent. Look at the enormous cost of individual
projects. Construction of a freeway in Los Angeles costs $125 million
per mile. Per mile, Mr. President. But that is cheap compared to the
``Big Dig'' Central Artery in Boston--the price tag on that is $1.5
billion per mile. Airport construction is just as expensive: the Denver
International Airport cost $4.2 billion. To expand the Los Angeles
International Airport will involve $3 billion to $4 billion in ground
transportation costs alone.
High speed passenger rail investments can get a lot more done for a
lot less money--five to ten times as much as an investment in new
highways. For example, expanding I-95, our major east-coast highway
corridor, by just one lane can cost as much as $50 million a mile. That
works out to about 45 passengers per hour for every million dollars.
But a mile of new, high-speed rail track, which can cost $8 million a
mile, will move 450 passengers per hour for every million dollars
invested. That's a good deal all around.--fewer cars, less pollution,
more people getting where they want to go.
Under the terms of the Amtrak Reform Act of 1997, we have put Amtrak
on a path to self-sufficiency in its operating budget by the year 2003.
I have said many times that I do not think that this is the wisest
course. Given the long history of underfunding Amtrak's needs, I am far
from convinced that we have put Amtrak in a position to reach full
operating self sufficiency by that artificial deadline. But whatever we
make of that deadline on operating support, Mr. President, it is clear
that the very least we can do is provide Amtrak with the capital funds
to become the passenger rail service this nation needs.
With the commitment of the leadership in both parties, with the
support of over half of the Senate on the day of its introduction, this
legislation is off to a great start. We will need all of these
resources and more to see this through to final passage, and to get a
real, world-class passenger rail system for the United States under
way.
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. 250
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``High-Speed
Rail Investment Act of 2001''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 2. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED AMTRAK BONDS.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
(relating to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subpart:
[[Page S1069]]
``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Amtrak Bonds
``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of qualified Amtrak bonds.
``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED AMTRAK BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a qualified Amtrak bond on a credit allowance date of
such bond which occurs during the taxable year, there shall
be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for such taxable year an amount equal to the sum of
the credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to
credit allowance dates during such year on which the taxpayer
holds such bond.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a qualified Amtrak bond is 25 percent of the annual
credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified Amtrak bond is the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is
the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day
before the date of sale of the issue) on outstanding long-
term corporate debt obligations (determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary).
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than this subpart and subpart C).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Qualified Amtrak Bond.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified Amtrak bond' means
any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for any qualified project,
``(B) the bond is issued by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation,
``(C) the issuer--
``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
``(ii) certifies that it meets the State contribution
requirement of paragraph (3) with respect to such project and
that it has received the required State contribution payment
before the issuance of such bond,
``(iii) certifies that it has obtained the written approval
of the Secretary of Transportation for such project,
including a finding by the Inspector General of the
Department of Transportation that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the proposed program will result in a
positive incremental financial contribution to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation and that the investment
evaluation process includes a return on investment,
leveraging of funds (including State capital and operating
contributions), cost effectiveness, safety improvement,
mobility improvement, and feasibility, and
``(iv) certifies that it has obtained written certification
by the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, that, in the case of a qualified project
which results in passenger trains operating at speeds greater
than 79 miles per hour, the issuer has entered into a written
agreement with the rail carriers (as defined in section 24102
of title 49, United States Code) the properties of which are
to be improved by such project as to the scope and estimated
cost of such project and the impact on freight capacity of
such rail carriers; Provided that the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation shall not exercise its rights under
section 24308(a) of such title 49 to resolve disputes with
respect to such project or the cost of such project,
``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 20 years,
``(E) the payment of principal with respect to such bond is
the obligation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(regardless of the establishment of the trust account under
subsection (j)), and
``(F) the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h).
``(2) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(A), the proceeds of an issue shall not be
treated as used for a qualified project to the extent that
the issuer takes any action within its control which causes
such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project. The
Secretary shall prescribe regulations specifying remedial
actions that may be taken (including conditions to taking
such remedial actions) to prevent an action described in the
preceding sentence from causing a bond to fail to be a
qualified Amtrak bond.
``(3) State contribution requirement.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C)(ii),
the State contribution requirement of this paragraph is met
with respect to any qualified project if the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation has a written binding
commitment from 1 or more States to make matching
contributions not later than the date of issuance of the
issue of not less than 20 percent of the cost of the
qualified project. State matching contributions may include
privately funded contributions.
``(B) Use of state matching contributions.--The matching
contributions described in subparagraph (A) with respect to
each qualified project shall be used--
``(i) as necessary to redeem bonds which are a part of the
issue with respect to such project, and
``(ii) in the case of any remaining amount, at the election
of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the
contributing State--
``(I) to fund a qualified project,
``(II) to redeem other qualified Amtrak bonds, or
``(III) for the purposes of subclauses (I) and (II).
``(C) State contribution requirement for certain qualified
projects.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to any qualified project on the high-speed
rail corridors designated under section 104(d)(2) of title
23, United States Code, the State contribution requirement of
this paragraph may include the value of land to be
contributed by a State for right-of-way and may be derived by
a State directly or indirectly from Federal funds, including
transfers from the Highway Trust Fund under section 9503.
``(ii) Special rules regarding use of bond proceeds.--
Proceeds from the issuance of bonds for such a qualified
project may be used to the extent necessary for the purpose
of subparagraph (B)(i), and any such proceeds deposited into
the trust account required under subsection (j) shall be
deemed expenditures for the qualified project under
subsection (h).
``(D) State matching contributions may not include federal
funds.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), for purposes
of this paragraph, State matching contributions shall not be
derived, directly or indirectly, from Federal funds,
including any transfers from the Highway Trust Fund under
section 9503.
``(E) No state contribution requirement for certain
qualified projects.--With respect to any qualified project
described in subsection (e)(4), the State contribution
requirement of this paragraph is zero.
``(4) Qualified project.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified project' means--
``(i) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of
equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements,
including station rehabilitation or construction, track or
signal improvements, or the elimination of grade crossings,
for the northeast rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and
Boston, Massachusetts,
``(ii) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of
equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements,
including station rehabilitation or construction, track or
signal improvements, or the elimination of grade crossings,
for the improvement of train speeds or safety (or both) on
the high-speed rail corridors designated under section
104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, and
``(iii) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of
equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements,
including station rehabilitation or construction, track or
signal improvements, or the elimination of grade crossings,
for other intercity passenger rail corridors for the purpose
of increasing railroad speeds to at least 90 miles per hour.
``(B) Refinancing rules.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
a refinancing shall constitute a qualified project only if
the indebtedness being refinanced (including any obligation
directly or indirectly refinanced by such indebtedness) was
originally incurred by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation--
``(i) after the date of the enactment of this section,
``(ii) for a term of not more than 3 years,
``(iii) to finance or acquire capital improvements
described in subparagraph (A), and
``(iv) in anticipation of being refinanced with proceeds of
a qualified Amtrak bond.
``(C) Prior issuance costs.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), a qualified project may include the costs a State incurs
prior to the issuance of the bonds to fulfill any statutory
requirements directly necessary for implementation of the
project.
``(e) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a qualified Amtrak bond
limitation for each fiscal year. Such limitation is--
``(A) $1,200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2011, and
``(B) except as provided in paragraph (5), zero after
fiscal year 2011.
[[Page S1070]]
``(2) Bonds for rail corridors.--Not more than
$3,000,000,000 of the limitation under paragraph (1) may be
designated for any 1 rail corridor described in clause (i) or
(ii) of subsection (d)(4)(A).
``(3) Bonds for other projects.--Not more than $100,000,000
of the limitation under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year may
be allocated to all qualified projects described in
subsection (d)(4)(A)(iii).
``(4) Bonds for alaska railroad.--The Secretary of
Transportation may allocate to the Alaska Railroad a portion
of the qualified Amtrak limitation for any fiscal year in
order to allow the Alaska Railroad to issue bonds which meet
the requirements of this section for use in financing any
project described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(iii) (determined
without regard to the requirement of increasing railroad
speeds). For purposes of this section, the Alaska Railroad
shall be treated in the same manner as the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation.
``(5) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any fiscal
year--
``(A) the limitation amount under paragraph (1), exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (d)(1)(C)(i),
the limitation amount under paragraph (1) for the following
fiscal year (through fiscal year 2015) shall be increased by
the amount of such excess.
``(6) Additional selection criteria.--In selecting
qualified projects for allocation of the qualified Amtrak
bond limitation under this subsection, the Secretary of
Transportation--
``(A) may give preference to any project with a State
matching contribution rate exceeding 20 percent, and
``(B) shall consider regional balance in infrastructure
investment and the national interest in ensuring the
development of a nation-wide high-speed rail transportation
network.
``(f) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart--
``(1) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means the several States and
the District of Columbia, and any subdivision thereof.
``(4) Program.--The term `program' means 1 or more projects
implemented over 1 or more years to support the development
of intercity passenger rail corridors.
``(g) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an issue shall
be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection if
as of the date of issuance, the issuer reasonably expects--
``(A) to spend at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the
issue for 1 or more qualified projects within the 5-year
period beginning on such date, and
``(B) to proceed with due diligence to complete such
projects and to spend the proceeds of the issue.
``(2) Rules regarding continuing compliance after 5-year
determination.--If at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the
issue is not expended for 1 or more qualified projects within
the 5-year period beginning on the date of issuance, an issue
shall be treated as continuing to meet the requirements of
this subsection if either--
``(A) the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to
redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after the end of
such 5-year period, or
``(B) the following requirements are met:
``(i) The issuer spends at least 75 percent of the proceeds
of the issue for 1 or more qualified projects within the 5-
year period beginning on the date of issuance.
``(ii) The issuer has proceeded with due diligence to spend
the proceeds of the issue within such 5-year period and
continues to proceed with due diligence to spend such
proceeds.
``(iii) The issuer pays to the Federal Government any
earnings on the proceeds of the issue that accrue after the
end of such 5-year period.
``(iv) Either--
``(I) at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the issue is
expended for 1 or more qualified projects within the 6-year
period beginning on the date of issuance, or
``(II) the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to
redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after the end of
such 6-year period.
``(i) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of
Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported
to be a qualified Amtrak bond ceases to be a qualified Amtrak
bond, the issuer shall pay to the United States (at the time
required by the Secretary) an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this
section with respect to such bond (determined without regard
to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the
calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2
preceding calendar years, and
``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621
on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each
calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of
such calendar year.
``(2) Failure to pay.--If the issuer fails to timely pay
the amount required by paragraph (1) with respect to such
bond, the tax imposed by this chapter on each holder of any
such bond which is part of such issue shall be increased (for
the taxable year of the holder in which such cessation
occurs) by the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed
under this section to such holder for taxable years beginning
in such 3 calendar years which would have resulted solely
from denying any credit under this section with respect to
such issue for such taxable years.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining--
``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part,
or
``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
``(j) Use of Trust Account.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of any matching contribution
with respect to a qualified project described in subsection
(d)(3)(B)(i) or (d)(3)(B)(ii)(II) and the temporary period
investment earnings on proceeds of the issue with respect to
such project, and any earnings thereon, shall be held in a
trust account by a trustee independent of the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation to be used to the extent
necessary to redeem bonds which are part of such issue.
``(2) Use of remaining funds in trust account.--Upon the
repayment of the principal of all qualified Amtrak bonds
issued under this section, any remaining funds in the trust
account described in paragraph (1) shall be available--
``(A) to the trustee described in paragraph (1), to meet
any remaining obligations under any guaranteed investment
contract used to secure earnings sufficient to repay the
principal of such bonds, and
``(B) to the issuer, for any qualified project.
``(k) Other Special Rules.--
``(1) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru
entities.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in
the case of a partnership, trust, S corporation, or other
pass-thru entity, rules similar to the rules of section 41(g)
shall apply with respect to the credit allowable under
subsection (a).
``(2) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any
qualified Amtrak bond is held by a regulated investment
company, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
allowed to shareholders of such company under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(3) Credits may be stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(A) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a qualified Amtrak bond and the
entitlement to the credit under this section with respect to
such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit under
this section shall be allowed to the person who on the credit
allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the
entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in subparagraph (A), the rules of section 1286
shall apply to the qualified Amtrak bond as if it were a
stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it
were a stripped coupon.
``(4) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified
Amtrak bond on a credit allowance date shall be treated as if
it were a payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on
such date.
``(5) Credit may be transferred.--Nothing in any law or
rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability
of the credit allowed by this section through sale and
repurchase agreements.
``(6) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified Amtrak bonds shall
submit reports similar to the reports required under section
149(e).''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest), as amended by
section 505(d), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9) Reporting of credit on qualified amtrak bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54(g) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(f)(2)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
[[Page S1071]]
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Subpart H. Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Amtrak
Bonds.''.
(2) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and G'' and
inserting ``G, and H''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after September 30, 2001.
(e) Multi-Year Capital Spending Plan and Oversight.--
(1) Amtrak capital spending plan.--
(A) In general.--The National Railroad Passenger
Corporation shall annually submit to the President and
Congress a multi-year capital spending plan, as approved by
the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
(B) Contents of plan.--Such plan shall identify the capital
investment needs of the Corporation over a period of not less
than 5 years and the funding sources available to finance
such needs and shall prioritize such needs according to
corporate goals and strategies.
(C) Initial submission date.--The first plan shall be
submitted before the issuance of any qualified Amtrak bonds
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation pursuant to
section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by
this section).
(2) Oversight of amtrak trust account and qualified
projects.--
(A) Trust account oversight.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall annually report to Congress as to whether the amount
deposited in the trust account established by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation under section 54(j) of such
Code (as so added) is sufficient to fully repay at maturity
the principal of any outstanding qualified Amtrak bonds
issued pursuant to section 54 of such Code (as so added),
together with amounts expected to be deposited into such
account, as certified by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation in accordance with procedures prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury.
(B) Project oversight.--The National Railroad Passenger
Corporation shall contract for an annual independent
assessment of the costs and benefits of the qualified
projects financed by such qualified Amtrak bonds, including
an assessment of the investment evaluation process of the
Corporation. The annual assessment shall be included in the
plan submitted under paragraph (1).
(C) Oversight funding.--Not more than 0.5 percent of the
amounts made available through the issuance of qualified
Amtrak bonds by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
pursuant to section 54 of such Code (as so added) may be used
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for
assessments described in subparagraph (B).
(f) Protection of Highway Trust Fund.--
(1) Certification by the secretary of the treasury.--The
issuance of any qualified Amtrak bonds by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation or the Alaska Railroad
pursuant to section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(as added by this section) is conditioned on certification by
the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, within 30 days of a request by
the issuer, that with respect to funds of the Highway Trust
Fund described under paragraph (2), the issuer either--
(A) has not received such funds during fiscal years
commencing with fiscal year 2002 and ending before the fiscal
year the bonds are issued, or
(B) has repaid to the Highway Trust Fund any such funds
which were received during such fiscal years.
(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to funds
received directly, or indirectly from a State or local
transit authority, from the Highway Trust Fund established
under section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
except for funds authorized to be expended under section
9503(c) of such Code, as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) No retroactive effect.--Nothing in this subsection
shall adversely affect the entitlement of the holders of
qualified Amtrak bonds to the tax credit allowed pursuant to
section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as so added)
or to repayment of principal upon maturity.
(g) Exemption From Taxes for High-Speed Rail Lines and
Improvements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
rail carrier (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United
States Code) shall be required to pay any tax or fee imposed
by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or by any State or local
government with respect to the acquisition, improvement, or
ownership of--
(1) personal or real property funded by the proceeds of
qualified Amtrak bonds (as defined in section 54(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) or
any State or local bond (as defined in section 103(c)(1) of
such Code), or revenues or income from such acquisition,
improvement, or ownership, or
(2) rail lines in high-speed rail corridors designated
under section 104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, that
are leased by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
(h) Issuance of Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall issue regulations required under section 54 of the
Internal Revenue Code (as added by this section) not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(i) Issuance of Tax-Exempt Bonds for Rail Passenger
Projects.--
(1) Funding state match requirement.--Section 142(a)
(relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the State contribution requirement for qualified
projects under section 54.''.
(2) Repeal of governmental ownership requirement for mass
commuting facilities.--Section 142(b)(1)(A) (relating to
certain facilities must be governmentally owned) is amended
by striking ``(3),''.
(3) Definition of high-speed intercity rail facilities.--
Section 142(i)(1) is amended by striking ``in excess of 150
miles per hour'' and inserting ``prescribed in section
104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code,''.
(4) Exemption from volume cap.--Subsection (g) of section
146 (relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended by
striking paragraph (4) and the last sentence of such
subsection and inserting the following new paragraph:
``(4) any exempt facility bond issued as part of an issue
described in paragraph (3), (11), or (13) of section 142(a)
(relating to mass commuting facilities, high-speed intercity
rail facilities, and State contribution requirements under
section 54).''.
(5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to join our esteemed majority
and minority leaders in sponsoring the High Speed Rail Investment Act
of 2001. I am proud that our two leaders have been willing and able to
work in a bipartisan manner to fulfill a promise that they made last
month to re-introduce this critical legislation. I thank them, and I
thank Senator Biden and Senator Hutchison for their strong leadership
as well. Their commitment to this bill cannot be overstated.
This legislation would allow Amtrak to sell $12 billion in bonds over
the next ten years and permit the federal government to provide tax
credits to bondholders in lieu of interest payments. Amtrak would use
this money to upgrade existing rail lines to high-speed rail
capability. This bill has supporters from both parties and all regions
of the country.
Mr. President, high speed rail is not a partisan issue. It is not a
regional issue. It is not an urban issue. The High-Speed Rail
Investment Act has the support of the National Governors Association,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of State
Legislatures. Thirty newspapers, from the New York Times and Providence
Journal, to the Houston Chronicle and Seattle Post Intelligencer, have
called for the enactment of this legislation.
It is in our national interest to construct a national infrastructure
that is truly intermodal. Rail transportation helps alleviate the
stress placed on our environment by air and highway transportation. It
is a sad fact that America's rail transportation, and its lack of a
national high-speed rail system, lags well behind rail transportation
in most other nations--we spend less, per capita, on rail
transportation than Estonia and Greece.
Mr. President, I know I made many of these same points on the floor
of the Senate in December when we discussed a similar version of the
High Speed Rail Investment Act. However, I believe that this
legislation is critical to our nation's transportation infrastructure
needs, and these facts bear repeating:
The federal government has invested $380 billion in our highways and
$160 billion in airports since Amtrak was created. By contrast, the
federal government has spent only about $30 billion on Amtrak. We have
spent just four percent of our transportation budget on rail
transportation in the last 30 years. The Congress has mandated that
Amtrak soon achieve operational self-sufficiency. That does not, nor
should it, preclude further capital improvement grants. This is often
misunderstood and misinterpreted. Amtrak has reduced its operating
losses over the last two years, and remains capable of meeting its
goal. However, it will continue to need the federal government to
support its track upgrades, rolling stock improvements and other large-
scale upgrades so that it may
[[Page S1072]]
maintain its trademark quality service.
There is a compelling need to invest in high-speed rail. Our highways
and skyways are overburdened. Intercity passenger miles traveled have
increased 80 percent since 1988, but only 5.5 percent of that has come
from increased rail travel. Meanwhile, our congested skies have become
even more crowded. The result, predictably, is that air travel delays
are up 58 percent since 1995. Things have gotten so bad in Chicago that
O'Hare airport maintains 1,500 cots for snow-bound travelers. This
summer, the airport had to order additional cots to accommodate
passengers left stranded by myriad delays and cancellations.
Amtrak ridership is on the rise. More than 22.5 million passengers
rode Amtrak in Fiscal Year 2000, a million more than the previous year.
Nearly six million riders took Amtrak in the first quarter of this
fiscal year, the best first quarter in the company's 30-year history.
Ridership for the quarter was up 8.5 percent, while ticket revenue
climbed almost 14 percent over the first quarter of FY00. We should
welcome that increased use and support it by giving Amtrak the
resources it needs to provide high-quality, dependable service.
The High-Speed Rail Investment Act is critical to the future of
Amtrak. For about the cost of the new Denver International Airport, we
can improve intercity transportation in 29 states. For less than double
the cost of constructing the new Woodrow Wilson bridge improving
transportation in two states, we can create eight high-speed rail
corridors in 29 states.
High-speed rail is a viable transportation alternative. There is a
large and growing demand for rail service in the Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak captures almost 70 percent of the business rail and air travel
market between Washington and New York and 30 percent of the market
share between New York and Boston. True high-speed rail will
undoubtedly increase that market share. These new trains, like the
Acela Express that debuted in the Northeast this year, currently run at
an average of only 82 miles per hour, but with track improvements, will
run at 130 miles per hour.
As a nation, we have recognized the importance of having the very
best communication system, and ours is the envy of the world. That
investment is one of reasons our economy is the strongest in the world.
And we should do the same for our transportation system. It should be
equally modern and must be fully intermodal. Rail transportation is a
part of that network and I hope that we can pass this critical, cost-
efficient legislation this year.
______
By Mr. VOINOVICH:
S. 252. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving
funds, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean
Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2001, legislation which will
reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF Program administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.
As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an
effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater
collection and treatment projects. Congress created the Clean Water SRF
Program in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted
as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or,
as it is known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have
used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental
infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a
community bank, where each state determines which projects get built.
The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular.
Total federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non-
federal funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged
bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes
are participating in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects
nationwide have been approved to date.
As in many states, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system
improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding
levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2001, a level of $1.35 billion was
appropriated for the Clean Water SRF. However, in Ohio alone, about $4
billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address
combined serve overflow, CSO, problems, according to the latest state
figures. The City of Akron, for example, has proposed a Long Term
Control Plan that will cost more than $248 million to implement--nearly
20 percent of the total SRF level appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
Because of Akron's CSO problem, city sewer rates will more than double
without outside funding.
Further, estimates indicate that among Ohio towns with a population
of less than 10,000, there exists $1.2 billion in CSO needs. In recent
years, Ohio cities and villages have been spending more on maintaining
and operating their systems in order to stave-off the inevitable
upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will need to be
replaced.
While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the
condition of our nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains
alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996
documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide.
In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200
billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary
sewer needs. This amount may be too small; private studies demonstrate
that total needs are closer to $300 billion when anticipated
replacement costs are considered.
Authoziation for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal
year 1994, and the continued failure of Congress to reauthorize the
program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and
treatment is not a national priority. The longer we have an absence of
authorization of this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about
the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or, in
some cases, prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of
substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water
SRF program is necessary in the 107th Congress.
The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15
billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only
would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding
gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by
protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and
increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the
bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems,
expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer
financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and
principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority
consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans.
The health and well-being of the American public depends on the
condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often
taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me assure my colleagues that the
costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored and the
price will pay for continued neglect will far exceed the authorization
level of this bill. Now is the time to address our infrastructure needs
while the costs are manageable.
In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped
thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill
will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable
components in the overall development of our nations' infrastructure
for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this
legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 253. A bill to reauthorize the Rural Education Initiative in
subspart 2 of part J of title X of the Elementary and
[[Page S1073]]
Secondary Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Education Improvement Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues,
Senators Conrad, Gregg, Hutchinson, Enzi, Hagel, Roberts, Dorgan,
Thomas, Allard, Burns, and Johnson, as original cosponsors of this
common sense, bipartisan proposal to help rural schools make better use
of federal education funds. I also want to acknowledge the valuable
assistance provided over the past two years by the American Association
of School Administrators.
Last Congress, I introduced the Rural Education Initiative Act--the
foundation for today's legislation. I am pleased that the REIA was
largely incorporated into the final appropriations bill, thus allowing
small, rural school districts to combine funds from four formula grant
programs, giving them the flexibility to target funds toward their
students' most pressing needs. While the passage of this bill
represented substantial progress, it was a one-year authorization only,
and no appropriations were provided for the supplemental grant program
authorized by the new law.
Mr. President, the bill we introduce today strengthens the
legislation enacted last year. The Collins-Conrad bill would provide a
5-year authorization of the rural education provisions enacted last
year and authorize $150 million annually for the supplemental grant
program.
Our legislation would benefit school districts with fewer than 600
students in rural communities. More than 35 percent of all school
districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. In Maine,
the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 284 school districts
have fewer than 600 students. Our legislation would help them overcome
some of the most challenging obstacles they face in participating in
federal education programs.
By way of background, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
authorizes formula and competitive grants that help many of our local
school districts to improve the education of their students. These
federal grants support such laudable goals as the professional
development of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the
classroom, gifted and talented programs, and class size reduction.
Schools receive categorical grants, each with its own authorized
activities and regulations, each with its own red tape and paperwork.
Unfortunately, as valuable as these programs may be for many large
urban and suburban school districts, they often do not work well in
rural areas for two major reasons.
First, formula grants often do not reach small, rural schools in
amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. These grants
are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, smaller
districts often do not receive enough funding from any single grant to
carry out a meaningful activity. One Main district, for example,
received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free
School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve the
goal of that federal program, yet the school district could not use the
funds for any other program.
To give school districts more flexibility to meet local needs, our
legislation would allow rural districts to combine the funds from four
categorical programs and use them to address the school district's
highest priorities.
The second problem facing many rural school districts is that they
are essentially shut out of the competitive programs because they lack
the grant-writers and administrators necessary to apply for, win, and
manage competitively awarded grants. The Rural Education Improvement
Act would remedy this program by providing small, rural districts with
a formula grant in lieu of eligibility for the competitive programs of
the ESEA.
A district would be able to combine this new supplemental grant with
the funds from the formula grants and use the combined monies for any
purposes that would improve student achievement or teaching quality.
Districts might use these funds to hire a new reading or math teacher,
fund professional development, offer a program for gifted and talented
students, or purchase computers or library books.
Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives
would mean for one school Maine School District in Northern Maine with
400 students from the towns of Frenchville and St. Agatha receives four
separate formula grants ranging from $1,904 for Safe and Drug Free
Schools to $9,542 under the Class Size Reduction Act. You can see the
problem right there. The amounts of the grants are so small that they
really are not useful in accomplishing the goals of the program. The
total for all four programs is just under $16,000. Yet, each must be
applied for separately, used for different--federally mandated--
purposes, and accounted for independently.
Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight
separate reports, for four programs, to receive this $16,000. Under our
bill, this school district would be freed from the multiple
applications and reports and would have $16,000 to use for its
educational priorities.
Moreover, since this district does not have the resources to apply
for the competitive grant programs, our legislation would result in a
supplemental grant of $34,000 as long as the District foregoes its
eligibility for the competitively awarded grants. Under the Rural
Education Improvement Act, therefore, the District will have $50,000
and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing needs.
But with this flexibility and additional funding come responsibility
and accountability. In return for the advantages our bill provides,
participating districts would be held accountable for demonstrating
improved student performance over a 3-year period. Schools will be held
responsible for what is really important--improved student
achievement--rather than for time-consuming paperwork. As
Superintendent White told me, ``Give me the resources I need plus the
flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held accountable for
improved student performance. It will happen.''
Mr. President, we must improve our educational system without
requiring every school to adopt a plan designed in Washington and
without imposing overly burdensome and costly regulations in return for
federal assistance. Our bill would allow small, rural districts to use
their own strategies for improvement without the encumbrance of onerous
federal regulations and unnecessary paperwork.
Congress took an important step last year by recognizing that small,
rural districts face challenges in using federal programs to help
provide a quality education for their students. Due to our efforts last
year, the law now reflects Congress's intention to provide these
districts more flexibility and additional funding. This legislation
will move us from intention to implementation by providing sustained
support, flexibility, and funding for our rural schools.
I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American
Association of School Administrators, National Rural Education
Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, and the
National Education Association, and I ask unanimous consent that
endorsement letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Rural
Education Association,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Senator Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: The National Rural Education
Association would like to applaud your recognition of the
unique hardships that face small, rural schools in respect to
their federal funding. Along with U.S. Senators Kent Conrad,
D-ND; Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-
NE; Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; and Tim Johnson,
D-SD; and Byron Dorgan, D-ND, you have reintroduced
legislation that would ensure that small rural schools get a
baseline amount of federal funding.
Currently, many small and rural schools are at a
disadvantage when they receive their ESEA funding. Federal
funding formulas are based on enrollment, which prevent small
schools from receiving adequate resources. Due to the small
numbers of students, these schools rarely receive enough
combined funds to hire a teacher. Small schools also lack the
administrative capacity to apply for competitive grants. This
puts small rural schools on unequal federal footing with many
of their urban and suburban counterparts.
[[Page S1074]]
Last December, your Rural Education Initiative was included
in the omnibus appropriations bill. The new law allows
districts to commingle some of the federal funds they receive
and use them in areas to improve student achievement and
professional development. In addition, it included
legislation that would provide a minimum of $20,000 to
schools of 600 or less. These are the same schools are
typically receiving approximately $5,000 from the federal
government.
By setting a baseline amount and allowing schools to
commingle the funds, the local school district will have the
opportunity to hire a specialist, provide signing bonuses to
teachers, extend after school opportunities and enhance many
other aspects of the small school budget. Most of all, it
would enable the school to provide an education consistent
with local needs.
Once again, we would like to extend our grateful thanks for
your leadership on this issue. We urge the full Senate to
reauthorize and fully fund this legislation on behalf of
those schools who are too small to be heard.
Sincerely,
Mary Conk,
Legislative Analyst.
____
American Association
of School Administrators,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American Association
of School Administrators, representing more than 14,000
school system leaders, we would like to express our support
for your bill reauthorizing the Rural Education Initiative.
Your hard work and commitment to rural schools last congress
improved federal education programs for all of the small
isolated schools throughout rural America. The changes
proposed in your reauthorization bill would improve upon last
year's effort by providing more flexibility and increased
funding for small isolated schools. Thank you for your
continuing advocacy on behalf of rural schoolchildren and
rural communities.
Currently small and rural school districts find it
difficult to compete with larger districts for hundreds of
millions of dollars in federal education competitive grants.
Small, isolated districts receive well below their share of
competitive grants, usually because they lack the
administrative staff to apply for grants. The problem is
compounded by shortcomings of federal formula programs.
Federal education programs allocate funds based on
enrollment, typically providing very little revenue to the
smallest schools. The Collins-Conrad Rural Education
Initiative would level the playing field by ensuring that
each small district receives at least enough funding to hire
a teacher or a specialist.
Studies in individual states and the National Assessment of
Educational Progress document the difficulties of small,
rural school districts:
Difficulty attracting and retaining quality teachers, and
administrators,
Inability to offer advanced academic or vocational courses,
Disproportionate spending on transportation,
Loss of a sense of community when schools are consolidated,
and
Inability to process all the federally required paperwork
normally required of recipients.
The Rural Education Initiative would help small/rural
districts by providing enough school improvements funds to
implement real change. Rural and small school districts would
be eligible for grants of $20,000 to $60,000 depending upon
enrollment. Although the program was passed into law last
year, it has not yet been funded. More than 4,000 small and
rural school districts benefit from the flexibility provided
in last year's program; those same 4,000 districts will be
able to advance even greater improvements when the program is
reauthorized and appropriated.
The funds would be used to enhance the reading and math
proficiency of students; to provide an education consistent
with local needs; and to enable small/rural communities to
prepare young people to compete in the emerging knowledge-
based economy.
The Association is grateful to you, Kent Conrad, R-ND; Judd
Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-NE; Michael
Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; Tim Johnson, D-SD; and Byron
Dorgan, D-ND for their advocacy on behalf of rural school
children. We urge the full Senate to embrace and fund this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Jordan Cross,
Legislative Specialist.
____
Association of
Educational Service Agencies,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Association of
Education Service Agencies, we would like to express our
gratitude for your work on the Rural Education Initiative.
Your efforts during the 106th Congress helped rectify many of
the inequalities that disadvantage small school districts. By
increasing the flexibility of federal education programs,
local districts can now make better use of federal dollars.
This year, you have taken that effort one step further with
the reauthorization of the Rural Education Initiative. The
Collins-Conrad reauthorization proposal would complete last
year's goal by ensuring that small rural schools are treated
fairly by federal formula programs and funded at an adequate
level.
Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) are intermediate units
that frequently provide assistance to small and rural schools
that do not have the administrative staff to operate some
education programs in-house. When a small rural school
district receives a tiny federal education, ESAs often
facilitate consortia to make better use of federal funds.
ESAs are the primary source of professional development and
technology assistance to rural schools. The members of our
association understand first-hand the particular needs of
rural districts; your proposal offers the best hope for
accommodating those needs and the best means for improving
rural education.
Rural schoolchildren deserve to benefit from the federal
education programs enjoyed by urban and suburban students. We
thank you for your work on the Rural Education Initiative,
and we offer our full support.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hunter,
Legislative Specialist.
____
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, January 31, 2001.
Statement of the National Education Association in Support of the Rural
Education Initiative
The National Education Association's (NEA) supports the
concepts included in the Rural Education Initiative (REI),
introduced today in the United States Senate by Senators
Collins and Conrad.
NEA research demonstrates the need for increased emphasis
on meeting the needs of rural schools. For example, 49
percent of the nation's public schools, teaching 40 percent
of the nation's students, are located in rural areas and
small towns. Yet, schools in rural and small towns receive
only 22 percent of total federal, state, and local education
spending. In addition, federal funding formulas often provide
rural and small towns with small allotments that afford
little or no actual assistance but require significant
paperwork.
The Rural Education Initiative represents an important step
toward addressing the unique problems associated with
education in small towns and rural areas. We encourage its
passage into law.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished
colleagues, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Judd Gregg, to introduce
the Rural Education Initiative (REI). We introduced similar
legislation, S. 1225, during the 106th Congress to respond to a number
of challenges facing small, rural schools, and I am pleased that we
were successful in incorporating some of the major the provisions of S.
1225 in the FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This Congressional
action will provide flexibility for school officials from small, rural
schools to make better use of Federal education funds for critical
educational needs at the local level.
Under Public law 106-1033, Congress authorized school districts with
fewer than 600 students, and a Department of Education (DOE) Locale
Code designation of 7 or 8 to combine funding from four Federal
education programs (Titles, II, IV, VI and Class Size Reduction) and
use that funding to supplement Federal education programs under Titles
I, II, IV, and VI. Congress also authorized, although was not able to
fund, supplemental grants of up to $60,000 to assist small, rural
school districts develop programs to improve academic achievement and
the quality of instruction. Funding the supplemental grants program in
the Rural Education Initiative is a major priority during consideration
of the Elementary and Secondary Reauthorization in the 107th Congress.
Today, we are re-introducing legislation to extend the authority
under the Rural Education Initiative in P.L. 106-1033 for a five-year
period to permit small, rural school districts to continue to have
flexibility in the use of funds from a limited number of Federal
education programs. This bill will also authorize $150 million for
supplemental grants of up to $60,000 to rural schools to improve
student achievement, provide professional development opportunities for
educators or undertake education reform activities. School districts
with fewer than 600 students and with a DOE Locale Code of 7 or 8 will
be eligible to participate in the REI program.
I am particularly pleased that the Rural Education Initiative has
received bipartisan support and is cosponsored today by Senators
Collins, Gregg, Hagel, Enzi, Hutchinson, Dorgan, Roberts, Burns,
Johnson, and Thomas. The Rural Education Initiative is
[[Page S1075]]
also being endorsed by the American Association of School
Administrators, the National Education Association, the National Rural
Education Association, and the Association of Educational Service
Agencies.
Mr. President, small rural schools face a growing number of unique
challenges because of declining school age populations, aging
facilities, and significant distances and remote locations for many
rural school districts. While increased Federal education funding and
targeting of these funds has been very helpful for rural school
districts, these efforts alone are not responding sufficiently to the
needs of many small, rural schools.
Many rural schools, for example, while recognizing the importance of
new initiatives like Class Size Reduction, are already at the levels
recommended under the Class Size Reduction Initiative. Under current
law, rural schools have only limited flexibility to use Class Size
funds to meet other local education priorities. In many instances, the
Class Size funds and allocations from a number of other Federal formula
programs are not sufficient to permit effective use of the funds by the
rural district.
Additionally, although rural schools are able to apply for DOE
competitive grant programs, rural schools are not able to compete as
effectively as some urban and suburban schools because limited
resources do not permit many smaller, rural districts to hire
specialists to prepare grant applications to compete for these funds.
In some cases, the only option for a smaller district is to form a
consortium with other schools to qualify for sufficient funding.
The difficulties accessing DOE competitive grant funds by rural
schools are summed up well by Elroy Burkle, Superintendent of the
Starkweather Public School District, a district with 131 students.
Burkle remarked, ``schools districts have lost their ability to access
funds directly, and as a result of forming these consortiums in order
to access these monies, it is my opinion, we have lost our individual
ability to utilize these monies in an effective manner that would be
conducive to promoting the educational needs of our individual
schools.''
Mr. President, the Rural Education Initiative responds to many of the
concerns of Elroy Burkle and thousands of other school officials from
smaller, rural school districts. The REI authorizes flexibility for
local schools officials to more effectively use certain DOE formula
funds. The legislation also authorizes supplemental grant funding for
rural school districts who are not in a position to apply for some DOE
competitive grant programs and in need additional funds for programs to
improve student achievement or provide professional development
opportunities for educators.
As we begin our debate in the 107th Congress on the education
proposals recently presented by President Bush and reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it's very important that we
consider the Rural Education Initiative as part of this debate. No
issue is more important for rural America than the future of our
schools. We must make certain that Federal education dollars are
available to assist small, rural schools to provide the best education
opportunities for children in rural America.
I commend Senator Collins for taking the lead again in the 107th
Congress on this important education issue. I also congratulate the
American Association of School Administrators and the National
Education Association for their leadership on rural education issues
and the development of this important rural education initiative. I
strongly urge the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
to carefully examine the many concerns of schools in rural America and
to support reauthorization of the Rural Education Initiative that was
adopted during the 106th Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the endorsements of the
Rural Education Initiative from the American Association of School
Administrators, the National Education Association the National Rural
Education Association, and the Association of Educational Service
Agencies be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of the National Education Association in Support of the Rural
Education Initiative
The National Education Association's (NEA) supports the
concepts included in the Rural Education Initiative (REI),
introduced today in the United States Senate by Senators
Collins and Conrad.
NEA research demonstrates the need for increased emphasis
on meeting the needs of rural schools. For example, 49
percent of the nation's public schools, teaching 40 percent
of the nation's students, are located in rural areas and
small towns. Yet, schools in rural and small towns receive
only 22 percent of total federal, state, and local education
spending. In addition, federal funding formulas often provide
rural and small towns with small allotments that afford
little or no actual assistance but require significant
paperwork.
The Rural Education Initiative represents an important step
toward addressing the unique problems associated with
education in small towns and rural areas. We encourage its
passage into law.
____
American Association of
School Administrators,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the American Association
of School Administrators, representing more than 14,000
school system leaders, we would like to express our support
for your bill reauthorizing the Rural Education Initiative.
Your hard work and commitment to rural schools last congress
improved federal education programs for all of the small
isolated schools throughout rural America. The changes
proposed in your reauthorization bill would improve upon last
year's effort by providing more flexibility and increased
funding for small isolated schools. Thank you for your
continuing advocacy on behalf of rural schoolchildren and
rural communities.
Currently small and rural school districts find it
difficult to compete with larger districts for hundreds of
millions of dollars in federal education competitive grants.
Small, isolated districts receive well below their share of
competitive grants, usually because they lack the
administrative staff to apply for grants. The problem is
compounded by shortcomings of federal formula programs.
Federal education programs allocate funds based on
enrollment, typically providing very little revenue to the
smallest schools. The Collins-Conrad Rural Education
Initiative would level the playing field by ensuring that
each small district receives at least enough funding to hire
a teacher or a specialist.
Studies in individual states and the National Assessment of
Educational Progress document the difficulties of small,
rural school districts: Difficulty attracting and retaining
quality teachers, and administrators, inability to offer
advanced academic or vocational courses, disproportionate
spending on transportation, loss of a sense of community when
schools are consolidated, and inability to process all the
federally required paperwork normally required of recipients.
The Rural Education Initiative would help small/rural
districts by providing enough school improvement funds to
implement real change. Rural and small school districts would
be eligible for grants of $20,000 to $60,000 depending upon
enrollment. Although the program was passed into law last
year, it has not yet been funded. More than 4,000 small and
rural school districts benefit from the flexibility provided
in last year's program; those same 4,000 districts will be
able to advance even greater improvements when the program is
reauthorized and appropriated.
The funds would be used to enhance the reading and math
proficiency of students; to provide an education consistent
with local needs; and to enable small/rural communities to
prepare young people to compete in the emerging knowledge-
based economy.
The Association is grateful to you, Susan Collins, R-ME;
Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-NE;
Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; Tim Johnson, D-SD; and
Byron Dorgan, D-ND for their advocacy on behalf of rural
school children. We urge the full Senate to embrace and fund
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Jordan Cross,
Legislative Specialist.
____
National Rural Education Association,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Senator Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: The National Rural Education
Association would like to applaud our recognition of the
unique hardships that face small, rural schools in respect to
their federal funding. Along with U.S. Senators Kent Conrad,
D-ND; Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-
NE; Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-RS; and Tim Johnson,
D-SD; and Byron Dorgan, D-ND, you have reintroduced
legislation that would ensure that small rural schools get a
baseline amount of federal funding.
Currently, many small and rural schools are at a
disadvantage when they receive
[[Page S1076]]
their ESEA funding. Federal funding formulas are based on
enrollment, which prevent small schools from receiving
adequate resources. Due to the small numbers of students,
these schools rarely receive enough combined funds to hire a
teacher. Small schools also lack the administrative capacity
to apply for competitive grants. This puts small rural
schools on unequal federal footing with many of their urban
and suburban counterparts.
Last December, your Rural Education Initiative was included
in the omnibus appropriations bill. The new law allows
districts to commingle some of the federal funds they receive
and use them in areas to improve student achievement and
professional development. In addition, it included
legislation that would provide a minimum of $20,000 to
schools of 600 or less. These are the same schools typically
receiving approximately $5,000 form the federal government.
By setting a baseline amount and allowing schools to
commingle the funds, the local school district will have the
opportunity to hire a specialist, provide a signing bonus to
teachers, extend after school opportunities and enhance many
other aspects of the small school budget. Most of all, it
would enable the school to provide an education consistent
with local needs.
Once again, we would like to extend our grateful thanks for
your leadership on this issue. We urge the full Senate to
reauthorize and fully fund this legislation on behalf of
those schools who are too small to be heard.
Sincerely,
Mary Conk,
Legislative Analyst.
____
Association of
Educational Service Agencies,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the Association of
Education Service Agencies, we would like to express our
gratitude for your work on the Rural Education Initiative.
Your efforts during the 106th Congress helped rectify many of
the inequalities that disadvantage small school districts. By
increasing the flexibility of federal education programs,
local districts can now make better use of federal dollars.
This year, you have taken that effort one step further with
the reauthorization of the Rural Education Initiative. The
Collins-Conrad reauthorization proposal would complete last
year's goal by ensuring that small rural schools are treated
fairly by federal formula programs and funded at an adequate
level.
Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) are intermediate units
that frequently provide assistance to small and rural schools
that do not have the administrative staff to operate some
education programs in-house. When a small rural school
district receives a tiny federal education, ESAs often
facilitate consortia to make better use of federal funds.
ESAs are the primary source of professional development and
technology assistance to rural schools. The members of our
association understand first-hand the particular needs of
rural districts; your proposal offers the best hope for
accommodating those needs and the best means for improving
rural education.
Rural schoolchildren deserve to benefit from the federal
education programs enjoyed by urban and suburban students. We
thank you for your work on the Rural Education Initiative,
and we offer our full support.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hunter,
Legislative Specialist.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Today I rise in support of the Rural
Education Initiative introduced by Senator Collins. I am also pleased
to join my other colleagues from the Health Education Labor and
Pensions Committee in support of this bill. In a time when the
education of our nation's youth is a priority, we need to make sure
that all schools have the opportunity to improve and reform. This
legislation does just that.
The Rural Education Initiative Act will allow small rural schools to
make better use of federal education dollars. In Kansas, 46 percent of
our school districts have fewer than 600 students. In Utica, Kansas, in
the Nes Tre La Go Unified School District number 301, there are 34
elementary students and 39 high school students that make up the entire
enrollment. Districts like these in Kansas and other rural areas face
multiple obstacles when obtaining and utilizing federal funds.
First, they seldom receive enough money from any single grant to make
a lasting and measurable impact on school improvement. Grants are based
on school enrollment and the funds doled out to these small districts
are rarely enough. This bill would allow the merging of splintered
federal funds so that grant money can be used effectively to meet local
education priorities. District are granted the freedom to spend the
funds as they see fit.
Second, small rural districts do not have the manpower to apply for
competitive grants. This bill provides a formula grant as an option
instead of limiting districts to the lengthy and involved application
process for ESEA competitive grant programs. Under this formula,
districts don't have to strain their resources simply applying for
federal funds.
With this reform and flexibility there will be accountability.
Districts will be required to demonstrate improved student performance
using tests they already administer to assess student achievement.
This bill abolishes undue obstacles rural districts face as they try
to improve the quality of education in their own schools. I urge my
colleagues to support this common sense legislation and allow small
rural districts to obtain federal funds and use them to meet their own
objectives.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my support for Senator Collins' Rural Education Improvement
Act, a bill that would allow school districts in my state and across
the nation to more fully benefit from the use of federal grant monies.
In current formula-based federal grants, some of the amounts rural
districts receive are so small the school districts an not do anything
meaningful with them. This ``One-size-fits-all'' policy would be
remedied under the ``Rural Education Improvement Act,'' which would
allow several small sums to be joined and spent according to local
needs. Like Senator Collins, I'm committed to giving parents and local
school districts more say in how their education dollars are spent. I
commend the Senator for her efforts in this area and am proud to
cosponsor this legislation.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 254. A bill to provide further protections for the watershed of
the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management
Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Little Sandy
Watershed Protection Act.
I promised Oregonians that one of my first legislative actions when
the 107th Congress convened would be the introduction of this bill.
Therefore, joined by my friends Senator Gordon Smith and Congressman
Earl Blumenauer, I introduce this legislation to make sure that
Portland families can go to their kitchen faucets and get a glass of
safe and pure drinking water today, tomorrow, and on, into the 21st
century.
The Bull Run has been the primary source of water for Portland since
1895. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Mount Hood National
Forest, was protected by Congressional action in 1904, in 1977 and then
again, most recently, in 1996 (P.L. 95-200, 16, U.S.C. 482b note)
because it was recognized as Portland's primary municipal water supply.
It still is.
Today I propose to finish the job of the Oregon Resources and
Conservation Act of 1996. That law, which I worked on with former
Senator Mark Hatfield, finally provided full protection to the Bull Run
watershed, but only gave temporary protection to the adjacent Little
Sandy watershed. I promised in 1996 that I would return to finish the
job of protecting Portland's drinking water supply, and I intend to
continue to push this legislation until the job is completed.
The bill I introduce today expands the Bull Run Watershed Management
Unit boundary from approximately 95,382 acres to approximately 98,272
acres by adding the southern portion of the Little Sandy River
watershed, an increase of approximately 2,890 acres.
The protection this bill offers will not only assure clean drinking
water, but also increase the potential for fish recovery. Reclaiming
suitable habitat for our region's threatened fish populations must be
an all-out effort. Through the cooperation of Portland General Electric
and the City of Portland, the Little Sandy can be an important part of
that effort.
The bill I introduce today is a compromise that was passed
unanimously by the Senate during the last days of the 106th Congress.
Unfortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives of the 106th Congress
refused to pass this important, noncontroversial, piece of legislation
before the final bells rang.
My belief is that the children of the 21st century deserve water that
is as
[[Page S1077]]
safe and pure as any that the Oregon pioneers found in the 19th
century. This legislation will go a long way toward bringing about that
vision.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 254
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE LITTLE
SANDY RIVER WATERSHED IN THE BULL RUN WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT UNIT, OREGON.
(a) In General.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91
Stat. 1425) is amended by striking section 1 and inserting
the following:
``SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
UNIT; DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
``(a) Definition of Secretary.--In this Act, the term
`Secretary' means--
``(1) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and
``(2) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established, subject to valid
existing rights, a special resources management unit in the
State of Oregon, comprising approximately 98,272 acres, as
depicted on a map dated May 2000 and entitled `Bull Run
Watershed Management Unit'.
``(2) Map.--The map described in paragraph (1) shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the offices of--
``(A) the Regional Forester-Pacific Northwest Region of the
Forest Service; and
``(B) the Oregon State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management.
``(3) Boundary adjustments.--The Secretary may periodically
make such minor adjustments in the boundaries of the unit as
are necessary, after consulting with the city and providing
for appropriate public notice and hearings.''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--
(1) Secretary.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91
Stat. 1425) is amended by striking ``Secretary of
Agriculture'' each place it appears (except subsection (b) of
section 1, as added by subsection (a), and except in the
amendments made by paragraph (2)) and inserting
``Secretary''.
(2) Applicable law.--
(A) In general.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 95-200 (16
U.S.C. 482b note; 91 Stat. 1425) is amended by striking
``applicable to National Forest System lands'' and inserting
``applicable to land under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Forest Service (in the case of land administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture) or applicable to land under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
(in the case of land administered by the Secretary of the
Interior)''.
(B) Management plans.--The first sentence of section 2(c)
of Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91 Stat. 1426) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``subsection (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
(ii) by striking ``, through the maintenance'' and
inserting ``(in the case of land administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture) or section 202 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) (in the
case of land administered by the Secretary of the Interior),
through the maintenance''.
SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Timber Cutting Restrictions.--Section 2(b) of Public
Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91 Stat. 1426) is amended by
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall prohibit the cutting of trees on Federal land in the
unit, as designated in section 1 and depicted on the map
referred to in that section.''.
(b) Repeal of Management Exception.--The Oregon Resource
Conservation Act of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-208)
is amended by striking section 606 (110 Stat. 3009-543).
(c) Repeal of Duplicative Enactment.--Section 1026 of
division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4228) and the
amendments made by that section are repealed.
(d) Water Rights.--Nothing in this section strengthens,
diminishes, or has any other effect on water rights held by
any person or entity.
SEC. 3. LAND RECLASSIFICATION.
(a) Oregon and California Railroad Land.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
shall identify any Oregon and California Railroad land that
is subject to the distribution provision of title II of the
Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f), within the boundary
of the special resources management area described in section
1 of Public Law 95-200 (as amended by section 1(a)).
(b) Public Domain Land.--
(1) Definition of public domain land.--
(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term ``public
domain land'' has the meaning given the term ``public land''
in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``public domain land'' does not
include any land managed under the Act of August 28, 1937 (43
U.S.C. 1181a et seq.).
(2) Identification.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
shall identify public domain land within the Medford,
Roseburg, Eugene, Salem, and Coos Bay Districts and the
Klamath Resource Area of the Lakeview District of the Bureau
of Land Management in the State of Oregon that--
(A) is approximately equal in acreage and condition as the
land identified in subsection (a); but
(B) is not subject to the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C.
1181a et seq.).
(c) Maps.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register 1 or
more maps depicting the land identified in subsections (a)
and (b).
(d) Reclassification.--After providing an opportunity for
public comment, the Secretary of the Interior shall
administratively reclassify--
(1) the land described in subsection (a), as public domain
land (as the term is defined in subsection (b)) that is not
subject to the distribution provision of title II of the Act
of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f); and
(2) the land described in subsection (b), as Oregon and
California Railroad land that is subject to the Act of August
28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq.).
SEC. 4. FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out, in
accordance with section 323 of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1101
note; 112 Stat. 2681-290), watershed restoration that
protects or enhances water quality, or relates to the
recovery of endangered species or threatened species listed
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), in Clackamas County, Oregon, $10,000,000.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 255. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a
minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissection for
the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary
consultations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Women's
Health and Cancer Rights Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friends,
Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Johnson of South Dakota, as
original cosponsors of this bill.
This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that
appropriate medical care determines how long a woman stays in the
hospital after undergoing a mastectomy. This provision says that
inpatient coverage with respect to the treatment of mastectomy--
regardless of whether the patient's plan is regulated by ERISA or State
regulations--will be provided for a period of time as is determined by
the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be
medically necessary and appropriate. Second, this bill allows any
person facing a cancer diagnosis of any type to get a second opinion on
their course of treatment.
A diagnosis of breast cancer is something that every woman dreads.
But for an estimated 192,200 American women, this is the year their
worst fears will be realized. One thousand new cases of breast cancer
will be diagnosed among the women in Maine, and 200 women in my home
State will die from this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine women
will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and for women between
the ages of 35 and 54, there is no other disease which will claim more
lives.
It's not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer''
are some of the most frightening words in the English language. For the
woman who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No
wonder, then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but
also by uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do
to me? What will I have to endure? What's the next step?
For many woman, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or
lumpectomy. Despite the medical and scientific advances that have been
made, despite the advances in early detection technology that more and
more often negate the need for radical surgery, it still remains a fact
of life at the beginning of the 21st century these procedures can be
the most prudent option in attacking and eradicating cancer found in a
woman's breast.
[[Page S1078]]
These are the kind of decisions that come with a breast cancer
diagnosis. These are the kind of questions women must answer, and they
must do so under some of the most stressful and frightening
circumstances imaginable. The last question a woman should have to
worry about at a time like this is whether or not their health
insurance plan will pay for appropriate care after a mastectomy. A
woman diagnosed with breast cancer in many ways already feels as though
she has lost control of her life. She should not feel as though she has
also lost control of her course of treatment.
The evidence for the need for this bill--especially when it comes to
so-called ``drive through mastectomies'', is more than just
allegorical. Indeed, the facts speak for themselves--between 1986 and
1995, the average length of stay for a mastectomy dropped from about
six days to about 2 to 3 days. Thousands of women across the country
are undergoing radical mastectomies on an outpatient basis and are
being forced out of the hospital before either they or their doctor
think it's reasonable or prudent.
This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients, and
all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis must be
able to make informed decisions about appropriate and necessary medical
care.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work
towards passing it this year.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 256. A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect
breastfeeding by new mothers; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is
very important to working women and their families--the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act Amendments of 2001. This bill would clarify that the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects breastfeeding under civil rights
law, requiring that a woman cannot be fired or discriminated against in
the workplace for expressing breast milk during her own lunch time or
break time.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, women with infants and
toddlers are the fastest growing segment of today's labor force. At
least 50 percent of women who are employed when they become pregnant
return to the labor force by the time their children are three months
old. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was enacted in 1978 and
prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,
childbirth, or related medical conditions, courts have not interpreted
the Act to include breastfeeding.
Some employers deny women the opportunity to express milk . . . some
women have been discharged for requesting to express milk during lunch
and other regular breaks . . . some women have been harassed or
discriminated against; some women have had their pay withheld or been
taken off of shift work for saying that they wanted to pump milk.
On the other hand, many employers have seen positive results from
facilitating lactation programs in the workplace, including low
absenteeism, high productivity, improved company loyalty, high employee
morale, and lower health care costs. Parental absenteeism due to infant
illness is three times greater among the parents of formula-fed
children than those that are breastfed. Worksite programs that aim to
improve infant health may also bring about a reduction in parental
absenteeism and health insurance costs.
There is no doubt as to the health benefit breastfeeding brings to
both mothers and children. Breastmilk is easily digested and
assimilated, and contains all the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients
they require in their first five to six months of life. Furthermore,
important antibodies, proteins, immune cells, and growth factors that
can only be found in breast milk. Breastmilk is the first line of
immunization defense and enhances the effectiveness of vaccines given
to infants.
Research studies show that children who are not breastfed have higher
rates of mortality, meningitis, some types of cancers, asthma and other
respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, diarrhoeal
diseases, ear infections, allergies, and obesity. Other research
studies have shown that breastmilk and breastfeeding have protective
effects against the development of a number of chronic diseases,
including juvenile diabetes, lymphomas, Crohn's disease, celiac
disease, some chronic liver diseases, and ulcerative colitis. A number
of studies have shown that breastfed children have higher IQs at all
ages.
This is a simple bill--it simply inserts the word ``breastfeeding''
in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It will change the law to read
that employment discrimination ``because of or on the basis of
pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, or related medication
conditions'' is not permitted.
I believe that it is absolutely critical to support mothers in across
the country--they are, of course, raising the very future of our
country. And we should ensure that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
covers this basic fundamental part of mothering.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 257. A bill to permit individuals to continue health plan coverage
of services while participating in approved clinical studies; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improved
Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act. This bill builds on progress
made in the last several years in the difficult and challenging fight
against life-threatening diseases.
This bill will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for
services provided to individuals participating in clinical trials, if
those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This bill would
also prevent health plans from discriminating against enrollees who
choose to participate in clinical trials.
This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that many
patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving
experimental treatments, but currently do not have access to them
because their insurance will not cover the associated costs. Second,
without reimbursement for these services, our researchers' ability to
conduct important research is impeded as it reduces the number of
patients who seek to participate in clinical trials.
According to a report published by the General Accounting Office in
September 1999, ``given the uncertainty about [health insurance]
approval and payment levels, patients and physicians can be discouraged
from seeking prior approval from insurers'' and therefore, will not
attempt to enroll in what could possibly be the patients' last hope.
When faced with a life-threatening disease, such as cancer, it is
absolutely paramount that individuals be given every opportunity, every
possibly imaginable, to fight their illness. What patients should not
be faced with is the certainty of a health insurance fight.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill which will
help those suffering from life-threatening diseases and their families.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 258. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage under the Medicare program of annual screening pap
smear and screening pelvic exams; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing
Annual Pap Tests to Save Women's Lives Act of 2001. I am pleased to be
joined by my friend, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, as an original
cosponsor of this bill.
According to the American Cancer Society cervical cancer is one of
the most successfully treatable cancers when detected at an early
stage. In fact, 88 percent of cervical cancer patients survive one year
after diagnosis, and 70 percent survive five years.
In the 52 years since use of the pap test became widespread, the
cervical cancer mortality rate has declined by an astonishing 70
percent. There is no question that this test is the most effective
cancer screening tool yet developed. The Pap smear can detect
abnormalities before they develop into cancer. Having an annual Pap
smear is one of the most important things a woman can do to help
prevent cervical cancer.
[[Page S1079]]
Congress has recognized the incomparable contribution of the Pap
smear in preventing cervical cancer and nine years ago directed
Medicare to begin covering preventive Pap smears. Under this law
Medicare beneficiaries were eligible for one test every three years,
although a more frequent interval is allowed for women at high risk of
developing cervical cancer. And through the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, Congress expanded the Pap smear benefit to also include a
screening pelvic exam once every three years. Last year as a part of
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection
Act, P.L. 106-544, we brought the screening down to once every other
year.
However, the American Cancer Society screening guidelines recommend
that all women who are or have been sexually active or who are 18 and
older should have an annual Pap test and pelvic examination. After
three or more consecutive satisfactory examinations with normal
findings, the Pap test may be performed less frequently at the
physician's discretion. Unfortunately, Medicare guidelines do not
reflect this recommendation.
Women understand the usefulness and life-saving benefit of the Pap
smear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported
that 88.3 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 44 have received
a pap test within the preceding three years. However, this rate
dropped, for women age 65 and over--only 72.3 percent have received a
pap test within the preceding three years.
The bill Senator Lincoln and I are introducing today will bring
Medicare guidelines in line with the American Cancer recommendations,
and it will encourage Medicare beneficiaries to utilize this screening
benefit more regularly.
The Pap test has contributed immeasurably to the fight against
cervical cancer. We cannot risk erasing our advancements in this fight
because of an inadequate Medicare screening benefit.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 259. A bill to authorize funding the Department of Energy to
enhance its mission areas through Technology Transfer and Partnerships
for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill
authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for technology transfer.
This bi-partisan bill which is referred to as the ``National
Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001'' is co-sponsored by
my colleagues Mr. Domenici and Mrs. Murray. Let me summarize this bill.
First, I will outline the Department's commitment to science and how it
has admirably worked to transfer its technology in light of a serious
resource decline. I then will discuss how tech transfer naturally
compliments the Department's mission oriented R&D. I will review the
legislation we introduced in the last session which is a start in the
right direction. I will conclude by proposing how this bill by
leveraging existing efforts, should move the Department in the right
direction to support technology transfer without disrupting its R&D
mission focus.
The Department of Energy is about science. For FY 2001, the
Department's R&D budget was roughly $8 billion out of the $18.3 billion
appropriated. Science programs account for 43 percent of the
Department's budget. In the area of the physical sciences, DOE provides
roughly half of all of the federal R&D. In mathematics and computer
sciences, DOE is second after the DOD. In engineering, the DOE ranks
third after NASA and the DOD. DOE affiliated scientists have won more
than 71 Nobel prizes for fundamental research; they garner the largest
number of R&D 100 awards for applied research. The Department has more
than 60 multipurpose laboratories and primary purpose facilities across
the U.S. in high energy physics, materials science, nuclear science and
engineering, waste management, biosciences, robotics, advanced
scientific computing, microelectronic and nanomaterials fabrication.
Each year DOE labs and facilities are used by more than 18,000
researchers from universities and industry.
Yet with this surprising portfolio of research, the Department in FY
2001 only line allocates $10 million for the transfer of technology. In
1995 this allocation was over $200 million. That is not to say DOE is
not transferring its technology. In FY 1998, which is our last set of
good statistics from the Department of Commerce's Office of Technology
Policy, the DOE was second only to the DOD in the number of CRADA's
granted from its federal facilities, the DOD had 1424 and the DOE had
868. The in-kind funds from industry to DOE for these CRADA's averages
about $100 million while its work for others from non-federal sources
was $145 million. In FY 1998, the DOE had 168 licenses granted to use
its technology, the DOD had 34 and HHS had 215. In FY 1998, the DOE had
512 patents issued on federal lab inventions while the DOD had 579, the
next closest was HHS with 171. In FY 1998, 50 companies were
established as a result of DOE technology transfer. To put these
numbers in perspective, the DOD R&D budget for FY 1998 was $37.5
billion, HHS' was $13.8 billion, while DOE's was $6.3 billion. These
statistics are impressive because in FY 1998 the DOE had line allocated
about 1 percent of its R&D budget to tech transfer. Today, that number
is 0.14 percent of its R&D budget.
Given that tech transfer is not the Department's primary mission, the
question is what is the right mix and what is the optimal technology to
transfer? For the NNSA, the primary mission is ensuring a safe and
reliable nuclear stockpile. The Office of Science's primary mission is
advancing the frontiers of basic R&D. The Office of Environmental
Management's primary mission is cleaning up contaminated DOE sites. The
Fossil Energy Program's mission is developing cleaner and more
efficient fossil fuels. The list goes on. Nor do I think that tech
transfer, given the above numbers will be the principal engine for
direct economic growth in the tech heavy new economy. Let me explain
this premise by examing the pattern of economic and technological
growth in a little more detail. In the year 2000, the National Science
Foundation estimates that total U.S. R&D was $264 billion, a 7.9
percent increase over 1999 which itself was a 7.5 percent increase over
1998. Technology R&D has a growth rate exceeding 15 percent in the last
two years alone. What counts is the make up of these R&D trends. In the
year 2000, the industry contribution to the total R&D was $179 billion,
a 10.3 percent increase over 1999 while federal R&D grew by only 3.9
percent. Given the investment the federal government makes in R&D,
technology transfer from federal labs does not contribute directly to
these amazing growth rates. In industries like telecommunications and
chip design, the turn around cycles from research to product ranges
from 1 to 3 years. The government is simply too slow to contribute
directly to industrial driven short term needs that are so clearly
evident in these national trends of R&D funding. On the other end of
the spectrum, basic and applied R&D are areas where industry finds it
difficult to invest given the short term equity demands on their
profits. The right mix then is for the government to maintain basic and
applied R&D so it can transfer this knowledge to industry over the long
term.
If we agree that the government best transfers long term R&D we must
ask the next question which is how do the Department's mission focused
R&D programs transfer technology to the private sector and how can the
Department ensure its continued success with minimal disruption to its
mission areas? Mission focused DOE programs like the NNSA,
Environmental Management, Fossil Energy, Renewable Energy, Nuclear
Energy and the Office of Science all advance the frontiers of science
at different stages. All of these programs in carrying out their
missions naturally perform different degrees of tech transfer. The
Fossil Energy, Nuclear and Renewable programs work closely with
industry and usually cannot start without an industry partner through a
CRADA. The NNSA with their advanced computing requirements naturally
push the state of the art in industry. CRADA's and Licenses provide to
the NNSA a fresh influx of the outside world's advancing technology
into their national security
[[Page S1080]]
missions. The Office of Science with their wonderful user facilities
and broad basic energy research mandate provide a fertile R&D base by
which industry can stay competitive ten years out into the future,
CRADA's smooth and shorten that transition. CRADA arrangements are a
natural outgrowth of the DOE mission programs. A CRADA or License
simply makes the tech transfer process smoother. So the issue is not
how much money do we need to line item for the formation of a CRADA or
a license--the CRADA is simply a by product of a organic tech transfer
process in the Department's R&D programs. The issue is what kind of
organizational structure in the DOE do we need to keep track of these
tech transfer activities and how to insure that it is easily accessible
for potential partnerships.
If as I have just described that tech transfer occurs organically to
the Department's R&D mission areas we need to ask ourselves is there an
infrastructure that moves beyond the single contractual framework which
a CRADA represents? Tech transfer is not so much a static contract but
it is a multi-dimensional transactional process. In some select cases
we should stimulate the transactional tech transfer process by regional
technology clusters. Technology clusters will permit industry to locate
around these wonderful pools of scientific knowledge. In turn they will
build the R&D infrastructure surrounding the laboratory itself. We all
too often think that the internet can solve the distance problem of
connecting business transactions thus negating the need for regional
technology clusters--that's actually wrong, very wrong. Successful
utilization of R&D technology starts because many small business are
nearby to each other in a supportive state business climate. The
technology clusters that form simply use the internet to exchange ideas
and data that they generate from face-to-face collaboration on short
notice. People to people transactions initiate business and wealth in a
rather spontaneous event; the internet is simply a tool to make it more
efficient. You see such natural clustering occurring in Wall Street for
financial markets, Palo Alto for information technology, Detroit for
automobiles and right here in Bethesda for genetics around the NIH.
Thus, enabling the formation technology clusters rather than focusing
on the static contractual CRADA process should be the next step in the
evolution of federal technology transfer.
The bill I am introducing today address the issues I have just
outlined. It establishes a headquarters level Technology Transfer
Coordinator as the Secretary's lead advocate for developing DOE
technology transfer policy across its many missions. This Coordinator
will collect and disseminate tech transfer data to Congress, the
interagency and public. I have provided a ceiling limit of about $1
million per year to collect this data and prepare the reports as
required by law. I have provided additional funding for the Coordinator
to help out the administrative tasks associated with the
Interlaboratory Technology Partnerships Working Group. This group is
staffed by members from the DOE laboratories and facilities with the
purpose to deconflict and disseminate publically DOE's R&D. The
Interlaboratory Technology Partnerships Working Group is a powerful
grass roots organization outside the beltway. This group operates at
the local community and laboratory level where the technology
initiates. I have designated the Coordinator as the Secretary's lead
federal officer for the group's oversight by reporting its activities
to Congress and the interagency. I have authorized about $1 million a
year to leverage the Technology Partnerships Working Group's activities
by ensuring that it can develop the necessary web interfaces and
databases by which the public can easily access DOE's technology. I
have expanded the clustering bill that was introduced in the last
Congress through the Defense Authorization Act from the NNSA
laboratories to the entire DOE complex. This expansion will permit
industry to benefit from the entire range of technology R&D across the
DOE. If successful, these clusters will strengthen our experience in
technology clusters; it will actively involve the state and local
communities in encouraging the role that a technology infrastructure
will have in their economic development. I have authorized $10 million
for these clusters while requiring a 50 percent in-kind funding
contribution from the proposed partner. The clustering partner can be a
state, university, R&D consortia or business entity. I have given the
Secretary discretion to stop this clustering expansion if the pilot
effort for the NNSA labs proves unworkable. I have authorized a small-
business advocate, to support DOE wide, for what has been a lab by lab
policy. Such a small business provision is needed to accommodate the
unique needs for R&D collaboration of start up businesses. I have
proposed modifying the Department of Energy Organization Act to make it
more flexible in entering into alternative research contracts with
entities such as R&D consortia. Finally, I have asked the Secretary to
examine the need for a policy to move people across the lab fence to
start up companies. This policy is balanced against the unique mission
areas of each lab. In some cases implementing such a policy may prove
unworkable based upon a lab's mission requirement. If such a policy
proves unreasonable based upon a particular lab's mission, I have given
Secretary the discretion not to implement it. I must emphasize though
that half of tech transfer is not just a piece of technology moving
across the fence but the movement of people and their know-how to a
small start up. Universities are a classic example of the movement of
technology and people between their home institution and a small
regional technology park. Everyone benefits from this flow in people,
the start-up, the lab or facility with a more vibrant workforce
surrounding it and the local economy through local high tech business
start ups.
Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this is not another line item
CRADA funding project, its not corporate welfare. This bill takes the
tech transfer activities that are naturally occurring in all these
varied science mission areas and leverages them with small amounts of
funding--about 0.06 percent of DOE's overall budget.
Let me summarize once more what I have just outlined is in the
proposed bill. First, a small Technology Transfer Coordinator is
proposed to be the Secretary's advocate across the Department for
uniform policy development and reporting. Second, a small web based
interface is proposed to help the public easily access and leverage the
R&D activities at all the DOE labs and facilities. Third, I've proposed
to help seed small technology clusters local to the labs under merit
review and with the discretion not to proceed forward if the FY 2001
NNSA pilot program proves unworkable. Technology clusters are the next
evolutionary stage past a static CRADA. Fourth, I've asked the
Secretary to implement, where its feasible, a policy where by
laboratory personnel can move with the technology to start up a company
outside the fence. Fifth, I asked the Secretary to ensure where its
reasonable a uniform policy to help small businesses with their unique
needs access DOE technology. Like most government programs that come
under close scrutiny by Congress, their intent is worthy but the
program's size oscillates greatly over time. The pendulum for tech
transfer at the DOE is one such program. This program has swung from a
$200 million program in the mid 1990's to essentially zero funding in
FY 2001 with a minimal headquarter's office to help policy development
across its diverse mission areas. This bill establishes what I feel is
the right level of tech transfer in a R&D organization by leveraging
the existing industrial collaboration that naturally occurs in carrying
out their missions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 259
Be in 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 Laboratories
Partnership Improvement Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
[[Page S1081]]
(2) the term ``departmental mission'' means any of the
functions vested in the Secretary of Energy by the Department
of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) or other
law;
(3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
(4) the term ``National Laboratory'' means any of the
following multi-purpose laboratories owned by the Department
of Energy--
(A) Argonne National Laboratory;
(B) Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(C) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory;
(D) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
(E) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
(F) Los Alamos National Laboratory;
(G) National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
(H) Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(I) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; or
(J) Sandia National Laboratory;
(5) the term ``facility'' means any of the following
primarily single purpose entities owned by the Department of
Energy--
(A) Ames Laboratory;
(B) East Tennessee Technology Park;
(C) Environmental Measurement Laboratory;
(D) Fernald Environmental Management Project;
(E) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;
(F) Kansas City Plant;
(G) National Energy Technology Laboratory;
(H) Nevada Test Site;
(I) New Brunswick Laboratory;
(J) Pantex Weapons Facility;
(K) Princeton Plasma Physical Laboratory;
(L) Savannah River Technology Center;
(M) Standard Linear Accelerator Center;
(N) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility;
(O) Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; or
(P) other similar organization of the Department designated
by the Secretary that engages in technology transfer,
partnering, or licensing activities;
(6) the term ``nonprofit institution'' has the meaning
given such term in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703(5));
(7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
(8) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632);
(9) the term ``technology-related business concern'' means
a for-profit corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, or small business concern that--
(A) conducts scientific or engineering research,
(B) develops new technologies,
(C) manufacturers products based on new technologies, or
(D) performs technological services;
(10) the term ``technology cluster'' means a concentration
of--
(A) technology-related business concerns;
(B) institutions of higher education; or
(C) other nonprofit institutions,
that reinforce each other's performance in the areas of
technology development through formal or informal
relationships;
(11) the term ``socially and economically disadvantaged
small business concerns'' has the meaning given such term in
section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(4)); and
(12) the term ``NNSA'' means the National Nuclear Security
Administration established by title XXXII of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
106-65).
(13) the term Technology Partnerships Working Group refers
to the organization of technology transfer representatives of
DOE laboratories and facilities, the purpose of which is to
coordinate technology transfer activities occurring at DOE
laboratories and facilities, exchange information about
technology transfer practices, and develop and disseminate to
the public and prospective technology partners information
about DOE technology transfer opportunities and procedures.
SEC. 3. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, through the appropriate
officials of the Department, shall establish a Technology
Infrastructure Program in accordance with this section.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
improve the ability of National Laboratories or facilities to
support departmental missions by--
(1) stimulating the development of technology clusters that
can support the missions of the National Laboratories or
facilities;
(2) improving the ability of National Laboratories or
facilities to leverage and benefit from commercial research,
technology, products, processes, and services; and
(3) encouraging the exchange of scientific and
technological expertise between National Laboratories or
facilities and--
(A) institutions of higher education,
(B) technology-related business concerns,
(C) nonprofit institutions, and
(D) agencies of State, tribal, or local governments,
that can support the mission of the National Laboratories and
facilities.
(c) Program.--In each of the first three fiscal years after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary may
provide no more than $10,000,000 to National Laboratories or
Facilities designated by the Secretary to conduct Technology
Infrastructure Program Programs.
(d) Projects.--The Secretary shall authorize the Director
of each National Laboratory or facility designated under
subsection (c) to implement the Technology Infrastructure
Program at such National Laboratory or facility through
projects that meet the requirements of subsections (e) and
(f).
(e) Program Requirements.--Each project funded under this
section shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Minimum participants.--Each project shall at a minimum
include--
(A) a National Laboratory or facility; and
(B) one of the following entities--
(i) a business,
(ii) an institution of higher education,
(iii) a nonprofit institution, or
(iv) an agency of a State, local, or tribal government.
(2) Cost sharing.--
(A) Minimum amount.--Not less than 50 percent of the costs
of each project funded under this section be provided from
non-Federal sources.
(B) Qualified funding and resources.--
(i) The calculation of costs paid by the non-Federal
sources to a project shall include cash, personnel, services,
equipment, and other resources expended on the project.
(ii) Independent research and development expenses of
government contractors that qualify for reimbursement under
section 31-205-18(e) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations
issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) may be credited
towards costs paid by non-Federal sources to a project, if
the expenses meet the other requirements of this section.
(iii) No funds or other resources expended either before
the start of a project under this section or outside the
project's scope of work shall be credited toward the costs
paid by the non-Federal sources to the project.
(3) Competitive selection.--All projects where a party
other than the Department or a National Laboratory or
facility receives funding under this section shall, to the
extent practicable, be competitively selected by the National
Laboratory or facility using procedures determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary or his designee.
(4) Accounting standards.--Any participant receiving
funding under this section, other than a National Laboratory
or facility, may use generally accepted accounting principles
for maintaining accounts, books, and records relating to the
project.
(5) Limitations.--No federal funds shall be made available
under this section for--
(A) construction; or
(B) any project for more than five years.
(f) Selection Criteria.--
(1) Threshold funding criteria.--The Secretary shall
authorize the provision of Federal funds for under this
section only when the Director of the National Laboratory or
facility managing such a project determines that the project
is likely to improve the participating National Laboratory or
facility's ability to achieve technical success in meeting
departmental missions.
(2) Additional criteria.--The Secretary shall also require
the Director of the National Laboratory or facility managing
a project under this section to consider the following
criteria in selecting a project to receive Federal funds--
(A) the potential of the project to succeed, based on it
technical merit, team members, management approach,
resources, and project plan;
(B) the potential of the project to promote the development
of a commercially sustainable technology cluster, one that
will derive most of the demand for its products or services
from the private sector, that can support the missions of the
participating National Laboratory or facility;
(C) the potential of the project to promote the use of
commercial research, technology, products, processes, and
services by the participating National Laboratory or facility
to achieve its departmental mission or the commercial
development of technological innovations made at the
participating National Laboratory or facility;
(D) the commitment shown by non-Federal organizations to
the project, based primarily on the nature and amount of the
financial and other resources they will risk on the project;
(E) the extent to which the project involves a wide variety
and number of institutions of higher education, nonprofit
institutions, and technology-related business concerns
that can support the missions of the participating
National Laboratory or facility and that will make
substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the
project;
(F) the extent of participation in the project by agencies
of State, tribal, or local governments that will make
substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the
project; and
(G) the extent to which the project focuses on promoting
the development of technology-related business concerns that
are small business concerns or involves such small business
concerns substantively in the project.
(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall limit
the Secretary from requiring the consideration of other
criteria,
[[Page S1082]]
as appropriate, in determining whether projects should be
funded under this section.
(g) Report to Congress on Full Implementation.--Not later
than 120 days after the start of the third fiscal year after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
report to Congress on whether the Technology Infrastructure
Program should be continued and, if so, how the fully
implemented program should be managed.
SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE.
(a) Advocacy Function.--The Secretary shall direct the
Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the
Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, to establish a small business advocacy function
that is organizationally independent of the procurement
function at the National Laboratory or facility. The person
or office vested with the small business advocacy function
shall--
(1) work to increase the participation of small business
concerns, including socially and economically disadvantaged
small business concerns, in procurement, collaborative
research, technology licensing, and technology transfer
activities conducted by the National Laboratory or facility;
(2) report to the Director of the National Laboratory or
facility on the actual participation of small business
concerns in procurement and collaborative research along with
recommendations, if appropriate, on how to improve
participation;
(3) make available to small business concerns training,
mentoring, and clear, up-to-date information on how to
participate in the procurement and collaborative research,
including how to submit effective proposals;
(4) increase the awareness inside the National Laboratory
or facility of the capabilities and opportunities presented
by small business concerns; and
(5) establish guidelines for the program under subsection
(b) and report the effectiveness of such program to the
Director of the National Laboratory or facility.
(b) Establishment of Small Business Assistance Program.--
The Secretary shall direct the Director of each National
Laboratory, and may direct the Director of each facility the
Secretary determines to be appropriate, to establish a
program to provide small business concerns--
(1) assistance directed at making them more effective and
efficient subcontractors or suppliers to the National
Laboratory or facility; or
(2) general technical assistance, the cost of which shall
not exceed $10,000 per instance of assistance, to improve the
small business concern's products or services.
(c) Use of Funds.--None of the funds expended under
subsection (b) may be used for direct grants to the small
business concerns.
SEC. 5. POLICY CONTINUITY FOR PARTNERSHIPS, AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
(a) The Secretary shall establish within the Office of
Policy, in conjunction with that Office's responsibilities as
executive secretariat to the Department's Research and
Development Council, a Technology Transfer Coordinator to
perform oversight of and policy development for technology
transfer activities at the Department of Energy.
(1) The Secretary through Technology Transfer Coordinator,
shall to the extent feasible, insure that the recommendations
from the Report as generated by the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board in Sec. 3163 of the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001'' are coordinated and
carried Department-wide to non-NNSA laboratories and
facilities consistent with the statutory authority of the
Administrator of the NNSA.
(2) No funds under Section 3(c) for partnerships shall be
allocated under this Act until the Secretary through the
Technology Transfer Coordinator has submitted to Congress an
implementation plan that adequately addresses concerns
outlined by the Administrator of NNSA of the Technology
Infrastructure Pilot Program of collaborative projects as
outlined in Section 3161(b) of the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001''. The Secretary shall
retain the discretion to not implement the partnership
program defined by Section 3 if the implementation concerns
cannot be reasonably addressed.
(3) The Technology Transfer Coordinator shall prepare a
report to Congress for each fiscal year of funding under this
Act outlining accomplishments, anticipated shortfalls,
proposed remedies and expenditure of funds related to DOE
Technology Transfer. The report should address the
integration of the Department's Technology Transfer efforts
within the overall scope of Technology Transfer Policies
within the U.S. Government.
(4) The Technology Transfer Coordinator shall be designated
by the Secretary as the Senior Departmental Official
responsible for liaison with, and the oversight of funds
authorized in section 5(c) the Technology Partnerships
Working Group. The Coordinator shall report on the Group's
activities and budget in subsection (3).
(b) Authorization.--The following sums are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Energy, to carry out the
duties of the Technology Transfer Coordinator and staff, to
remain available until expended, for the purposes of carrying
out this Act:
(1) $2,500,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
(1) $2,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
(1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
(1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
(1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
(c) Policy Development.--of the funds authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (b) the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out DOE Technology
Transfer Policy Development and Reporting:
(1) $1,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
(2) $1,100,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
(3) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
(4) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
(5) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
(d) Technology Partnerships Working Group.--of the funds
under subsection (b), the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out administrative tasks DOE Technology
Partnerships Working Group:
(1) $1,400,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
(2) $1,500,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
(3) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
(4) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
(5) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
SEC. 6. OTHER TRANSACTIONS AUTHORITY.
(a) New Authority.--Section 646 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7256) is amended adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(g) Other Transactions Authority.--(1) In addition to
other authorities granted to the Secretary to enter into
procurement contracts, leases, cooperative agreements,
grants, and other similar arrangements, the Secretary may
enter into other transactions with public agencies,
private organizations, or persons on such terms as the
Secretary may deem appropriate in furtherance of basic,
applied, and advanced research functions now or hereafter
vested in the Secretary. Such other transactions shall not
be subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Federal
Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5908).
``(2)(A) The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that--
``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, no transaction
entered into under paragraph (1) provides for research that
duplicates research being conducted under existing programs
carried out by the Department of Energy; and
``(ii) to the extent that the Secretary determines
practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a
transaction authorized by paragraph (1) do not exceed the
total amount provided by other parties to the transaction.
``(B) A transaction authorized by paragraph (1) may be used
for a research project when the use of a standard contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not
feasible or appropriate.
``(3)(A) The Secretary shall not disclose any trade secret
or commercial or financial information submitted by a non-
Federal entity under paragraph (1) that is privileged and
confidential.
``(B) The Secretary shall not disclose, for five years
after the date the information is received, any other
information submitted by a non-Federal entity under paragraph
(1), including any proposal, proposal abstract, document
supporting a proposal, business plan, or technical
information that is privileged and confidential.
``(C) The Secretary may protect from disclosure, for up to
five years, any information developed pursuant to a
transaction under paragraph (1) that would be protected from
disclosure under section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States
Code, if obtained from a person other than a Federal
agency.''.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than six months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Department shall
establish guidelines for the use of other transactions. Other
transactions shall be made available, if needed, in order to
implement projects funded under section 3.
SEC. 7. MOBILITY OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) General Policy.--Not later than two years after the
enactment of this Act, based upon the report generated under
Section 3161(a)(2) of the ``National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001'', the Secretary through the
Technology Transfer Coordinator shall determine whether it is
reasonable to ensure whether each contractor operating a
National Laboratory or facility has policies and procedures
that do not create disincentives to the transfer of
scientific, technical and business personnel among the
contractor-operated National Laboratory or facilities. This
determination may be made on an individual laboratory or
facility basis due to their varied missions.
SEC. 8. CONFORMANCE WITH NNSA STATUTORY AUTHORITY.
All actions taken by the Secretary in carrying out this Act
with respect to National Laboratories and facilities that are
part of the NNSA shall be through the Administrator for
Nuclear Security in accordance with the requirements of title
XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 261. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide,
with respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased
involvement of advocates in decisionmaking at the National Cancer
Institute; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill which
builds on progress made in the last few years in the difficult and
challenging fight against breast cancer.
Our challenge was summed up by one breast cancer advocate when she
stated, simply and eloquently, ``We must
[[Page S1083]]
make our voices heard, because it is our lives.''
A diagnosis of breast cancer is something that every woman dreads.
Over 192,000 American women, and 1,000 in my home state of Maine--will
face a diagnosis of breast cancer this year. Over 40,000 women across
the country will die from this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine
women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and for women
between the ages of 35 and 54, there is no other disease which will
claim more lives.
This bill will give breast cancer advocates a voice in the National
Institutes of Health's, NIH's research decision-making. The Consumer
Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act urges NIH to follow the
Department Of Defense's lead and include lay breast cancer advocates in
breast cancer research decision-making.
The involvement of these breast cancer advocates at DOD has helped
foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and
research projects. While maintaining the higher level of quality
assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to
ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and
wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease, as well as
the scientific community.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.
______
By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 262. A bill to provide for teaching excellence in America's
classrooms and homerooms; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, this nation was rocked by the
publication, in 1983, of the landmark report, A Nation at Risk. The
findings were devastating: Our educational system was being ``eroded by
a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our future as a nation and a
people.'' That report went on to say that if ``an unfriendly foreign
power'' had tried to impose on America our ``mediocre educational
performance,'' we might well have viewed it ``as an act of war.''
A Nation at Risk sounded a wake-up call to our educators, parents,
businesses, community leaders and officials at all levels of
government. Since its publication in 1983, a number of states have
strengthened their commitment to educational improvements. Many
tightened high school graduation requirements. They pushed for more
achievement testing for students and higher standards for teachers.
As a result of these efforts, we have seen improvement. Our dropout
rate is down, and student achievement is up. Performance on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, has increased,
particularly in the key subjects of reading, math, and science. Yet
still, in America, 2,800 high school students drop out every single
day. Each school year, more than 45,000 under-prepared teachers,
teachers who have not even been trained in the subjects they are
teaching, enter the classroom. Clearly, this is not acceptable.
The positive news is that eighteen years after A Nation at Risk,
there is widespread agreement that the improvement of our educational
system must be a priority and hope that there will be consensus on
education reform. Key to the success of any effective education reform
initiative is the issue of teacher quality. What teachers know and can
do are the single most important influences on what students learn,
according to the National Commission for Teaching and America's Future
Teachers.
Three years after A Nation at Risk, the Carnegie Task Force on
Teaching as a Profession issued a seminal report, A Nation Prepared:
Teachers for the 21st Century. Its leading recommendation called for
the establishment of a National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. Founded in 1987, the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards is an independent, non-profit, and non-partisan
organization whose mission is to establish high and rigorous standards
for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do.
To date, over 9,500 teachers from all 50 states and the District of
Columbia have completed advanced certification by the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards--the most rigorous assessment
process that a teacher can go through and the highest professional
credential in the field of teaching. And more than 12,000 teachers have
applied for National Board Certification in the 2000-2001 school year.
Recognizing the value of qualified teachers in the classroom, 39 states
and 181 local school districts have enacted financial incentives for
teachers seeking National Board Certification, including fee support to
candidates and salary increases for teachers who successfully complete
the certification process.
Georgia, for example, provides a 10 percent salary increase to
teachers who achieve National Board Certification as well as full
reimbursement of the $2300 fee upon certification. The State of
Louisiana provides an annual salary adjustment of $5,000 for its
National Board Certified Teachers, NBCTs, and in addition, the State
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has allocated a $300,000
supplement over a three-year period to provide fee support for National
Board Certification. North Carolina, which has over 2,400 National
Board Certified Teachers, has a particularly strong support program.
Among its incentives, the State pays the fee for up to 1,500 teachers
who complete the National Board Certification process; offers up to
three days of release time for candidates to work on their portfolios
and prepare for the assessment center exercises; and provides a 12
percent salary increase for those who achieve National Board
Certification. Florida, with 1,267 National Board Certified Teachers,
has passed legislation appropriating $12 million to pay 90 percent of
its candidates' certification fee. In addition, the State provides a 10
percent salary increase for the life of the certificate and an
additional 10 percent bonus to those who mentor newly hired teachers or
serve as support mentors for advanced certification candidates. Florida
also provides $150 to candidates to offset National Board Certification
expenses.
The incentives offered by Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Florida
and the remaining 35 states clearly demonstrate that state leaders
recognize and understand the value and contribution of National Board
Certification to their own efforts to enhance quality teaching and
improve school performance. In an effort to assist states' efforts and
to encourage participation, the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act
authorized federal assistance to the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards. To date, the Board has provided over $18 million to
the states according to a formula based on teacher population. In FY
2000, $2.5 million was appropriated to help states and local schools
districts subsidize the certification fee for National Board Certified
candidates.
In each and every year since funding was authorized, candidate demand
has outpaced the money available. Therefore in an effort to encourage
and promote teacher quality in the classroom, I am joined today by my
colleague, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Teaching Excellence in
America's Classrooms and Homerooms (TEACH) Act. According to a new
study by the National Education Association, teacher salaries have
remained stagnant over the past decade, and two-thirds of the states do
not meet the national average of $40,582 for teacher salaries.
Therefore to help teachers pay the $2300 certification fee, our bill
would double the candidate subsidy funding, from the current $2.5
million to $5 million. Further, our legislation would provide an
additional $1 million for outreach and educational activities to
heighten teachers' awareness of the National Board Certification
process, with a priority given to teachers in school districts serving
special populations, including limited English proficient children,
children with disabilities, and economically and educationally
disadvantaged children.
Teachers who successfully complete the arduous requirements for
National Board Certification should not be penalized. Therefore, our
legislation would provide that any financial benefit, such as a bonus,
which a teacher receives solely as a result of achieving National
Board Certification would be tax-free. And teachers who pay out of
pocket expenses for advanced certification, such as fees, travel, and
supplies, should be reimbursed for these costs. The Teaching Excellence
in
[[Page S1084]]
America's Classrooms and Homerooms would allow candidates to take an
above-the-line deduction for their certification expenses. This will
allow these teachers who do not itemize their deductions to still be
able to benefit from tax-favored treatment for their National Board
Certification.
A study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro has recently concluded that teachers who are certified by
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards significantly
outperform their peers who are not National Board Certified on 11 of 13
key measures of teaching expertise, including an extensive knowledge of
subject matter, the capacity to create optimal environments for
learning, and the ability to inspire students and to promote in them
problem-solving skills. The Accomplished Teaching Validation Study,
released in October, was originally designed as a means to seek
independent validation for the National Board's assessment process, and
it is based on criteria which two decades of research have deemed to be
the measures of effective teaching. Among its conclusions, the study
found that nearly three-quarters of the National Board Certified
Teachers produced students whose work reflected deep understanding of
the subject being studied compared with less than one-quarter of non-
certified teachers. The Greensboro study is believed by some education
leaders to be the first step in compiling research that will shed
important light on the connection between accomplished teaching and
student learning.
Christa McAuliffe, selected to be the first schoolteacher to travel
in space, described simply but poetically the awesome potential of her
vocation: ``I touch the future,'' she said. ``I teach.'' If we are to
improve student achievement and success in school, the United States
must encourage and support the training and development of our nation's
teachers, the single most important in-school influence on student
learning. Investing in teacher quality is a direct investment in
quality education--and as Benjamin Franklin said, ``on education all
our lives depend.''
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter of
support from the National Education Association be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 262
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION ASSISTANCE
SEC. 101. NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION ASSISTANCE.
Part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6621 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2104. NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Teaching Excellence in America's Classrooms and Homerooms
Act' (TEACH).
``(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Accomplished teachers are an essential resource for
schools and key to the success of any effective education
reform initiative. What teachers know and can do are the most
important influences on what students learn, according to
national studies.
``(2) Three years after the landmark 1983 report, `A Nation
at Risk', the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession
issued a seminal report entitled `A Nation Prepared: Teachers
for the 21st Century'. Its leading recommendation called for
the establishment of a National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards. Founded in 1987, the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards is an independent, nonprofit
and nonpartisan organization whose mission is to establish
high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers
should know and be able to do.
``(3) Over 9,500 teachers from all 50 States and the
District of Columbia have completed advanced certification by
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which
certification is the most rigorous assessment process that a
teacher can go through and the highest professional
credential in the field of teaching. And more than 12,000
teachers have applied for National Board Certification in the
2000-2001 school year.
``(4) Teacher salaries have remained stagnant over the past
decade, according to a new study by the National Education
Association, and \2/3\ of the States do not meet the national
average of $40,582 for teacher salaries.
``(5) The full fee for National Board Certification is
$2,300. Thirty-nine States and 181 local school districts
have enacted financial incentives for teachers seeking
National Board Certification, including fee support to
candidates and salary increases for teachers who achieve
National Board Certification.
``(6) Recent data from the Accomplished Teaching Validation
Study have demonstrated that teachers who are certified by
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
significantly outperform their peers who are not National
Board Certified on 11 of 13 key measures of teaching
expertise.
``(7) If we are to improve student achievement and success
in school, the United States must encourage and support the
training and development of our Nation's teachers, who are
the single, most important in-school influence on student
learning.
``(c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide a
Federal subsidy and support to certain elementary school and
secondary school teachers who pursue advanced certification
provided by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Board.--The term `Board' means the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards.
``(2) Eligible teacher.--The term `eligible teacher' means
an individual who is a prekindergarten or early childhood
educator, or a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom
teacher, instructor, counselor, or principal in an elementary
school or secondary school on a full-time basis.
``(e) Program Authorization.--
``(1) Program authorized.--From sums appropriated pursuant
to the authority of subsection (g) for any fiscal year, the
Secretary, in accordance with this section, shall provide
financial assistance to the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, in order to pay the Federal share of the
costs of the authorized activities described in subsection
(f).
``(f) Authorized Activities.--
``(1) In general.--Federal funds received under this
section may be used only for the following activities:
``(A) To help States and local school districts provide fee
support to teachers seeking National Board Certification.
``(B) For outreach and educational activities directly
related to teachers' awareness and pursuit of National Board
Certification.
``(2) Priorities.--The Board shall give priority to
providing outreach and educational activities under paragraph
(1)(B) among the following:
``(A) School districts in which there are a significant
number of low-performing schools.
``(B) School districts with low teacher participation rates
in the National Board Certification process.
``(C) School districts serving special populations,
including--
``(i) limited English proficient children;
``(ii) gifted and talented children;
``(iii) children with disabilities; and
``(iv) economically and educationally disadvantaged
children.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations; Allocation.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under
paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall make
available--
``(A) 85 percent of such amounts to carry out subsection
(f)(1)(A); and
``(B) 15 percent of such amounts to carry out subsection
(f)(1)(B).''.
TITLE II--TAX INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATIONS
SEC. 201. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY CERTIFIED
TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
redesignating section 139 as section 140 and inserting after
section 138 the following new section:
``SEC. 139. CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY CERTIFIED TEACHERS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible teacher,
gross income shall not include the value of any eligible
financial benefit received during the taxable year.
``(b) Eligible teacher.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `eligible teacher' means an
individual who is a pre-kindergarten or early childhood
educator, or a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom
teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal in an
elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis for an
academic year ending during a taxable year.
``(2) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms
`elementary school' and `secondary school' have the
respective meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(c) Eligible Financial Benefit.--For purposes of this
section, the term `eligible financial benefit' means any
financial benefit, including incentive payment, received
solely by reason of the successful completion by the eligible
teacher of the requirements for advanced certification
provided by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. Such completion shall be verified in such manner
as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.
``(d) Amounts Must be Reasonable.--Amounts excluded under
subsection (a) shall
[[Page S1085]]
include only amounts which are reasonable.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 3401(a)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``117 or 132'' and inserting
``117, 132, or 139''.
(2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item
relating to section 139 and inserting the following new
items:
``Sec. 139. Certain amounts received by certified teachers.
``Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 202. 2-PERCENT FLOOR ON MISCELLANEOUS ITEMIZED
DEDUCTIONS NOT TO APPLY TO QUALIFIED ADVANCED
CERTIFICATION EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Section 67(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (defining miscellaneous itemized deductions) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(13) any deduction allowable for the qualified advanced
certification expenses paid or incurred by an eligible
teacher (as defined in section 139(b)).''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 67 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to 2-percent floor on miscellaneous
itemized deductions) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) Qualified Advanced Certification Expenses of Eligible
Teachers.--For purposes of subsection (b)(13), the term
`qualified advanced certification expenses' means expenses--
``(1) for fees, supplies, equipment, transportation, and
lodging required to secure the advanced certification
provided by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, and
``(2) with respect to which a deduction is allowable under
section 162 (determined without regard to this section).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
____
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, February 5, 2001.
Senator Max Cleland,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the National Education
Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we would like to
express our support for the Teaching Excellence in America's
Classrooms and Homerooms (TEACH) Act. We believe this
legislation will make a critical difference in allowing
teachers to pursue National Board Certification and, thereby,
ensuring the highest quality teachers in our nation's
classrooms.
As you know, no single factor will have a greater impact on
improving student achievement than the quality of our
nation's teaching force. National Board Certification offers
the highest credential in the teaching profession, taking
teachers through a rigorous assessment and evaluation
process. An October 2000 study found that Board Certified
teachers significantly outperformed their peers on 11 of 13
measures of teaching expertise. In addition, the study found
that 74 percent of work samples from students of Certified
teachers reflected ``high levels of comprehension,'' compared
with 29 percent of students whose teachers did not have
national certification.
Unfortunately, the high cost prohibits many teachers from
seeking Board Certification. By providing funding to states
and local districts to help teachers pay Board Certification
fees, your legislation will enable more teachers to
participate in this important process. In addition, the
resourses provided for outreach will help bring information
about Board Certification to many more teachers.
We thank you for your leadership in introducing the TEACH
Act and look forward to working with you in support of our
nation's teachers.
Sincerley,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government Relations.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 263. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to ensure that
coverage of bone mass measurements is provided under the health
benefits program for Federal employees; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
S. 264. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
expand coverage of bone mass measurements under part B of the medicare
program to all individuals at clinical risk for osteoporosis; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which
build on progress made in the last few years in the difficult and
challenging fight against osteoporosis. I am pleased to be joined by my
friend, Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, as an original cosponsor of
these bills.
Osteoporosis is a major public health problem affecting 28 million
Americans, who either have the disease or are at risk due to low bone
mass. Osteoporosis causes 1.5 million fractures annually at a cost of
$13.8 billion--$38 million per day--in direct medical expenses. In
their lifetime, one in two women and one in eight men over the age of
50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Amazingly, a woman's risk
of a hip fracture is equal to her combined risk of contracting breast,
uterine, and ovarian cancer.
Osteoporosis is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could
be avoided if low bone mass were detected early and treated. Though we
now have drugs that promise to reduce fractures by 50 percent and new
drugs have been proven to actually rebuild bone mass, a bone mass
measurement is needed to diagnose osteoporosis and determine one's risk
for future fractures.
And we have learned that there are some prominent risk factors: age,
gender, race, a family history of bone fractures, early menopause,
risky health behaviors such as smoking and excessive alcohol
consumption, and some medications all have been identified as
contributing factors to bone loss. But identification of risk factors
alone cannot predict how much bone a person has and how strong bone is.
Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act 3\1/2\ years ago. In doing
so, we dramatically expanded coverage of osteoporosis screening through
bone mass measurements for Medicare beneficiaries.
Since we passed this law, we have learned that under the current
Medicare law, it is very difficult for a man to be reimbursed for a
bone mass measurement test. Each year, men suffer one-third of all the
hip fractures that occur, and one-third of these men will not survive
more than one year. In addition to hip fracture, men also experience
painful and debilitating fractures of the spine, wrist, and other bones
due to osteoporosis.
The first bill we are introducing today, the Medicare Osteoporosis
Measurement Act, would help all individuals enrolled in Medicare to
receive the necessary tests if they are at risk for osteoporosis.
Currently, Medicare guidelines allow for testing in five categories
of individuals--and most ``at risk'' men do not fall into any of them.
The first category in the guidelines is for ``an estrogen-deficient
woman at clinical risk for osteoporosis.'' The Medicare Osteoporosis
Measurement Act changes this guideline to say that ``an individual,
including an estrogen-deficient woman, at clinical risk for
osteoporosis'' will be eligible for bone mass measurement. This
change--of just a few words--will vastly increase the opportunities for
men to be covered for the important test.
The second bill Senator Torricelli and I are introducing today is
similar to the Medicare bone mass measurement benefit. The Osteoporosis
Federal Employee Health Benefits Standardization Act guarantees the
same uniformity of coverage to Federal employees and retirees as
Congress provided to Medicare beneficiaries in 1997.
Unfortunately, coverage of bone density tests under the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Program, FEHBP, is inconsistent. Instead of a
comprehensive national coverage policy, FEHBP leaves it to each of the
almost 300 participating plans to decide who is eligible to receive a
bone mass measurement and what constitutes medical necessity. Many
plans have no specific rules to guide reimbursement and cover the tests
on a case-by-case basis. Some plans refuse to provide consumers with
information indicating when the plan covers the test and when it does
not and some plans cover the test only for people who already have
osteoporosis.
Mr. President, we know that osteoporosis is highly preventable, but
only if it is discovered in time. There is simply no substitute for
early detection. These bills will ensure that all Medicare
beneficiaries at risk for osteoporosis will be able to be tested for
this disease, and will standardize coverage for bone mass measurement
under the FEHBP.
I hope that our colleagues will join Senator Torricelli and me in
supporting these bills.
____
By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Kohl, and Mr. Durbin):
[[Page S1086]]
S. 265. A bill to prohibit the use of, and provide for remediation of
water contaminated by, methyl tertiary butyl ether; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``MTBE
Elimination Act of 2001.'' I thank my colleagues--Senators Bayh,
Brownback, Kohl, and Durbin for joining me as original co-sponsors of
this important legislation. I have become deeply concerned by the use
and ultimate misuse of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl
ether, MTBE, a nonrenewable fuel derivative, and its potential adverse
health effects on those who come in contact with it. As my colleagues
may remember, I introduced the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2000" last
Congress, but no action was taken in the 106th Congress to eliminate
the use of this potentially hazardous chemical additive.
Specifically, the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2001'' will phase out
MTBE use across the United States over the next three years, ensure
proper labeling of all fuel dispensaries containing MTBE enriched
reformulated gasoline, provide grant awards for MTBE research, and
express the sense of the Senate that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency should provide assistance to
municipalities to test for MTBE in drinking water sources, as well as
provide remediation where appropriate. This bill represents an
important first step toward nationwide safe and healthy drinking water.
Despite the potential damaging effects of MTBE, research of this
chemical is still in its preliminary stages. In February of 1996, the
Health Effects Institute reported that MTBE could be classified as a
neurotoxicant for its acute impairment effects on humans. Further, the
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Centers for
Disease Control from December 1992 through February 1993 monitored
concentrations of MTBE in the air and in the blood of humans. These
studies showed that people with a higher concentration of MTBE in their
bloodstream have a much greater tendency toward headaches, eye
irritation, nausea, disorientation, and vomiting. Finally, the January
16, 2000 broadcast of the ``60 Minutes'' show noted, ``the EPA's
position is that MTBE is a possible human carcinogen.'' Mr. President,
we must remove this kind of chemical from our Nation's drinking water
supply.
Widespread pollution of water systems by MTBE has been perpetuated by
a lack of knowledge, as well as indifference, to this potentially
hazardous substance. MTBE does not readily attach to soil particles,
nor does it naturally biodegrade, making its movement from gasoline to
water extremely rapid. The physical properties of MTBE, coupled with
its potential adverse health effects, make the use of this specific
oxygenate dangerous to the American people.
The elimination of the use of MTBE in reformulated gasoline should
not mean the removal of the oxygenate requirement set forth under the
Clean Air Act of 1990--which requires reformulated gasoline to contain
two percent oxygen by weight. I believe it to be reasonable for our
nation to expect both clean air and clean water, without having to
eliminate the reformulated gasoline market or sacrifice our national
health.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture study
entitled ``Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the
United States,'' replacing MTBE with the corn-based oxygenate additive
ethanol would create approximately 13,000 new jobs in rural America,
increase farm income by more than $1 billion annually over the next ten
years, and reduce farm program costs and loan deficiency payments
through an expanded value-added market for grain. Furthermore, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has concluded that within three years,
ethanol can be used as a substitute oxygenate for MTBE in nationwide
markets without price increases or supply disruptions.
Ethanol has proven to be a viable, environmentally-friendlier
alternative to MTBE. The Chicago reformulated gas program (RFG) has
used ethanol for years, and according to the American Lung Association,
Chicago has established one of the most successful RFG programs in the
country. Ethanol is vitally important to my home state since Illinois
is the number one producer of ethanol in the nation. Each year, 274
million bushels of Illinois corn are used to produce about 678 million
gallons of ethanol. At a time when agricultural prices are at near-
record lows, this increased demand is sorely needed.
Recently, Tosco Corporation, one the nation's largest independent oil
refiners and marketers, announced its intention to sell ethanol-blended
fuel from its 1,600 retail outlets throughout California. This decision
will result in the replacement of MTBE with ethanol in one-fifth of
California's reformulated gasoline by the end of this year, thereby
helping to protect California's water supply for future generations,
while keeping its air clean. The bill that I introduce today paves the
way for this important bio-based fuel to be used not only in California
and the Midwest, but nationwide. By supporting bio-based fuel through
legislative measures such as this bill, we are taking positive and
decisive steps toward cleaning our nation's water, and the environment
we will leave for our children and grandchildren.
This legislation will send a signal that the Senate strongly supports
bio-based fuels research and recognizes the need to find viable ways to
reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
Through research programs, localized testing, and proper labeling we
can help assure that MTBE is properly identified in gasoline, extracted
from groundwater, and phased out of use thereby reducing the risk of
future MTBE contamination.
By phasing out MTBE over a three year period and replacing it with
ethanol, we can help secure an ample supply of reformulated gasoline,
clean water, and clean air for future generations. This bill should
enjoy bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-
sponsoring this bill that is so important to the well being of the
environment as well as our nation's farmers.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 265
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 ``MTBE Elimination Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) a single cup of MTBE, equal to the quantity found in 1
gallon of gasoline oxygenated with MTBE, renders all of the
water in a 5,000,000-gallon well undrinkable;
(2) the physical properties of MTBE allow MTBE to pass
easily from gasoline to air to water, or from gasoline
directly to water, but MTBE does not--
(A) readily attach to soil particles; or
(B) naturally degrade;
(3) the development of tumors and nervous system disorders
in mice and rats has been linked to exposure to MTBE and
tertiary butyl alcohol and formaldehyde, which are 2
metabolic byproducts of MTBE;
(4) reproductive and developmental studies of MTBE indicate
that exposure of a pregnant female to MTBE through inhalation
can--
(A) result in maternal toxicity; and
(B) have possible adverse effects on a developing fetus;
(5) the Health Effects Institute reported in February 1996
that the studies of MTBE support its classification as a
neurotoxicant and suggest that its primary effect is likely
to be in the form of acute impairment;
(6) people with higher levels of MTBE in the bloodstream
are significantly more likely to report more headaches, eye
irritation, nausea, dizziness, burning of the nose and
throat, coughing, disorientation, and vomiting as compared
with those who have lower levels of MTBE in the bloodstream;
(7) available information has shown that MTBE significantly
reduces the efficiency of technologies used to remediate
water contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons;
(8) the costs of remediation of MTBE water contamination
throughout the United States could run into the billions of
dollars;
(9) although several studies are being conducted to assess
possible methods to remediate drinking water contaminated by
MTBE, there have been no engineering solutions to make such
remediation cost-efficient and practicable;
(10) the remediation of drinking water contaminated by
MTBE, involving the stripping of millions of gallons of
contaminated ground water, can cost millions of dollars per
municipality;
(11) the average cost of a single industrial cleanup
involving MTBE contamination is approximately $150,000;
[[Page S1087]]
(12) the average cost of a single cleanup involving MTBE
contamination that is conducted by a small business or a
homeowner is approximately $37,000;
(13) the reformulated gasoline program under section 211(k)
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k)) has resulted in
substantial reductions in the emissions of a number of air
pollutants from motor vehicles, including volatile organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, and mobile-source toxic air
pollutants, including benzene;
(14) in assessing oxygenate alternatives, the Blue Ribbon
Panel of the Environmental Protection Agency determined that
ethanol, made from domestic grain and potentially from
recycled biomass, is an effective fuel-blending component
that--
(A) provides carbon monoxide emission benefits and high
octane; and
(B) appears to contribute to the reduction of the use of
aromatics, providing reductions in emissions of toxic air
pollutants and other air quality benefits;
(15) the Department of Agriculture concluded that ethanol
production and distribution could be expanded to meet the
needs of the reformulated gasoline program in 4 years, with
negligible price impacts and no interruptions in supply; and
(16) because the reformulated gasoline program is a source
of clean air benefits, and ethanol is a viable alternative
that provides air quality and economic benefits, research and
development efforts should be directed to assess
infrastructure and meet other challenges necessary to allow
ethanol use to expand sufficiently to meet the requirements
of the reformulated gasoline program as the use of MTBE is
phased out.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
should provide technical assistance, information, and
matching funds to help local communities--
(1) test drinking water supplies; and
(2) remediate drinking water contaminated with methyl
tertiary butyl ether.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Eligible grantee.--The term ``eligible grantee''
means--
(A) a Federal research agency;
(B) a national laboratory;
(C) a college or university or a research foundation
maintained by a college or university;
(D) a private research organization with an established and
demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology
transfer; or
(E) a State environmental research facility.
(3) MTBE.--The term ``MTBE'' means methyl tertiary butyl
ether.
SEC. 4. USE AND LABELING OF MTBE AS A FUEL ADDITIVE.
Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.--
``(1) Prohibition on use.--Effective beginning on the date
that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, a person shall not use methyl tertiary butyl
ether as a fuel additive.
``(2) Labeling of fuel dispensing systems for mtbe.--Any
person selling oxygenated gasoline containing methyl tertiary
butyl ether at retail shall be required under regulations
promulgated by the Administrator to label the fuel dispensing
system with a notice that--
``(A) specifies that the gasoline contains methyl tertiary
butyl ether; and
``(B) provides such other information concerning methyl
tertiary butyl ether as the Administrator determines to be
appropriate.
``(3) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
establish a schedule that provides for an annual phased
reduction in the quantity of methyl tertiary butyl ether that
may be used as a fuel additive during the 3-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON MTBE GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION AND REMEDIATION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a MTBE research
grants program within the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Purpose of grants.--The Administrator may make a grant
under this section to an eligible grantee to pay the Federal
share of the costs of research on--
(A) the development of more cost-effective and accurate
MTBE ground water testing methods;
(B) the development of more efficient and cost-effective
remediation procedures for water sources contaminated with
MTBE; or
(C) the potential effects of MTBE on human health.
(b) Administration.--
(1) In general.--In making grants under this section, the
Administrator shall--
(A) seek and accept proposals for grants;
(B) determine the relevance and merit of proposals;
(C) award grants on the basis of merit, quality, and
relevance to advancing the purposes for which a grant may be
awarded under subsection (a); and
(D) give priority to those proposals the applicants for
which demonstrate the availability of matching funds.
(2) Competitive basis.--A grant under this section shall be
awarded on a competitive basis.
(3) Term.--A grant under this section shall have a term
that does not exceed 4 years.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 266. A bill regarding the use of the trust land and resources of
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise as the original cosponsor of the
Pelton Dam Agreement legislation introduced today by my friend and
colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.
This legislation sanctions an historic agreement, reached on April
12, 2000, between the Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Portland General Electric Company, PGE, and
the United States Department of the Interior (Department). This
agreement is important because it sets a responsible precedent for the
joint ownership and operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric
Project located in Jefferson County, Oregon, on the Deschutes River. It
also provides a model for how the United States, Indian tribes and
private companies can work together to solve contentious issues.
Beginning in the summer of 1998, the Warm Springs and PGE began
negotiations to settle Pelton Dam Project ownership and operation
issues. Approximately one-third of the Project lands are located on the
Warm Springs Reservation. Because of the Department's legal trust
responsibility to the Warm Springs, Department representatives also
participated in the negotiations. On April 12, 2000, Department, Warm
Springs and PGE representatives signed the Long Term Global Settlement
and Compensation Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement creates shared
ownership responsibilities and benefits between PGE and the Warm
Springs for all three Pelton Project dams and facilities located both
on and off the Warm Springs Reservation.
The Warm Springs, PGE and the Department worked with myself and
Senator Smith to carefully craft this legislation to authorize the
Department to sanction the Agreement. This legislation provides Federal
approval for only the aspects of the Agreement that affect tribal
lands, resources, or other tribal assets. Section 2(b)(1) makes it
clear that the legislation does not affect the normal Federal and State
regulatory approvals that would be required for an agreement of this
type. Section 2(b)(2) was included to address a Departmental concern
that this legislation will not be interpreted to mean that legislative
approval of future similar agreements will be necessary. In addition,
this bill authorizes a 99-year leasing authority for the Warm Springs
that is shared by countless other tribes.
This bill is supported by PGE, the Warm Springs Tribe and Jefferson
County.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Smith of
New Hampshire):
S. 267. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, to
make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to
transfer or market nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Downed Animal
Protection Act, a bill to eliminate inhumane and improper treatment of
downed animals at stockyards. Senators Carl Levin, Charles Schumer,
Robert Torricelli, Judd Gregg, Bob Graham, Bob Smith, Harry Reid and
Barbara Boxer have joined me in sponsoring this bill. The legislation
will prohibit the sale or transfer of downed animals unless they have
been humanely euthanized.
Downed animals are severely distressed recumbent animals that are too
sick to rise or move on their own. Once an animal becomes immobile, it
must remain where it has fallen, often without receiving the most basic
assistance. Many of these downed animals
[[Page S1088]]
that survive the stockyard are slaughtered for human consumption.
These animals are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to handle
humanely. They have very demanding needs, and must be fed and watered
individually. The suffering of downed animals is so severe that the
only humane solution to their plight is immediate euthanasia. It is
important to note that downed animals compromise a tiny fraction, less
than one-tenth of one percent, of animals at stockyards. Banning their
sale or transfer would cause no economic hardship.
While I commend the major livestock organizations such as the United
Stockyards Corp., the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the
National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association,
and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, along with
responsible and conscientious livestock producers throughout the
country, for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals, this
lamentable problem still exists. Not only is this suffering inhumane
and unnecessary, it is eroding public confidence in the industry.
The Downed Animal Protection Act will prompt stockyards to refuse
crippled and distressed animals, and will make the prevention of downed
animals a priority for the livestock industry. The bill will complement
and reinforce the industry's effort to address this problem by
encouraging better care of animals at farms and ranches.
The bill will remove the incentive for sending downed animals to
stockyards in the hope of receiving some salvage value for the animals
and would encourage greater care during loading and transport. By
eliminating this incentive, animals with impaired mobility will receive
better treatment in order to prevent them from becoming incapacitated.
In addition, the bill will also discourage improper breeding practices
that account for most downed animals.
My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby
removing any unfair advantages that might result from differing
standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional
bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because
inspectors of the Packers and Stockyard Administration regularly visit
stockyards to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden
on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant.
As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper
treatment of downed animals at stockyards and I encourage my colleagues
to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 267
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 ``Downed Animal Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY
LIVESTOCK.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, 1921, is amended by inserting after section 317 (7
U.S.C. 217a) the following:
``SEC. 318. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING
NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Humanely euthanized.--The term `humanely euthanized'
means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other
means that immediately render the animal unconscious, with
this state remaining until the animal's death.
``(2) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory
livestock' means any livestock that is unable to stand and
walk unassisted.
``(b) Unlawful Practices.--It shall be unlawful for any
stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give,
receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any nonambulatory
livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock has been
humanely euthanized.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) takes
effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue regulations to carry out the amendment.
____________________