[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 73 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5618-S5637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 945. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the recognition of capital gain rule for home offices; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in 1997 Congress made an important change in 
the tax code for small businesses by restoring the home-office 
deduction. That change opened the door for millions of Americans to 
operate successful small businesses from their homes. Now the home-
based financial planner or landscape can use an extra bedroom or a 
basement to conduct her business without the cost of commercial office 
space. In many cases, these home offices also allow today's 
entrepreneurs to spend more time with their family by avoiding the 
added time and expense of day-care and commuting.
  With the restoration of the home-office deduction, however, came a 
significant new complexity for home-based businesses, depreciation 
recapture. If a home-based medical transcriber elects to claim the 
home-office deduction, she will deduct the expenses relating to her 
home office, such as a portion of her home-owners insurance, utilities, 
repairs, and maintenance. She is also entitled to depreciate a portion 
of the cost of her house relating to the home office. But there is a 
big catch. When the home-based business owner sells her home, she must 
recapture all of the depreciation deductions and pay income taxes on 
them, even though her house qualifies for the exclusion from tax for 
the sale of a principal residence.
  The specter of depreciation recapture has several significant 
ramifications. First, it requires additional recordkeeping for home-
based business owners, on top of the enormous burdens that the tax code 
already imposes on a small business. Second, when the home-based 
business owner decides to sell his home, he must struggle with the 
complexities of calculating the depreciation recapture or, as is too 
often the case, he must hire a costly tax professional to undertake the 
calculations and prepare the required tax forms.
  Additionally, the depreciation-recapture requirement creates a 
disincentive for home-based business owners to claim the home-office 
deduction in the first place. In fact, I have heard from accountants 
and tax advisors in my home State of Missouri that they frequently 
advise their clients to forego the home-office deduction simply to 
avoid the recordkeeping and complexities associated with recapturing 
the depreciation. That is clearly not what Congress intended when it 
restored the home-office deduction in 1997.
  In light of this problem, I rise today to introduce the ``Home-Office 
Deduction Simplification Act of 2001.'' This bill simply repeals the 
depreciation-recapture requirement and the disincentive for home-based 
businesses to utilize the home-office deduction. At a time when the 
Nation's small businesses are feeling real pain from the current 
economic slow down, this bill will provide real relief, not only when 
they sell their homes, but today by giving them the benefit of the 
home-office deduction that Congress intended.
  It is my pleasure to be working with Congressman Donald Manzullo, 
Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, to raise this issue 
in both Chambers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this 
legislation and make the home-office deduction as simple and accessible 
as possible. Our home-based businesses across the nation deserve 
nothing less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a description 
of its provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 945

  [Data not available at time of printing.]

   Home-Office Deduction Simplification Act of 2001--Description of 
                               Provisions

  The bill repeals section 121(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. 
Currently, this provision requires individuals who claim depreciation 
deductions with respect to a home-office to recapture such deductions 
upon the sale of their home. As a result, the amount of the recaptured 
depreciation deductions is subject to income taxation without the 
benefit of the income-tax exclusion for the sale of a principal 
residence or the capital-gains tax rates in cases where the exclusion 
does not apply.
  By repealing the depreciation-recapture requirement, the bill 
eliminates the paperwork and compliance burdens that frequently prevent 
home-based business owners from claiming the home-office deduction. The 
bill will be effective for sales or exchanges of homes occurring after 
December 31, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 946. A bill to establish an Office on Women's Health within the 
Department of Health and Human Services; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's 
Health Office Act of 2001 and I am pleased to be joined on this 
legislation by my friends and colleagues Senators Mikulski and Harkin. 
Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by 
Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney.
  The Women's Health Office Act of 2001 provides permanent 
authorization for Offices of Women's Health in five Federal agencies: 
the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS; the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC; the Agency for Health Care 
Research and Quality, AHRQ; the Health Resources and Services 
Administration, HRSA; and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA.
  Currently, only two women's health offices in the Federal Government 
have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health 
at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Office for Women's 
Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, SAMHSA.
  For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly 
understood, and women were systematically excluded from important 
health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined 
hundreds of men. Another federally funded study examined the ability of 
aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom 
were men, despite the fact that heart disease is a leading cause of 
death among women.
  Today, Members of Congress and the American public understand the 
importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical 
research and health care services.
  Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to 
expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's 
access to affordable, quality health services. As cochairs of the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, CCWI, Representative Pat 
Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry Waxman, called for a 
GAO investigation, in the beginning of 1990, into the inclusion of 
women and minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of 
Health.
  This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical 
research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health

[[Page S5619]]

Equity Act, WHEA, in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided 
Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed 
to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical 
research, prevention and services.
  Three years later, Congress enacted legislation mandating the 
inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the 
National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, P.L. 103-43. 
Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing 
the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, language based on my 
original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 101st 
Congress.
  Yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a 
long way to go on women's health care issues. Last May, the GAO 
released a report, a 10-year update, on the status of women's research 
at NIH, ``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research''. 
This report found that since the first GAO report and the 1993 
legislation, NIH had made significant progress toward including women 
as subjects in both intramural and external clinical trials.

  However, the report noted that the Institute had made less progress 
in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be 
designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could 
reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO 
found that NIH researchers would include women in their trials--but 
then they would either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no 
difference was found, they would not publish the sex-based results.
  NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in 
clinical trials and has implemented several changes to improve the 
accuracy and performance for tracking and analyzing data, but our 
commitment to women's health is not about quotas and numbers. It is 
about real scientific advances that will improve our knowledge about 
women's health. At a time when we are on track to double funding for 
NIH, it is troubling that the agency has still failed to fully 
implement both its own guidelines and the Congressional directive for 
sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be shortchanged 
by Federal research efforts.
  The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite that fact 
that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH 
is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing 
the focus on women's health in offices that do not have this 
legislative mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary 
or Agency Director.
  Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are 
charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring 
progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and 
they have been successful in making Federal programs and policies more 
responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good 
work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service 
authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's 
health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health 
research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future 
years.
  Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several 
reasons. First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on 
women's health. Second, it ensures that agencies will enact 
congressional intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that 
appropriations will be available in future years to fulfill these 
commitments.
  By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor 
various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific, 
legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a 
Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize 
which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also 
provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies, 
and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will 
ensure the presence of offices dedicated to addressing the ongoing 
needs and gaps in research, policy, programs, education and training in 
women's health.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Harkin, and me in 
supporting this legislation to help ensure that women's health will 
never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Snowe and Senator 
Harkin to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2001. I am pleased 
to introduce this bill with my colleagues because it establishes an 
important framework to address women's health within the Department of 
Health and Human Services, HHS.
  Historically, women's health needs have been ignored or inadequately 
addressed by the medical establishment and the government. A 1990 
General Accounting Office, GAO, report stated that: the National 
Institutes of Health, NIH, had made little progress in implementing its 
own inclusion policy on women's participation in clinical trials, NIH 
inconsistently applied this policy, and NIH had done little to 
implement analysis of research findings by gender. This was 
unacceptable. Women make up half or more of the population and must be 
adequately included in clinical research. That's why I fought to 
establish the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH, at the NIH 11 
years ago. We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical 
research, so that we would know how treatments for a particular disease 
or condition would affect women. Would men and women react the same way 
to a particular treatment for heart disease? We can't answer this 
question unless both men and women are being included in clinical 
trials.
  While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it 
stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission, 
part of which is to ensure that women are included in clinical 
research. That's why I authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to 
formally establish the ORWH in the Office of the Director of NIH. These 
provisions were later enacted into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 
1993.
  In 1999, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO 
examine how well the NIH and the ORWH were carrying out the mandates 
under the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While 
NIH had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in 
clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the 
analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being 
included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the 
benefits of inclusion if the analysis of how interventions affect men 
and women is not being done or not being reported. While the NIH and 
others are taking steps to address this, we may be missing information 
from research done over the last few years about how the outcomes 
varied or not for men and women.
  NIH is but one agency in HHS. Other agencies in HHS do not even have 
women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing women's 
health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, SAMHSA, have authorizations in law for offices 
dedicated to women's health. In 1993, I requested language that 
accompanied the Fiscal Year 1994 Senate Labor, Health and Human 
Services Appropriations bill and the Agriculture Appropriations bill to 
establish and provide funding for Offices of Women's Health in the 
Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the Food and Drug 
Administration, FDA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, 
HRSA, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR, now 
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ. Today, there are 
offices of women's health in HHS, FDA, CDC, and HRSA. AHRQ has a 
women's health advisor. These offices and advisors are important 
advocates within the agency for women's health research, programs, and 
activities. A recent HHS report to Congress describes their roles, 
responsibilities, and future plans. The degree of support for these 
offices, in terms of staff and financial resources, varies widely 
across HHS. This can mean inadequate and inconsistent attention to 
women's health needs within an agency.
  I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address 
the

[[Page S5620]]

needs of women's health in the HHS. This bill would do just that. The 
Women's Health Office Act of 2001 would authorize women's health 
offices in HHS, CDC, FDA, AHRQ, and HRSA.
  This legislation establishes an important framework and builds on 
existing efforts. Under the bill, the HHS Office on Women's Health 
would take over all functions which previously belonged to the current 
Office of Women's Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office 
would be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who 
would also chair an HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Health. The 
responsibilities of the HHS Office would include establishing short and 
long-term goals, advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health 
issues, monitoring and facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS 
activities on women's health, establishing a National Women's Health 
Information Center to facilitate exchange of and access to women's 
health information, and coordinating private sector efforts to promote 
women's health.
  Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA, 
HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency 
and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective 
agency. Responsibilities of the offices include: an examination of 
current women's health activities, the establishment of short-term and 
long-term goals for women's health, the coordination of women's health 
activities, and the establishment of a coordinating committee on 
women's health within each agency to identify women's health needs and 
make recommendations to the head of the agency. The FDA office would 
also have specific duties regarding women and clinical trials. The 
director of each office would serve on HHS's Coordinating Committee on 
Women's Health. The bill authorizes appropriations for all the offices 
through 2006.
  I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent 
framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and 
Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research 
will continue to have the attention and resources it needs in the 
coming years. This bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research 
Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of academic medical, health and 
scientific institutions, as well as other organizations interested in 
and supportive of women's health research. The Women's Research and 
Education Institute recently released a list of 15 high-impact actions 
Congress could take to improve the health of midlife women, including 
the establishment of permanent offices of women's health at HHS and 
related federal agencies. This bill is supported by over 45 other 
organizations including the YWCA, the Society for Women's Health 
Research, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Hadassah, 
and the American Physical Therapy Association. I encourage my 
colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation, and I 
ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            Women's Health Research Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2001.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: As organizations representing 
     millions of patients, health care professionals, advocates 
     and consumers, we thank you for your leadership in 
     introducing the ``Women's Health Office Act of 2001.'' We 
     enthusiastically support this legislation and look forward to 
     its passage.
       Historically, women's health has not been a focus of study 
     nor has there been adequate recognition of the ways in which 
     medical conditions solely or differently affect women and 
     girls. In the decade since attention began to focus on 
     disparities between the genders, scientific knowledge has 
     accumulated alerting us to the importance of considering the 
     biological and psychosocial effects of sex and gender on 
     health and disease.
       We support the work of the offices of women's health in 
     ensuring that women and girls benefit equitably in the 
     advances made in medical research and health care services. 
     The legislation will provide for the continued existence, 
     coordination and support of these offices so that they 
     analyze new areas of research, education, prevention, 
     treatment and service delivery.
       We appreciate your firm commitment to improving the health 
     of women throughout the nation.
           Sincerely,
       Women's Health Research Coalition; Society for Women's 
     Health Research; American Association of University Women; 
     American Medical Women's Association; American Osteopathic 
     Association; American Physical Therapy Association; American 
     Psychological Association; American Urological Association; 
     Association for Women in Science; Association of Women 
     Psychiatrists; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and 
     Neonatal Nurses; Center for Ethics in Action.
       Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Center for Women 
     Policy Studies, Church Women United, Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women, General Board of Church and Society, the United 
     Methodist Church; Girls Incorporated; Hadassah; Jewish 
     Women's Coalition, Inc.; McAuley Institute; National Abortion 
     Federation; National Association of Commissions for Women; 
     National Center on Women and Aging; National Coalition 
     Against Domestic Violence; National Council of Jewish Women; 
     National Organization for Women; National Partnership for 
     Women and Families; National Women's Health Network; National 
     Women's Health Resource Center; National Women's Law Center; 
     NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       Organization of Chinese American Women; OWL; Religious 
     Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Society for Gynecologic 
     Investigation; Soroptimist International of the Americas; The 
     General Federation of Women's Clubs, The Woman Activist Fund, 
     Inc.; Voters for Choice Action Fund; Women Employed; Women 
     Heart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease; 
     Women Work!; Women's Business Development Center; Women's 
     Health Fund at University of Minnesota; Women's Institute for 
     Freedom of the Press; Women's Research and Education 
     Institute; YWCA of the U.S.A.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Inhofe):
       S. 947. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the 
     Governor of a State to waive the oxygen content requirements 
     for reformulated gasoline and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
James Inhofe of Oklahoma today in introducing a bill to allow the 
governor of a State to waive the oxygenate content requirement for 
reformulated or clean-burning gasoline. The bill retains all other 
provisions of the Clean Air Act to ensure that there is no backsliding 
on air quality.
  We introduce this bill to address the widespread contamination of 
drinking water by MTBE in California and at least 41 other States.
  On April 12, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis asked Carol 
Browner, who was the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, for a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. I have 
written and called former Administrator Browner and the current 
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and both former President Clinton 
and President Bush, urging approval of the waiver. And we are still 
waiting. It has been two years.
  Today, yet again I call on EPA and the Administration to act. In the 
meantime, I will push Congress to act.
  MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, has been the oxygenate of choice 
by many refiners in their effort to comply with the Clean Air Act's 
reformulated gasoline requirements. California Governor Davis has 
ordered a phase-out in our State, but the Federal law requiring two 
percent oxygenates remains, putting our State in an untenable position.
  This is because the most likely substitute for MTBE to meet the two 
percent requirement is ethanol, but there is not a sufficient supply of 
ethanol to meet the demand in California and the rest of the country 
with the two percent law in place.
  With inadequate supplies, we can expect disruptions and price spikes 
during the peak driving months of this summer, at a time when there are 
predictions that retail gasoline prices may climb to an unprecedented 
$3.00 per gallon or more.
  The California Energy Commission reports that without relief from the 
two percent oxygenate mandate, California consumers will pay 3 to 6 
cents more per gallon than they need to. This adds up to $450 million a 
year.
  The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated 
gasoline, RFG, be sold in so-called ``non-attainment'' areas with the 
worst violations of ozone standards: Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, 
New York Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, 
Sacramento. In addition, some States and areas have opted to use 
reformulated gasoline as way to achieve clean air.
  Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated gasoline, 
including

[[Page S5621]]

the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 2.0 percent oxygen, 
by weight.
  In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE 
in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. But, there is a 
problem: increasingly, MTBE is being detected in drinking water. MTBE 
is a known animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, according 
to U.S. EPA. It has a very unpleasant odor and taste, as well.
  The Feinstein-Inhofe bill would allow governors, upon notification to 
U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0 percent oxygenate requirement, as long as 
the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for reformulated 
gasoline.
  On July 27th, 1999, the non-partisan, broad-based U.S. EPA Blue 
Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the two percent 
oxygenate requirement be ``removed in order to provide flexibility to 
blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-effective manner while quickly 
reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.''
  In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of MTBE should be 
reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel recommended that 
``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state authority to 
regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that pose a 
threat to drinking water supplies.''
  The bill we are introducing today, while not totally repealing the 
two percent oxygenate requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives 
States that choose to meet Clean Air requirements without oxygenates 
the option to do so. It allows States that choose an oxygenate, such as 
ethanol, to do so. Areas required to use reformulated gasoline for 
cleaner air will still be required to use it. The gasoline will have a 
different but clean formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet 
clean air standards.
  MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California, 
according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 sites 
groundwater sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, according to the State 
Department of Health Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled, 
287, 38 percent, had MTBE.
  Nationally, one EPA-funded study of 34 States found that MTBE was 
present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 of the States. A U.S. 
Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999 
Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that at least 41 
states have had MTBE detections in water.
  In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a 
significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE 
be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a 
sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE 
in California, without huge gasoline supply disruptions and price 
spikes.
  In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without 
oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of 
having to meet a federal requirement that is 1. contaminating the water 
and 2. is not necessary to achieve clean air.
  A major University of California study concluded that MTBE provides 
``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its use poses ``the 
potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially 
ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not necessary 
for reformulated gasoline.
  California has developed a gasoline formula that provides flexibility 
and provides clean air. Refiners use an approach called the 
``predictive model,'' which guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with 
oxygenates, with less than two percent oxygenates, and with no 
oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron and Tosco, are selling 
MTBE-free gas in California, for example.
  Under this bill, clean air standards would still have to be met and 
gasoline would have to meet all other requirements of the federal 
reformulated gasoline program, including the limits on benzene, heavy 
metals, and the emission of nitrogen oxides.
  This bill will give California and other States the relief they need 
from an unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will give state 
officials flexibility to determine whether to use oxygenates in their 
gasoline. The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not 
degrade air quality.
  The two percent oxygenate requirement creates an unnecessary federal 
``recipe'' for gasoline. It causes contamination of groundwater. It 
adds to the price of gasoline unnecessarily, and it will probably 
trigger disruptions in gasoline supplies this summer.
  I call on this Congress to enact this legislation promptly. 
Californians do not need to have MTBE -laced drinking water to enjoy 
the benefits of cleaner air. It is that simple.
  I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Sacramento Bee 
describing the MTBE problem in California be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Sacramento Bee, Apr. 23, 2001]

      Remember MTBE?--Political Inattention May Fuel Price Spikes

       It was a poison brew that sent California into an 
     electricity swoon: rising demand, stagnant supplies and 
     missed political opportunities. Unfortunately, President Bush 
     may be about to stir up virtually the same potion with 
     another source of energy, gasoline. Like the electricity 
     crunch, this gasoline problem can be averted with timely 
     political action.
       Under federal law, gasoline in dirty air basins must 
     contain an additive known as an oxygenate. These additives 
     produce cleaner-burning fuel. The primary additive in 
     California is the infamous MTBE; a byproduct of the refinery 
     process. It can cause drinking water to smell like turpentine 
     at minute concentrations, so the state plans to phase out 
     MTBE by the end of 2002.
       Refiners say that can produce clean-burning gasoline 
     without an oxygenate but farm politics has kept the 
     requirement in law. For now, the only alternative to MTBE is 
     ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains.
       That threatens California with the kind of imbalance 
     between supply and demand that could push up gasoline prices.
       Switching from MTBE to ethanol as the additive of choice in 
     California would increase the nation's consumption of ethanol 
     by perhaps 800 million gallons a year. This represents about 
     a 50 percent jump in demand. California produces only 9 
     million gallons of ethanol a year. That means that the folks 
     who produce ethanol, who are concentrated in Iowa, may be 
     able to extort California with the same vigor as Texas-based 
     electricity marketers.
       The seeds of this crisis were planted in some revisions of 
     the federal Clean Air Act, which combined the laudable goal 
     of cleaning up the skies with some unwise restrictions on the 
     legal recipes for fuel. Gov. Gray Davis has been asking for 
     federal government to waive this mandated recipe for the 
     fuel, letting the state meet its air-quality goals in a less 
     expensive way.
       Yet with its seven precious electoral votes at stake, Iowa 
     made ethanol a litmus test for any and all presidential 
     candidates, and candidates Bush, like most others, said he 
     would stick to the recipe for gas that favors ethanol.
       Is this now the policy of President Bush as well? Bush must 
     say something, and soon.
       Ideally, he should use his administrative powers to waive 
     the oxygenate mandate and let various fuel recipes compete on 
     their costs and air-quality benefits. But he must say 
     something. His silence is preventing companies from building 
     ethanol (which could be produced from corn kernels or rise 
     straw) plants in California, if that is what must be done to 
     replace MTBE.
       California can't afford the uncertainty on gasoline any 
     more than it can afford uncertainty about whether power 
     plants can be built. For a president who preaches the gospel 
     of sending clear signals to markets, Bush's silence on MTBE 
     and ethanol is an expensive sin.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 948. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Transportation to carry out a grant program for providing 
financial assistance for local rail line relocation projects, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the history of the geographic expansion of 
our great Nation is closely tied to the development of our network of 
railroad lines. Cities and towns sprang up and grew around the railroad 
tracks that provided transportation vital to their survival and 
economic future. While the development of modern automobiles, trucks 
and airplanes have provided alternate forms of transportation, 
railroads still fulfill important cargo and passenger transportation 
requirements across the Nation.
  However, in many cities and towns across our country, the increased 
need for motor vehicle transportation, and the road infrastructure to 
facilitate it, have led to increasing conflicts between railroads, 
motor vehicles, and people for the use of limited, and increasingly 
congested, space in downtown areas. Highway-rail grade crossings, even 
properly marked and gated

[[Page S5622]]

ones, increase the risk of fatal accidents. Many rail lines cut 
downtown areas in half while serving few, if any, rail customers in the 
downtown area. Heavy rail traffic can cut off one side of a town to 
vital emergency services, including fire, police, ambulance, and 
hospital services. Downtown rail corridors can hamper economic 
development by restricting access to bisected areas.
  This situation is not the fault of the railroads. They own and have 
invested heavily to maintain their existing rail lines. These conflicts 
are due to economic and technological changes that occur faster and 
more easily than railroads can economically adjust. In 1998, the 
Congress enacted a landmark surface transportation bill, called TEA-21. 
While TEA-21 provides some flexibility in the use of the Highway Trust 
Fund to enable States to address some of these concerns, it is 
primarily focused on solving transportation problems by building or 
modifying roads, including road overpasses and underpasses, as it 
should be. However, in many situations, this highway-rail conflict can 
not, or should not, be fixed by cutting off or modifying a roadway. The 
answer is often to relocate the rail line. I know of at least five such 
situations in my home State of Mississippi, so there must be many more 
in other States.
  To address this need, I, along with Senator Kerry, today introduce 
the Community Rail Line Relocation Assistance Act of 2001. The bill 
would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to 
States or communities to pay for the costs of relocating a rail line 
where this solution makes the most sense. In those cases where the best 
solution is to build a railroad tunnel, underpass, or overpass, or even 
reroute the rail line around the downtown area, this bill will enable 
these cities and towns to afford to undertake such a significant 
infrastructure project.
  Our bill would authorize grants to fund rail line relocation projects 
that: (1) mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor 
vehicle traffic flow, or economic development; (2) involve a lateral or 
vertical relocation of the rail line in lieu of the closing of a grade 
crossing or the relocation of a road; and (3) provide at least as much 
benefit over the economic life of the project as the cost of the 
project. The DOT would fund 90 percent of the cost of these rail line 
relocation projects out of the general fund of the Treasury. The State 
or local government would be required to pay the remaining 10 percent, 
but would be allowed to cover this cost through appropriate in-kind 
contributions or dedicated private contributions.
  In awarding these grants, the Secretary of Transportation would have 
to consider: (1) the ability of the State or community to fund the 
project without Federal assistance; (2) the equitable treatment of 
various regions of the country; (3) that at least 50 percent of the 
available funding be spent on projects costing less than $50 million; 
and (4) that not more than 25 percent of the available funding may be 
spent on any single project. The bill would authorize $250 million in 
grants during the first year, and $500 million over each of the 
following five years.
  I understand that some may ask ``why don't the railroads pay for 
these relocation costs?'' As I noted earlier, the railroad has the 
right of way and has no legal obligation to move. However, I know the 
railroads to be concerned about maintaining good relations with the 
communities they serve and pass through. They want to cooperate in 
solving this problem. That is why the Association of American Railroads 
and the Short Line and Regional Railroad Association support this bill. 
The bill is also supported by the Railway Progress Institute and the 
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association. This 
proposal has been enthusiastically received by several State and local 
government associations, and I hope to have their endorsements of the 
bill soon. I ask my Senate colleagues to review the needs of their own 
States and support this bill and 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. 948

  [Data not available at time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 949. A bill for the relief of Zhenfu Ge; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today, 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Zhenfu Ge. 
Mrs. Ge is the grandmother of two U.S. citizen children who face the 
devastation of being separated from their grandmother after losing 
their mother just last month.
  Mrs. Ge came to the United States in 1998 to help care for her two 
grandchildren while her U.S. citizen daughter Yanyu Wang and her son-
in-law John Marks worked. Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Ge's daughter filed 
an immigration petition on her behalf. She was scheduled for an April 
26 Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, interview, which is the 
last step in the green card process. The family anticipated that the 
interview would result in Mrs. Ge's gaining a green card.
  In a tragic turn of events, Mrs. Ge's daughter was diagnosed with a 
rare and deadly form of lymphoma and given only 7 months to live. As 
Mrs. Wang's health quickly declined, she asked her mother to care for 
her 3-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son after her death. Mrs. Ge 
promised her daughter she would care for her grandchildren and quickly 
became the most active maternal figure in their lives.
  On April 15 of this year, 11 days before Mrs. Ge's scheduled INS 
interview, her daughter died. Because current law does not allow Mrs. 
Ge to adjust her status without her daughter, Mrs. Ge now faces 
deportation.
  This family has certainly felt the pain of a significant tragedy. 
With the death of Yanyu Wang, her family must begin to rebuild their 
lives and face a future without their loved one. Losing a grandmother 
to deportation will only further the grief and compromise the emotional 
health of her two young grandchildren, who are still mourning the loss 
of their mother. According to her son-in-law, John Mark, Mrs. Ge 
``represents continuity and a tie to their mother for our children, and 
her presence will allow me to continue to successfully support my 
family.
  Mrs. Ge has done everything she could to become a permanent resident 
of this country. But for the tragedy of her daughter's untimely death, 
she likely would have attained that status.
  I hope my colleagues will support this private legislation so that we 
can help Mrs. Ge, her grandchildren, and son-in-law begin to rebuild 
their lives in the wake of their family tragedy and allow Mrs. Ge to 
keep the promise she made to her daughter.
  I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Marks 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 949

  [Data not available at time of printing.]


                                                Sausalito, CA,

                                                   April 19, 2001.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I write to appeal for your help in 
     an exceptional immigration case regarding my mother-in-law, 
     Zhenfu Ge (United States Immigration & Naturalization Service 
     reference #A78192014.)
       Mrs. Ge came to the United States from her native Shanghai, 
     China in 1998 after our daughter was born. The purpose of her 
     immigration was to care for our infant and for our nine-year-
     old son to enable my wife and me to work. I have lived in 
     California most of my life and I work for Kaiser Permanente 
     in San Rafael; my wife, Yanyu Wang, was a research scientist 
     for Onyx Pharmaceuticals in Richmond, and a naturalized 
     citizen of the United States.
       We had applied for naturalization for Mrs. Ge to allow her 
     to remain in the United States to care for her grandchildren 
     indefinitely. We had every expectation that the INS hearing 
     set for April 26 (see correspondence enclosed) would result 
     in the successful completion of her application.
       My wife had learned that she was suffering from lymphoma in 
     1999. Unfortunately, despite every possible medical 
     intervention, she died on April 15, eleven days before her 
     mother's hearing for naturalization. We are advised by our 
     attorney that absent her daughter, Mrs. Ge's case will be 
     dismissed out-of-hand, and she will be forced to return to 
     China.
       I hope you will agree that Mrs. Ge's presence in our family 
     is even more important following the death of my wife. She is 
     the

[[Page S5623]]

     only maternal figure for our children, she represents 
     continuity and a tie to their mother for our children, and 
     her presence will allow me to continue to successfully 
     support my family notwithstanding the reduction of our income 
     to a single salary.
       Before she died, my wife implored her mother to do 
     everything possible to remain in the United States to ensure 
     that our children would be raised with her care and love. I 
     ask for your help in enabling this to happen.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                        John Mark.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 950. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to address problems 
concerning methyl tertiary butyl ether, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, by now everyone knows of 
the damage that the gasoline additive, MTBE, has done to our nation's 
drinking water supply, including in the state of New Hampshire. MTBE 
has been a component of our fuel supply for two decades. In 1990, the 
Clean Air Act was amended to include a clean gasoline program. That 
program mandated the use of an oxygenate in our fuel, MTBE was one of 
two options to be used. The problem with MTBE is its ability to migrate 
through the ground very quickly and into the water table. Several 
states have had gasoline leaks or spills lead to the closure of wells 
because of MTBE. MTBE is not a proven carcinogen, but its smell and 
taste does render water unusable. Many homes in New Hampshire and 
across the nation have lost use of their water supply because of MTBE 
contamination.
  Today I am introducing a bill with my friend Senator Reid, who is the 
Ranking Member on the committee that I chair, the Environment & Public 
Works Committee. This bill addresses the problems associated with MTBE, 
but will not reduce any environmental benefits of the Clean Air 
program. Briefly, this bill will: Authorize $400 million out of the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST Fund) to help the states 
clean up MTBE contamination, address the integrity of Underground 
Storage Tanks and the program; Ban MTBE four years after enactment of 
this bill; Allow Governors to waive the gasoline oxygenate requirement 
of the Clean Air Act; Preserve environmental benefits on air toxics, 
and; Provide funds to help transition from MTBE to other clean, safe 
fuels.
  The funding for cleanup and transition is provided out of a sense of 
fairness. Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be 
irresponsible for the Federal Government not to bear some of the 
financial burden associated with the clean up and the transition to a 
less destructive alternative fuel.
  This is a very complex issue that the Environment and Public Works 
Committee has struggled with for months. It has always been my intent 
to craft a solution that was direct and balanced. There are many 
competing interests and a number of solutions have been offered. Most 
of the competing interests are based on regional differences and 
preferences.
  Some prefer a simple ban of MTBE, this approach would make gas 
dramatically more expansive and more dirty. Some would like a stand 
alone mandate of Ethanol, that too has many problems associated with 
it. Ethanol would bring with it both cost and smog concerns, 
particularly in states like New Hampshire. Simply eliminating the RFG 
mandate does not work either. Under this scenario, MTBE would continue 
to be used and wells would continue to be contaminated.
  I am also very pleased that this bill is consistent with the 
President's National Energy Policy because it will reduce the intra-
regional patchwork of what are known as ``boutique'' fuels. This bill 
will allow for the use of one fuel blend to meet RFG requirement in 
many regions that currently require multiple boutique fuels. This will 
ease the burden on refineries and fuel supply, which in turn will 
reduce the risk of increased gas prices for the consumer. The fuel 
suppliers recognize this benefit and I am very pleased that this bill 
has the support of the American Petroleum Institute. While they have 
raised some minor technical concerns that I am committed to addressing 
prior to passage, I am pleased to have their support.
  I believe that this bill provides for a workable solution to both our 
MTBE problem as well as addressing the ``boutique'' fuels problems in 
this country. We will clean up our nation's drinking water and preserve 
the environmental benefits of RFG without undue added cost to the 
consumers. I am convinced this is the right approach.
  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. 950

  [Data not available at time of printing.]
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from 
New Hampshire, the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, in introducing legislation to address the water resource 
problems that have been caused in Lake Tahoe and around the country by 
MTBE contamination.
  As my colleagues may know, the oxygenate requirement that Congress 
included in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for certain nonattainment 
areas was met by most fuel providers and refiners with significantly 
increased production of MTBE. While this additive has proven beneficial 
in meeting air quality goals and reducing toxic air pollution, its 
enhanced production and usage has led to major drinking and surface 
water contamination, largely because of leaking underground storage 
tanks, spills and watercraft releases.
  Our bill seeks to deal with the MTBE problem and prevent such 
unintended consequences from occurring again, while still protecting 
air and water quality. This measure embodies several of the major 
recommendations of the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in 
Gasoline.
  We are proposing to significantly enhance state authority and 
resources to deal with remediation of MTBE releases from leaking 
underground storage tanks, and to improve compliance and prevent 
additional releases at these sources. Four years after enactment, MTBE 
would be banned from the fuel supply. The bill would amend the Clean 
Air Act to ensure that additives added to the fuel supply in the future 
undergo regular testing and review of public health and water quality 
impacts.
  Our legislation allows Governors to waive out of the oxygenate 
requirement imposed by the Act's reformulated gasoline, RFG provisions 
and, for the RFG areas in those states, refiners and fuel providers 
would have to ensure that there would be continued overcompliance with 
toxics reductions performance standards based on regional averages. In 
recognition of the industry investments made to comply with the 
oxygenate requirement, the bill authorizes grants to American companies 
making MTBE for domestic consumption in RFG areas if they opt to 
convert to production of replacement additives that do not degrade 
water quality, as well as continuing to improve public health and air 
quality. Finally, the bill allows the EPA to improve on its mobile 
source toxics rule and afford better protection to more sensitive and 
exposed populations from these harmful substances.
  This is a sensible bill that prevents backsliding on air quality and 
is designed to improve water resource protection. I am hopeful that the 
Committee and Congress will be able to act swiftly to resolve the MTBE 
problems facing so many communities across the nation and in Nevada.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lott, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 951. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2001.
  The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation. 
Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000 
lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 mariners 
in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an

[[Page S5624]]

extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects 
thousands of other people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial 
fishing activities, and recreational boating.
  The Coast Guard enforces Federal laws and treaties related to the 
high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and 
pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, the Coast Guard 
provides a critical component of the nation's defense strategy. The 
Coast Guard has joined with the Navy under the National Fleet Policy 
Statement to integrate their complementary offshore assets and enhance 
our national defense.
  The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 was enacted on November 13, 
1992 and authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. Last 
year, I spend a considerable amount of time trying to enact meaningful 
legislation to reauthorize the Coast Guard. To that end, the Commerce 
Committee and the Senate unanimously passed the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2000 in July of 2000. Unfortunately, final 
enactment of the bill was derailed by one provision that had nothing to 
do with the Coast Guard itself and was outside the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. As a result, the dedicated and 
hard-working men and women in uniform were penalized.
  The Coast Guard deserves more. By introducing the Coast Guard bill 
today, I intend to give them my full support, and I hope my colleagues 
will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the support that they 
have so clearly earned.
  For the second year in a row, the Coast Guard has announced that it 
will reduce routine non-emergency operations by at least 10 percent. 
The Administration's Budget request for fiscal year 2002 would leave 
the Coast Guard $250 million short in critical operating funds. This 
shortfall will necessitate operations cutbacks to include 
decommissioning ships and aircraft. The budget authorized in this bill 
would restore those funding shortfalls and prevent the need for 
operational cutbacks.
  The bill my colleagues and I introduce today authorizes funding and 
personnel levels for the Coast Guard in fiscal years 2000 through 2002. 
The bill authorizes funding for FY 2002 at $5.2 billion. This 
represents a 9.3 percent increase over the levels contained in last 
year's Senate-passed bill authorization and a 14 percent increase over 
the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The bill also contains 
several provisions to provide greater flexibility on personnel 
management matters and critical readiness concerns within the Coast 
Guard.
  The Coast Guard bill contains a new initiative on fishing vessel 
safety training. Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous 
professions in the United States. Over the last three years, over two 
hundred fishermen have died at sea and even more fishing vessels have 
been lost. Last year, the Maine fleet tragically lost ten fishermen. 
This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to work with and support local 
organizations that promote or provide fishing vessel safety training. 
Under this proposal, active duty Coast Guard personnel, Coast Guard 
Reserve, and members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary could serve as 
instructors for training and safety courses; assist in the development 
of curricula; and participate in relevant advisory panels. This new 
initiative allows discretionary participation by the agency on a not-
to-interfere basic with other Congressionally mandated missions.
  A major part of the Coast Guard's law enforcement mission remains 
interdicting illegal narcotics at sea. In 2000, the Coast Guard seized 
56 vessels and arrested 201 suspects transporting illegal narcotics 
headed for our shores. The U.S. Coast Guard set a cocaine seizure 
record for the second consecutive year by stopping 132,920 pounds of 
cocaine from reaching American streets, playgrounds, and schools. The 
Coast Guard also seized 50,463 pounds of marijuana products, including 
hashish and hashish oil. At $4.4 billion, the street value of the drugs 
seized last year nearly matched the entire Coast Guard budget.
  In 2000, the Cost Guard also introduced the highly successful 
Operation New Frontier force package, including specially armed 
helicopters, over-the-horizon pursuit boats, and the use of non-lethal 
tools to stop go-fast type smuggling boats. Operation New Frontier 
forces documented an unprecedented 100 percent success rate by seizing 
all six of the go-fast trafficking boats detected.
  This bill provides funding to maintain many of the new drug 
interdiction initiatives of the past few years. The Coast Guard has 
proven time and again its ability to efficiently stem the tide of drugs 
entering our nation through water routes.
  The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for preventing and 
responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It 
responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year. 
The recent oil spill in the fragile Galapagos Islands is an example 
where our investment in the Coast Guard reaped international rewards. 
Within 24 hours of the spill, a team of Coast Guard oil spill 
professionals were on transport aircraft en route to the spill scene 
with cleanup equipment. Their presence limited the ecological damage of 
this potentially horrific environmental tragedy.
  One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking 
services. The FY 2000 budget request included a proposal to 
decommission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital 
icebreaking services throughout the Great Lakes and northeastern 
states, including my home state of Maine. While I understand that the 
age of this vessel class may require some action by the agency, it 
would be premature to decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard 
has identified a means to assure their domestic icebreaking mission 
requirements are fulfilled. The Coast Guard has identified seven 
waterways within Maine that would suffer a meaningful degradation of 
service if these tugs were decommissioned. These waterways provide 
transport routes for oil tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo 
ships. The costs would be excessive to the local communities should 
that means of transport be cut off. As we have seen during recent 
winters, ready access to home heating fuel in Maine and elsewhere in 
the Northeast is a necessity. As such, the bill I am introducing today 
includes a measure that would prevent the Cost Guard from removing 
these tugs from service unless adequate replacement assets are in 
place.
  Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a 
force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. 
Of the 39 worldwide naval fleets, the United States Coast Guard has the 
37th oldest fleet of ships and aircraft. This year the Coast Guard will 
embark on a major recapitalization for the ships and aircraft designed 
to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System 
acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast 
Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the ``system-of-
systems'' procurement strategy the Coast Guard has proposed. This bill 
authorized funding for the first year of this critical long-term 
recapitalization program.
  This is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce 
Committee. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in 
sponsoring this bill. I know that my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, 
McCain, Hollings, Breaux, Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine, also look 
forward to moving the bill to the Senate floor at the earliest 
opportunity.
  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. 951

       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 ``Coast Guard Authorization 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.
Sec. 103. LORAN-C.
Sec. 104. Patrol craft.
Sec. 105. Caribbean support tender.

                     TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Sec. 201. Coast Guard band director rank.

[[Page S5625]]

Sec. 202. Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of Governors.
Sec. 203. Compensatory absence for isolated duty.
Sec. 204. Suspension of retired pay of Coast Guard members who are 
              absent from the United States to avoid prosecution.
Sec. 205. Extension of Coast Guard housing authorities.
Sec. 206. Accelerated promotion of certain Coast Guard officers.
Sec. 207. Regular lieutenant commanders and commanders; continuation on 
              failure of selection for promotion.
Sec. 208. Reserve officer promotion
Sec. 209. Reserve Student Pre-Commissioning Assistance Program.

                        TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY

Sec. 301. Extension of Territorial Sea for Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge 
              Radiotelephone Act.
Sec. 302. Icebreaking services.
Sec. 303. Modification of various reporting requirements.
Sec. 304. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; emergency fund borrowing 
              authority.
Sec. 305. Merchant mariner documentation requirements.
Sec. 306. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe 
              operation.
Sec. 307. Fishing vessel safety training.
Sec. 308. Extend time for recreational vessel and associated equipment 
              recalls.

                  TITLE IV--RENEWAL OF ADVISORY GROUPS

Sec. 401. Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory Committee.
Sec. 402. Houston-Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee.
Sec. 403. Lower Mississippi River Waterway Advisory Committee.
Sec. 404. Navigation Safety Advisory Council.
Sec. 405. National Boating Safety Advisory Council.
Sec. 406. Towing Safety Advisory Committee.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Modernization of national distress and response system.
Sec. 502. Conveyance of Coast Guard property in Portland, Maine.
Sec. 503. Harbor safety committees.
Sec. 504. Limitation of liability of pilots at Coast Guard Vessel 
              Traffic Services.

                      TITLE VI--JONES ACT WAIVERS

Sec. 601. Repeal of special authority to revoke endorsements.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2000.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000 the following amounts:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,853,000,000, of which $300,000,000 shall be available for 
     defense-related activities and of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $999,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine 
     safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws 
     and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and 
     defense readiness, $19,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $730,327,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operations and maintenance), $17,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $15,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (b) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2001 the following amounts:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $3,483,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $428,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine 
     safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws 
     and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and 
     defense readiness, $21,320,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $868,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operations and maintenance), $16,700,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $15,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (c) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002.--Funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $3,633,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $660,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine 
     safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws 
     and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and 
     defense readiness, $22,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $876,350,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operations and maintenance), $17,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $15,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2000.--The Coast 
     Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty 
     personnel of 40,000 as of September 30, 2000.
       (b) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2000.--For 
     fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard is authorized average 
     military training student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 100 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 1,000 student years.
       (c) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2001.--The Coast 
     Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty 
     personnel of 44,000 as of September 30, 2001.
       (d) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2001.--For 
     fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard is authorized average 
     military training student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 125 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 1,000 student years.
       (e) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2002.--The Coast 
     Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength of active duty 
     personnel of 45,500 as of September 30, 2002.
       (f) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2002.--For 
     fiscal year 2002, the Coast Guard is authorized average 
     military training student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.

[[Page S5626]]

        (2) For flight training, 125 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 1,050 student years.

     SEC. 103. LORAN-C.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Transportation, in addition to funds 
     authorized for the Coast Guard for operation of the LORAN-C 
     system, for capital expenses related to LORAN-C navigation 
     infrastructure, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The 
     Secretary of Transportation may transfer from the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and other agencies of the department 
     funds appropriated as authorized under this section in order 
     to reimburse the Coast Guard for related expenses.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2002.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Transportation, in addition 
     to funds authorized for the Coast Guard for operation of the 
     LORAN-C system, for capital expenses related to LORAN-C 
     navigation infrastructure, $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. 
     The Secretary of Transportation may transfer from the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and other agencies of the department 
     funds appropriated as authorized under this section in order 
     to reimburse the Coast Guard for related expenses.

     SEC. 104. PATROL CRAFT.

       (a) Transfer of Craft From DOD.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may accept, 
     by direct transfer without cost, for use by the Coast Guard 
     primarily for expanded drug interdiction activities required 
     to meet national supply reduction performance goals, up to 7 
     PC-170 patrol craft from the Department of Defense if it 
     offers to transfer such craft.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Coast Guard, in addition to amounts 
     otherwise authorized by this Act, up to $100,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for the conversion of, 
     operation and maintenance of, personnel to operate and 
     support, and shoreside infrastructure requirements for, up to 
     7 patrol craft.

     SEC. 105. CARIBBEAN SUPPORT TENDER.

       The Coast Guard is authorized to operate and maintain a 
     Caribbean Support Tender (or similar type vessel) to provide 
     technical assistance, including law enforcement training, for 
     foreign coast guards, navies, and other maritime services.

                     TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 201. COAST GUARD BAND DIRECTOR RANK.

       Section 336(d) of title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``commander'' and inserting ``captain''.

     SEC. 202. COAST GUARD MEMBERSHIP ON THE USO BOARD OF 
                   GOVERNORS.

       Section 220104(a)(2) of title 36, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary's 
     designee, when the Coast Guard is not operating under the 
     Department of the Navy; and''.

     SEC. 203. COMPENSATORY ABSENCE FOR ISOLATED DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 511 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 511. Compensatory absence from duty for military 
       personnel at isolated duty stations

       ``The Secretary may grant compensatory absence from duty to 
     military personnel of the Coast Guard serving at isolated 
     duty stations of the Coast Guard when conditions of duty 
     result in confinement because of isolation or in long periods 
     of continuous duty.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     13 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 511 and inserting the following:

``511. Compensatory absence from duty for military personnel at 
              isolated duty stations.''.

     SEC. 204. SUSPENSION OF RETIRED PAY OF COAST GUARD MEMBERS 
                   WHO ARE ABSENT FROM THE UNITED STATES TO AVOID 
                   PROSECUTION.

       Section 633 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) in order as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), and by inserting after 
     subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Application to Coast Guard.--Procedures promulgated 
     by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (a) shall apply 
     to the Coast Guard. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall 
     be considered a Secretary of a military department for 
     purposes of suspending pay under this section.''.

     SEC. 205. EXTENSION OF COAST GUARD HOUSING AUTHORITIES.

       Section 689 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``2001.'' and inserting ``2006.''.

     SEC. 206. ACCELERATED PROMOTION OF CERTAIN COAST GUARD 
                   OFFICERS.

       Title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 259, by adding at the end a new subsection 
     (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) After selecting the officers to be recommended for 
     promotion, a selection board may recommend officers of 
     particular merit, from among those officers chosen for 
     promotion, to be placed at the top of the list of selectees 
     promulgated by the Secretary under section 271(a) of this 
     title. The number of officers that a board may recommend to 
     be placed at the top of the list of selectees may not exceed 
     the percentages set forth in subsection (b) unless such a 
     percentage is a number less than one, in which case the board 
     may recommend one officer for such placement. No officer may 
     be recommended to be placed at the top of the list of 
     selectees unless he or she receives the recommendation of at 
     least a majority of the members of a board composed of five 
     members, or at least two-thirds of the members of a board 
     composed of more than five members.
       ``(2) A selection board may not make any recommendation 
     under this subsection before the date the Secretary publishes 
     a finding that implementation of this subsection will improve 
     Coast Guard officer retention and management.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall submit any finding made by the 
     Secretary pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.'';
       (2) in section 260(a), by inserting ``and the names of 
     those officers recommended to be advanced to the top of the 
     list of selectees established by the Secretary under section 
     271(a) of this title'' after ``promotion''; and
       (3) in section 271(a), by inserting at the end thereof the 
     following: ``The names of all officers approved by the 
     President and recommended by the board to be placed at the 
     top of the list of selectees shall be placed at the top of 
     the list of selectees in the order of seniority on the active 
     duty promotion list.''.

     SEC. 207. REGULAR LIEUTENANT COMMANDERS AND COMMANDERS; 
                   CONTINUATION ON FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR 
                   PROMOTION.

       Section 285 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Each officer'' and inserting ``(a) Each 
     officer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) A lieutenant commander or commander of the Regular 
     Coast Guard subject to discharge or retirement under 
     subsection (a) may be continued on active duty when the 
     Secretary directs a selection board convened under section 
     251 of this title to continue up to a specified number of 
     lieutenant commanders or commanders on active duty. When so 
     directed, the selection board shall recommend those officers 
     who in the opinion of the board are best qualified to advance 
     the needs and efficiency of the Coast Guard. When the 
     recommendations of the board are approved by the Secretary, 
     the officers recommended for continuation shall be notified 
     that they have been recommended for continuation and offered 
     an additional term of service that fulfills the needs of the 
     Coast Guard.
       ``(c)(1) An officer who holds the grade of lieutenant 
     commander of the Regular Coast Guard may not be continued on 
     active duty under subsection (b) for a period which extends 
     beyond 24 years of active commissioned service unless 
     promoted to the grade of commander of the Regular Coast 
     Guard. An officer who holds the grade of commander of the 
     Regular Coast Guard may not be continued on active duty under 
     subsection (b) for a period which extends beyond 26 years of 
     active commissioned service unless promoted to the grade of 
     captain of the Regular Coast Guard.
       ``(2) Unless retired or discharged under another provision 
     of law, each officer who is continued on active duty under 
     subsection (b), is not subsequently promoted or continued on 
     active duty, and is not on a list of officers recommended for 
     continuation or for promotion to the next higher grade, 
     shall, if eligible for retirement under any provision of law, 
     be retired under that law on the first day of the first month 
     following the month in which the period of continued service 
     is completed.''

     SEC. 208. RESERVE OFFICER PROMOTIONS.

       (a) Section 729(i) of Title 14, United States Code is 
     amended by inserting ``on the date a vacancy occurs, or as 
     soon thereafter as practicable, in the grade to which the 
     officer was selected for promotion, or if promotion was 
     determined in accordance with a running mate system,'' after 
     ``grade''.
       (b) Section 731 of title 14, United States Coast Code, is 
     amended by striking the period at the end of the sentence in 
     section 731, and inserting ``, or in the event that promotion 
     is not determined in accordance with a running mate system, 
     then a Reserve officer becomes eligible for consideration for 
     promotion to the next higher grade at the beginning of the 
     promotion year in which he completes the following amount of 
     service computed from his date of rank in the grade in which 
     he is serving:
       (1) 2 years in the grade of lieutenant (junior grade);
       (2) 3 years in the grade of lieutenant;
       (3) 4 years in the grade of lieutenant commander;
       (4) 4 years in the grade of commander; and
       (5) 3 years in the grade of captain.''.
       (c) Section 736(a) of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``the date of rank shall be the date of 
     appointment in that grade, unless the promotion was 
     determined in accordance with a running mate system, in which 
     event'' after ``subchapter,'' in the first sentence in 
     Section 736(a).

[[Page S5627]]

     SEC. 209. RESERVE STUDENT PRE-COMMISSIONING ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 21 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 709 the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 709a. Reserve student pre-commissioning assistance 
       program

       ``(a) The Secretary may provide financial assistance to an 
     eligible enlisted member of the Coast Guard Reserve, not on 
     active duty, for expenses of the member while the member is 
     pursuing on a full-time basis at an institution of higher 
     education a program of education approved by the Secretary 
     that leads to-
       ``(1) a baccalaureate degree in not more than 5 academic 
     years; or
       ``(2) a doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree 
     in not more than 3 academic years.
       ``(b)(1) To be eligible for financial assistance under this 
     section, an enlisted member of the Coast Guard Reserve must-
       ``(A) be enrolled on a full-time basis in a program of 
     education referred to in subsection (a) at any institution of 
     higher education; and
       ``(B) enter into a written agreement with the Coast Guard 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) A written agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(B) 
     is an agreement between the member and the Secretary in which 
     the member agrees-
       ``(A) to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer in 
     the Coast Guard Reserve, if tendered;
       ``(B) to serve on active duty for up to five years; and
       ``(C) under such terms and conditions as shall be 
     prescribed by the Secretary, to serve in the Coast Guard 
     Reserve until the eighth anniversary of the date of the 
     appointment.
       ``(c) Expenses for which financial assistance may be 
     provided under this section are-
       ``(1) tuition and fees charged by the institution of higher 
     education involved;
       ``(2) the cost of books;
       ``(3) in the case of a program of education leading to a 
     baccalaureate degree, laboratory expenses; and
       ``(4) such other expenses deemed appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) The amount of financial assistance provided to a 
     member under this section shall be prescribed by the 
     Secretary, but may not exceed $25,000 for any academic year.
       ``(e) Financial assistance may be provided to a member 
     under this section for up to 5 consecutive academic years.
       ``(f) A member who receives financial assistance under this 
     section may be ordered to active duty in the Coast Guard 
     Reserve by the Secretary to serve in a designated enlisted 
     grade for such period as the Secretary prescribes, but not 
     more than 4 years, if the member''
       ``(1) completes the academic requirements of the program 
     and refuses to accept an appointment as a commissioned 
     officer in the Coast Guard Reserve when offered;
       ``(2) fails to complete the academic requirements of the 
     institution of higher education involved; or
       ``(3) fails to maintain eligibility for an original 
     appointment as a commissioned officer.
       ``(g)(1) If a member requests to be released from the 
     program and the request is accepted by the Secretary, or if 
     the member fails because of misconduct to complete the period 
     of active duty specified, or if the member fails to fulfill 
     any term or condition of the written agreement required to be 
     eligible for financial assistance under this section, the 
     financial assistance shall be terminated. The member shall 
     reimburse the United States in an amount that bears the same 
     ratio to the total cost of the education provided to such 
     person as the unserved portion of active duty bears to the 
     total period of active duty such person agreed to serve. The 
     Secretary shall have the option to order such reimbursement 
     without first ordering the member to active duty.
       ``(2) The Secretary may waive the service obligated under 
     subsection (f) of a member who is not physically qualified 
     for appointment and who is determined to be unqualified for 
     service as an enlisted member of the Coast Guard Reserve due 
     to a physical or medical condition that was not the result of 
     the member's own misconduct or grossly negligent conduct.
       ``(h) As used in this section, the term `institution of 
     higher education' has the meaning given that term in section 
     101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     21 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by adding the 
     following new item after the item relating to section 709:

``709a. Reserve student pre-commissioning assistance program''.

                        TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL SEA FOR VESSEL BRIDGE-TO-
                   BRIDGE RADIOTELEPHONE ACT.

       Section 4(b) of the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1203(b)), is amended by striking ``United 
     States inside the lines established pursuant to section 2 of 
     the Act of February 19, 1895 (28 Stat. 672), as amended.'' 
     and inserting ``United States, which includes all waters of 
     the territorial sea of the United States as described in 
     Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.''.

     SEC. 302. ICEBREAKING SERVICES.

       The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall not plan, implement 
     or finalize any regulation or take any other action which 
     would result in the decommissioning of any WYTL-class harbor 
     tugs unless and until the Commandant certifies in writing to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House, that sufficient replacement assets have been 
     procured by the Coast Guard to remediate any degradation in 
     current icebreaking services that would be caused by such 
     decommissioning.

     SEC. 303. MODIFICATION OF VARIOUS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Termination of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Annual 
     Report.--
       (1) In general.--The report regarding the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund required by the Conference Report (House 
     Report 101-892) accompanying the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, as that 
     requirement was amended by section 1122 of the Federal 
     Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (26 U.S.C. 9509 
     note), shall no longer be submitted to the Congress.
       (2) Repeal.--Section 1122 of the Federal Reports 
     Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (26 U.S.C. 9509 note) is 
     amended by--
       (A) striking subsection (a); and
       (B) striking ``(b) Report on Joint Federal and State Motor 
     Fuel Tax Compliance Project.--''.
       (b) Preservation of Certain Reporting Requirements.--
     Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and 
     Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) does not apply to 
     any report required to be submitted under any of the 
     following provisions of law:
       (1) Coast guard operations and expenditures.--Section 651 
     of title 14, United States Code.
       (2) Summary of marine casualties reported during prior 
     fiscal year.--Section 6307(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code.
       (3) User fee activities and amounts.--Section 664 of title 
     46, United States Code.
       (4) Conditions of public ports of the united states.--
     Section 308(c) of title 49, United States Code.
       (5) Activities of federal maritime commission.--Section 208 
     of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1118).
       (6) Activities of interagency coordinating committee on oil 
     pollution research.--Section 7001(e) of the Oil Pollution Act 
     of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761(e)).

     SEC. 304. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND; EMERGENCY FUND 
                   BORROWING AUTHORITY.

       Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
     2752(b)) is amended after the first sentence by inserting 
     ``To the extent that such amount is not adequate for removal 
     of a discharge or the mitigation or prevention of a 
     substantial threat of a discharge, the Coast Guard may borrow 
     from the Fund such sums as may be necessary, up to a maximum 
     of $100,000,000, and within 30 days shall notify Congress of 
     the amount borrowed and the facts and circumstances 
     necessitating the loan. Amounts borrowed shall be repaid to 
     the Fund when, and to the extent that removal costs are 
     recovered by the Coast Guard from responsible parties for the 
     discharge or substantial threat of discharge.''.

     SEC. 305. MERCHANT MARINER DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Interim Merchant Mariners' Documents.--Section 7302 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A'' in subsection (f) and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in subsection (g), a''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g)(1) The Secretary may, pending receipt and review of 
     information required under subsections (c) and (d), 
     immediately issue an interim merchant mariner's document 
     valid for a period not to exceed 120 days, to--
       ``(A) an individual to be employed as gaming personnel, 
     entertainment personnel, wait staff, or other service 
     personnel on board a passenger vessel not engaged in foreign 
     service, with no duties, including emergency duties, related 
     to the navigation of the vessel or the safety of the vessel, 
     its crew, cargo or passengers; or
       ``(B) an individual seeking renewal of, or qualifying for a 
     supplemental endorsement to, a valid merchant mariner's 
     document issued under this section.
       ``(2) No more than one interim document may be issued to an 
     individual under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.''.
       (b) Exception.--Section 8701(a) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (8);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) a passenger vessel not engaged in a foreign voyage 
     with respect to individuals on board employed for a period of 
     not more than 30 service days within a 12 month period as 
     entertainment personnel, with no duties, including emergency 
     duties, related to the navigation of the vessel or the safety 
     of the vessel, its crew, cargo or passengers; and''.

     SEC. 306. PENALTIES FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATIONS AND INTERFERING 
                   WITH SAFE OPERATION.

       Section 2302(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``$1,000.'' and inserting ``$5,000 in the case of 
     a recreational vessel, or $25,000 in the case of any other 
     vessel.''.

[[Page S5628]]

     SEC. 307. FISHING VESSEL SAFETY TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard may 
     provide support, with or without reimbursement, to an entity 
     engaged in fishing vessel safety training including--
       (1) assistance in developing training curricula;
       (2) use of Coast Guard personnel, including active duty 
     members, members of the Coast Guard Reserve, and members of 
     the Coast Guard Auxiliary, as temporary or adjunct 
     instructors;
       (3) sharing of appropriate Coast Guard informational and 
     safety publications; and
       (4) participation on applicable fishing vessel safety 
     training advisory panels.
       (b) No Interference with Other Functions.--In providing 
     support under subsection (a), the Commandant shall ensure 
     that the support does not interfere with any Coast Guard 
     function or operation.

     SEC. 308. EXTEND TIME FOR RECREATIONAL VESSEL AND ASSOCIATED 
                   EQUIPMENT RECALLS.

       Section 4310(c)(2) of title 46, United Sates Code, is 
     amended in subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ``5'' 
     wherever it appears and inserting ``10'' in its place.

                  TITLE IV--RENEWAL OF ADVISORY GROUPS

     SEC. 401. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSEL ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE.

       (a) Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory 
     Committee.--Section 4508 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Safety'' in the heading after 
     ``Vessel'';
       (2) by inserting ``Safety'' in subsection (a) after 
     ``Vessel'';
       (3) by striking ``(5 U.S.C App. 1 et seq.)'' in subsection 
     (e)(1)(I) and inserting ``(5 U.S.C. App.)''; and
       (4) by striking ``of September 30, 2000'' and inserting 
     ``on September 30, 2005''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     45 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 4508 and inserting the 
     following:

``4508. Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory 
              Committee.''.

     SEC. 402. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION SAFETY ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE.

       Section 18(h) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-241) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2000.'' and inserting ``September 30, 2005.''.

     SEC. 403. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERWAY ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE.

       Section 19 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-241) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2000'' in subsection (g) and inserting ``September 30, 
     2005''.

     SEC. 404. NAVIGATION SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       Section 5 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 
     U.S.C. 2073) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' in 
     subsection (d) and inserting ``September 30, 2005''.

     SEC. 405. NATIONAL BOATING SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       Section 13110 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``September 30, 2000'' in subsection (e) and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2005''.

     SEC. 406. TOWING SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to Establish a Towing Safety 
     Advisory Committee in the Department of Transportation'' (33 
     U.S.C. 1231a) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000.'' 
     in subsection (e) and inserting ``September 30, 2005.''.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. MODERNIZATION OF NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Report.--The Secretary of Transportation shall prepare 
     a status report on the modernization of the National Distress 
     and Response System and transmit the report, not later than 
     60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 
     thereafter until completion of the project, to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) set forth the scope of the modernization, the schedule 
     for completion of the System, and provide information on 
     progress in meeting the schedule and on any anticipated 
     delays;
       (2) specify the funding expended to-date on the System, the 
     funding required to complete the system, and the purposes for 
     which the funds were or will be expended;
       (3) describe and map the existing public and private 
     communications coverage throughout the waters of the coastal 
     and internal regions of the continental United States, 
     Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Caribbean, and identify 
     locations that possess direction-finding, asset-tracking 
     communications, and digital selective calling service;
       (4) identify areas of high risk to boaters and Coast Guard 
     personnel due to communications gaps;
       (5) specify steps taken by the Secretary to fill existing 
     gaps in coverage, including obtaining direction-finding 
     equipment, digital recording systems, asset-tracking 
     communications, use of commercial VHF services, and digital 
     selective calling services that meet or exceed Global 
     Maritime Distress and Safety System requirements adopted 
     under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
     Sea;
       (6) identify the number of VHF-FM radios equipped with 
     digital selective calling sold to United States boaters;
       (7) list all reported marine accidents, casualties, and 
     fatalities associated with existing communications gaps or 
     failures, including incidents associated with gaps in VHF-FM 
     coverage or digital selective calling capabilities and 
     failures associated with inadequate communications equipment 
     aboard the involved vessels;
       (8) identify existing systems available to close identified 
     marine safety gaps before January 1, 2003, including 
     expeditious receipt and response by appropriate Coast Guard 
     operations centers to VHF-FM digital selective calling 
     distress signal; and
       (9) identify actions taken to-date to implement the 
     recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board 
     in its Report No. MAR-99-01.

     SEC. 502. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN PORTLAND, 
                   MAINE.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of General Services may 
     convey to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Development Corporation, 
     its successors and assigns, without payment for 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to approximately 4.13 acres of land, including 
     a pier and bulkhead, known as the Naval Reserve Pier 
     property, together with any improvements thereon in their 
     then current condition, located in Portland, Maine. All 
     conditions placed with the deed of title shall be construed 
     as covenants running with the land.
       (2) Identification of property.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may 
     identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed 
     under this section. The floating docks associated with or 
     attached to the Naval Reserve Pier property shall remain the 
     personal property of the United States.
       (b) Lease to the United States.--
       (1) Condition of conveyance.--The Naval Reserve Pier 
     property shall not be conveyed until the Corporation enters 
     into a lease agreement with the United States, the terms of 
     which are mutually satisfactory to the Commandant and the 
     Corporation, in which the Corporation shall lease a portion 
     of the Naval Reserve Pier property to the United States for a 
     term of 30 years without payment of consideration. The lease 
     agreement shall be executed within 12 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Identification of leased premises.--The Administrator, 
     in consultation with the Commandant, may identify and 
     describe the leased premises and rights of access, including 
     the following, in order to allow the Coast Guard to operate 
     and perform missions from and upon the leased premises:
       (A) The right of ingress and egress over the Naval Reserve 
     Pier property, including the pier and bulkhead, at any time, 
     without notice, for purposes of access to Coast Guard vessels 
     and performance of Coast Guard missions and other mission-
     related activities.
       (B) The right to berth Coast Guard cutters or other vessels 
     as required, in the moorings along the east side of the Naval 
     Reserve Pier property, and the right to attach floating docks 
     which shall be owned and maintained at the United States' 
     sole cost and expense.
       (C) The right to operate, maintain, remove, relocate, or 
     replace an aid to navigation located upon, or to install any 
     aid to navigation upon, the Naval Reserve Pier property as 
     the Coast Guard, in its sole discretion, may determine is 
     needed for navigational purposes.
       (D) The right to occupy up to 3,000 gross square feet at 
     the Naval Reserve Pier property for storage and office space, 
     which will be provided and constructed by the Corporation, at 
     the Corporation's sole cost and expense, and which will be 
     maintained, and utilities and other operating expenses paid 
     for, by the United States at its sole cost and expense.
       (E) The right to occupy up to 1,200 gross square feet of 
     offsite storage in a location other than the Naval Reserve 
     Pier property, which will be provided by the Corporation at 
     the Corporation's sole cost and expense, and which will be 
     maintained, and utilities and other operating expenses paid 
     for, by the United States at its sole cost and expense.
       (F) The right for Coast Guard personnel to park up to 60 
     vehicles, at no expense to the government, in the 
     Corporation's parking spaces on the Naval Reserve Pier 
     property or in parking spaces that the Corporation may secure 
     within 1,000 feet of the Naval Reserve Pier property or 
     within 1,000 feet of the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 
     Portland. Spaces for no less than 30 vehicles shall be 
     located on the Naval Reserve Pier property.
       (3) Renewal.--The lease described in paragraph (1) may be 
     renewed, at the sole option of the United States, for 
     additional lease terms.
       (4) Limitation on subleases.--The United States may not 
     sublease the leased premises to a third party or use the 
     leased premises for purposes other than fulfilling the 
     missions of the Coast Guard and for other mission related 
     activities.
       (5) Termination.--In the event that the Coast Guard ceases 
     to use the leased premises, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Commandant, may terminate the lease 
     with the Corporation.
       (c) Improvement of Leased Premises.--

[[Page S5629]]

       (1) In general.--The Naval Reserve Pier property shall not 
     be conveyed until the Corporation enters into an agreement 
     with the United States, subject to the Commandant's design 
     specifications, project's schedule, and final project 
     approval, to replace the bulkhead and pier which connects to, 
     and provides access from, the bulkhead to the floating docks, 
     at the Corporation's sole cost and expense, on the east side 
     of the Naval Reserve Pier property within 30 months from the 
     date of conveyance. The agreement to improve the leased 
     premises shall be executed within 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Further improvements.--In addition to the improvements 
     described in paragraph (1), the Commandant is authorized to 
     further improve the leased premises during the lease term, at 
     the United States sole cost and expense.
       (d) Utility Installation and Maintenance Obligations.--
       (1) Utilities.--The Naval Reserve Pier property shall not 
     be conveyed until the Corporation enters into an agreement 
     with the United States to allow the United States to operate 
     and maintain existing utility lines and related equipment, at 
     the United States sole cost and expense. At such time as the 
     Corporation constructs its proposed public aquarium, the 
     Corporation shall replace existing utility lines and related 
     equipment and provide additional utility lines and equipment 
     capable of supporting a third 110-foot Coast Guard cutter, 
     with comparable, new, code compliant utility lines and 
     equipment at the Corporation's sole cost and expense, 
     maintain such utility lines and related equipment from an 
     agreed upon demarcation point, and make such utility lines 
     and equipment available for use by the United States, 
     provided that the United States pays for its use of utilities 
     at its sole cost and expense. The agreement concerning the 
     operation and maintenance of utility lines and equipment 
     shall be executed within 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Maintenance.--The Naval Reserve Pier property shall not 
     be conveyed until the Corporation enters into an agreement 
     with the United States to maintain, at the Corporation's sole 
     cost and expense, the bulkhead and pier on the east side of 
     the Naval Reserve Pier property. The agreement concerning the 
     maintenance of the bulkhead and pier shall be executed within 
     12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Aids to navigation.--The United States shall be 
     required to maintain, at its sole cost and expense, any Coast 
     Guard active aid to navigation located upon the Naval Reserve 
     Pier property.
       (e) Additional Rights.--The conveyance of the Naval Reserve 
     Pier property shall be made subject to conditions the 
     Administrator or the Commandant consider necessary to ensure 
     that--
       (1) the Corporation shall not interfere or allow 
     interference, in any manner, with use of the leased premises 
     by the United States; and
       (2) the Corporation shall not interfere or allow 
     interference, in any manner, with any aid to navigation nor 
     hinder activities required for the operation and maintenance 
     of any aid to navigation, without the express written 
     permission of the head of the agency responsible for 
     operating and maintaining the aid to navigation.
       (f) Remedies and Reversionary Interest.--The Naval Reserve 
     Pier property, at the option of the Administrator, shall 
     revert to the United States and be placed under the 
     administrative control of the Administrator, if, and only if, 
     the Corporation fails to abide by any of the terms of this 
     section or any agreement entered into under subsection (b), 
     (c), or (d) of this section.
       (g) Liability of the Parties.--The liability of the United 
     States and the Corporation for any injury, death, or damage 
     to or loss of property occurring on the leased property shall 
     be determined with reference to existing State or Federal 
     law, as appropriate, and any such liability may not be 
     modified or enlarged by this Act or any agreement of the 
     parties.
       (h) Expiration of Authority To Convey.--The authority to 
     convey the Naval Reserve property under this section shall 
     expire 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Aid to navigation.--The term ``aid to navigation'' 
     means equipment used for navigational purposes, including but 
     not limited to, a light, antenna, sound signal, electronic 
     navigation equipment, cameras, sensors power source, or other 
     related equipment which are operated or maintained by the 
     United States.
       (2) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the Gulf 
     of Maine Aquarium Development Corporation, its successors and 
     assigns.

     SEC. 503. HARBOR SAFETY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Study.--The Coast Guard shall study existing harbor 
     safety committees in the United States to identify--
       (1) strategies for gaining successful cooperation among the 
     various groups having an interest in the local port or 
     waterway;
       (2) organizational models that can be applied to new or 
     existing harbor safety committees or to prototype harbor 
     safety committees established under subsection (b);
       (3) technological assistance that will help harbor safety 
     committees overcome local impediments to safety, mobility, 
     environmental protection, and port security; and
       (4) recurring resources necessary to ensure the success of 
     harbor safety committees.
       (b) Prototype Committees.--The Coast Guard shall test the 
     feasibility of expanding the harbor safety committee concept 
     to small and medium-sized ports that are not generally served 
     by a harbor safety committee by establishing 1 or more 
     prototype harbor safety committees. In selecting a location 
     or locations for the establishment of a prototype harbor 
     safety committee, the Coast Guard shall--
       (1) consider the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a);
       (2) consider identified safety issues for a particular 
     port;
       (3) compare the potential benefits of establishing such a 
     committee with the burdens the establishment of such a 
     committee would impose on participating agencies and 
     organizations;
       (4) consider the anticipated level of support from 
     interested parties; and
       (5) take into account such other factors as may be 
     appropriate.
       (c) Effect on Existing Programs and State Law.--Nothing in 
     this section--
       (1) limits the scope or activities of harbor safety 
     committees in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) precludes the establishment of new harbor safety 
     committees in locations not selected for the establishment of 
     a prototype committee under subsection (b); or
       (3) preempts State law.
       (d) Nonapplication of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to harbor safety 
     committees established under this section or any other 
     provision of law.
       (e) Harbor Safety Committee Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``harbor safety committee'' means a local coordinating 
     body--
       (1) whose responsibilities include recommending actions to 
     improve the safety of a port or waterway; and
       (2) the membership of which includes representatives of 
     government agencies, maritime labor, maritime industry 
     companies and organizations, environmental groups, and public 
     interest groups.

     SEC. 504. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF PILOTS AT COAST GUARD 
                   VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 23 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec.  2307. Limitation of liability for Coast Guard Vessel 
       Traffic Service pilots

       ``Any pilot, acting in the course and scope of his duties 
     while at a United States Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service, 
     who provides information, advice or communication assistance 
     shall not be liable for damages caused by or related to such 
     assistance unless the acts or omissions of such pilot 
     constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     23 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``2307. Limitation of liability for Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service 
              pilots''.

                      TITLE VI--JONES ACT WAIVERS

     SEC. 601. REPEAL OF SPECIAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE ENDORSEMENTS.

       Section 503 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 
     (46 U.S.C. 12106 note) is repealed.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2001. Charged with maintaining our national 
defense and the safety of our citizens, the Coast Guard is a multi-
mission agency. The Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
but it is also a unique instrument of national security, responsible 
for search and rescue services and maritime law enforcement. Daily 
operations include drug interdiction, environmental protection, marine 
inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, 
waterways management, and boating safety.
  Recently the Coast Guard has been forced to reduce its services and 
cut its operations as a result of funding shortfalls. Earlier this 
year, for the second year in a row, the Coast Guard reduced its non-
emergency operations by over 10 percent due to a shortfall in operating 
appropriations. Mr. President, the Coast Guard and the American people 
deserve better, and the bill I am proud to cosponsor today authorizes 
funding at levels which would restore the Coast Guard to the full 
operational level. Additionally, the bill provides necessary funding 
for cutter and aircraft maintenance including the elimination of the 
existing spare parts shortage.
  This bill provides the funding necessary to maintain the level of 
service and the quality of performance that the United States has come 
to expect from the Coast Guard. I commend the men and women of the 
Coast Guard for their honorable and courageous service to this country. 
The bill authorizes $4.63 billion in FY 2000, $4.83 billion in 2001, 
and $5.22 billion in FY 2002.
  One critical goal of this bill is to provide parity with the 
Department of Defense on certain personnel matters. We

[[Page S5630]]

should ensure that the men and women serving in the Coast Guard are not 
adversely affected because the Coast Guard does not fall under the DOD 
umbrella. This bill provides parity with DOD for military pay and 
housing allowance increases, Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of 
Governors, and compensation for isolated duty.
  In today's strong economy, the Armed Services are seeing an exodus of 
experienced officers and enlisted personnel. Additional funding in this 
bill provides for recruiting and retention initiatives, to ensure that 
the Coast Guard retains the most qualified young Americans. In 
addition, it addresses the current shortage of qualified pilots and 
authorizes the Coast Guard to send more students to flight school. New 
programs will offer financial assistance to bring college students into 
the Service and bring retired officers back on active duty to fill 
temporary experience gaps.
  The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in maritime drug 
interdiction. Therefore, they are often our nation's first line of 
defense in the war on drugs. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to 
acquire and operate up to seven ex-Navy patrol boats, thereby expanding 
the Coast Guard's critical presence in the Caribbean, a major drug 
trafficking area. With the vast majority of the drugs smuggled into the 
United States on the water, the Coast Guard must remain well equipped 
to prevent drugs from reaching our schools and streets. I was gratified 
to learn that just a few weeks ago, the Coast Guard made the largest 
single maritime cocaine seizure in history; more than 13 tons of 
illegal drugs bound for U.S. streets are instead bound for an 
incinerator.
  Environmental protection, including oil-spill cleanup, is an 
invaluable service provided by the Coast Guard. Under current law, the 
Coast Guard has access to a permanent annual appropriation of $50 
million, distributed by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to carry 
out emergency oil spill response needs. Over the past few years, the 
fund has spent an average of $42 to $50 million per year, without the 
occurrence of a major oil spill. Clearly these funds would not be 
adequate to respond to a large spill. For instance, a spill the size of 
the Exxon Valdez could easily deplete the annual appropriated funds in 
two to three weeks. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to borrow up 
to an additional $100 million, per incident, from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund, for emergency spill responses. In such cases, it 
also requires the Coast Guard to notify Congress of amounts borrowed 
within thirty days and repay such amounts once payment is collected 
from the responsible party.
  The 1999 President's Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles 
and Missions reported ``The Coast Guard provides the United States a 
broad spectrum of vital services that will be increasingly important in 
the decades ahead.'' It further found that ``the nation must take 
action soon to modernize and recapitalize Coast Guard forces, if the 
Service is to remain Semper Paratus--Always Ready.'' Mr. President, 
that modernization is just beginning and I am proud to support the 
Administration's request for $338 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund 
the Integrated Deepwater System project. The bill I am cosponsoring 
today authorizes full funding for the first year of this multi-year 
project to replace more than 115 old ships and 165 aircraft that will 
soon reach their service lives. I support the Coast Guard's 
groundbreaking procurement process that stresses life cycle cost 
efficiency and not just lowest procurement cost.
  This bill represents a thorough set of improvements which will make 
the Coast Guard more effective, improve the quality of life of its 
personnel, and facilitate their daily operations. I would like to thank 
Senators Snowe and Kerry for their bipartisan leadership on Coast Guard 
issues, as well as my fellow co-sponsors Senators Hollings, Breaux, 
Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine for their longstanding support of the Coast 
Guard.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
        Bayh):
  S. 952. A bill to provide collective bargaining rights for public 
safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Kennedy, DeWine, and Bayh in introducing the Public Safety 
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001. This legislation would 
extend to firefighters and police officers the right to discuss 
workplace issues with their employers.
  With the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State and 
local government employees remain the only sizable segment of workers 
left in America who do not have the basic right to enter into 
collective bargaining agreements with their employers. While most 
States do provide some collective bargaining rights for their public 
employees, others do not.
  The lack of collective bargaining rights is especially troublesome in 
the public safety arena. Firefighters and police officers take 
seriously their oath to protect the public safety, and as a result, 
they do not engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. The absence of 
collective bargaining denies these workers any opportunity to influence 
the decisions that affect their lives or livelihoods.
  Studies have shown that communities which promote such cooperation 
enjoy much more effective and efficient delivery of emergency services. 
Such cooperation, however, is not possible in the 18 States that do not 
provide public safety employees with the fundamental right to bargain 
with their employers.
  The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the unique 
situation and obligation of public safety officers. First, we create a 
special collective bargaining right outside the scope of other Federal 
labor law and specifically prohibit the use of strikes, work stoppages 
or other actions that could disrupt the delivery of services. Second, 
this legislation utilizes the procedures and expertise of the Federal 
Labor Relations Authority to help resolve disputes between public 
safety employers and employees. This bill simply requires that each 
State provide minimum collective bargaining rights to their public 
safety employees in whatever manner they choose. It outlines certain 
provisions that must be included in state laws, but leaves the major 
decisions to the state legislatures. States that already have the 
minimum collective bargaining protections as outlined in this 
legislation would be exempt from the Federal statute. And third, the 
bill specifically prohibits strikes, lockouts, sickouts, work slowdowns 
or any other job action which will disrupt the delivery of emergency 
services.
  Labor-management partnerships, which are built upon bargaining 
relationships, result in improved public safety. Employer-employee 
cooperation contains the promise of saving the taxpayer money by 
enabling workers to give input as to the most efficient way to provide 
services. In fact, States that currently give firefighters the right to 
discuss workplace issues actually have lower fire department budgets 
than states without those laws.
  The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation act of 2001 will put 
firefighters and law enforcement officers on equal footing with other 
employees and provide them with the fundamental right to negotiate with 
employers over such basic issues as hours, wages, and workplace 
conditions.
  I urge its adoption and 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. 952

  [Data not available at time of printing.]
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join my colleagues, 
Senators Gregg, DeWine, and Bayh, to introduce the ``Public Safety 
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001.''
  For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and 
management to work together to improve job conditions and increase 
productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have 
led the way on many important improvements in today's workplace--
especially with regard to health and pension benefits, paid holidays 
and sick leave, and workplace safety.

[[Page S5631]]

  Collective bargaining in the public sector, once a controversial 
issue, is now widely accepted. It has been common since at least 1962, 
when President Kennedy signed an Executive Order granting these basic 
rights to federal employees. Congressional employees have had these 
rights since enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act almost a 
decade ago. It is long since time to give state and local government 
employees federal protection for the basic right to enter into 
collective bargaining agreements with their employers.
  The act we are introducing today extends this protection to 
firefighters, police officers, paramedics and emergency medical 
technicians. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for 
collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union; the right to 
bargain over hours, wages and working conditions; the right to sign 
legally enforceable contracts; and the right to a resolution mechanism 
in the event of an impasse in negotiations. The bill also accomplishes 
its goals in a reasonable and moderate way.
  The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. It will lead to 
safer working conditions for public safety officers. These valued 
public employees serve in some of the country's most dangerous, 
strenuous and stressful jobs. Every year, more than 80,000 police 
officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. An average of 
160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty 
each year. Because these men and women serve on the front lines in 
providing firefighting services, law enforcement services, and 
emergency medical services, they know what it takes to create safer 
working conditions. They deserve the benefit of collective bargaining 
to give them a voice in decisions that can literally make a life-and-
death difference on the job.
  Our bill will also save money for states and local communities. 
Experience has shown that when public safety officers can discuss 
workplace conditions with management, partnerships and cooperation 
develop and lead to improved labor-management relations and better, 
more cost-effective services. A study by the International Association 
of Fire Fighters shows that states and municipalities that give 
firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire 
department budgets than states without such laws. When workers who 
actually do the job are able to provide advice on their work 
conditions, there are fewer injuries, better morale, better information 
on new technologies, and more efficient ways to provide the services.
  It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and 
women the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. 
They put their lives on the line to protect us every day. They deserve 
to have an effective voice on the job, and improvements in their work 
conditions will benefit their entire community.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Allard, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Collins, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Craig, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Ensign, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Gramm, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lott, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon,
  S. 953. A bill to establish a Blue Ribbon Study Panel and an Election 
Administration Commission to study voting procedures and election 
administration, to provide grants to modernize voting procedures and 
election administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when election reform emerged on the 
nation's agenda last winter, as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, 
the committee of jurisdiction over election law, I resolved to keep the 
issue from getting bogged down in the partisan morass. The furor and 
fervor surround the last election has finally given way to a 
constructive bipartisan consensus. Today it is a distinct pleasure to 
join with Senators Schumer, Torricelli, and Brownback in advancing 
bipartisan legislation to restore faith in American elections.
  Even more remarkable is the support in the endeavor of two reform 
groups with whom I have been engaged over the years in something less 
than a mutual admiration society, to say the least: Common Cause and 
the League of Women Voters. Ours is perhaps the most curious alliance 
since Bob Dole teamed up with Britney Spears to push Pepsi. And only 
slightly less jarring.
  Nearly as discombobulating was opening the New York Times editorial 
page and seeing my name in print in the lead editorial applauding the 
McConnell/Schumer/Torricelli/Brownback bill. My wife, the Secretary of 
Labor, subsequently performed the Heimlich maneuver, lest I choke on 
the New York Times' praise. No doubt the editorial writer experienced 
similar bewilderment, as Darth Vader suddenly became Luke Skywalker 
overnight.
  As this alliance indicates, election reform must transcend 
partisanship and result in real and lasting achievement by ensuring 
what I call, the three A's of election reform: Accuracy, Access and 
Accountability. This is the essence of this bill.
  Our bill will establish, for the first time in our Nation's history, 
a permanent Election Administration Commission. This new permanent 
commission will bring focused expertise to bear on the administration 
of elections, and, importantly, award matching grants to States and 
localities to improve the accuracy and integrity of our election 
system.
  Accuracy. The last election produced outcries over inaccurate voter 
rolls where some cities actually had more registered voters than the 
voting age population. And, of course, we've all heard the stories of 
both pets and dead people being registered to vote, and, in some 
instances, actually voting.
  This legislation will require accurate voter rolls to ensure that 
those who vote are legally entitled to do so, and do so only once.
  Access. This legislation also seeks to ensure that never again will 
our men and women in uniform be denied the opportunity to vote. The 
bill will merge the Department of Defense's Office of Voting Assistance 
into the new permanent commission. Moreover, the bill will increase the 
ability of disabled voters to both register and vote.
  Accountability. The new Election Administration Commission will 
dramatically increase accountability by awarding grants only to those 
states and localities who ensure accurate and accessible voting.
  Again, I applaud Senators Schumer, Torricelli, and Brownback for 
their principled and diligent work on this effort over the past six 
months. I believe this bill is the first, best step toward meaningful 
election reform.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, 
        and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 955. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify 
restrictions added by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration 
Responsibility Act of 1996; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues, 
Senators Graham, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, Dodd, Inouye, Akaka, 
Feingold, and Durbin in introducing the Immigrant Fairness Restoration 
Act. This legislation will restore the balance to our immigration laws 
that was lost when Congress amended the immigration laws in 1996.
  The changes made in 1996 went too far. They have had harsh 
consequences that punish families and violate individual liberty, 
fairness and due process.

[[Page S5632]]

 Families are being torn apart. Persons who present no danger to their 
communities have been left to languish in INS detention. Individuals 
are being summarily deported from the United States, to countries they 
no longer remember, separated from all that they know and love.
  The bill we are introducing will undo many of these harsh 
consequences. It will eliminate the retroactive application of the 1996 
changes. Permanent residents who committed offenses long before the 
enactment of the 1996 laws should be able to apply for the relief from 
removal under the law as it existed when the offense was committed.
  Current immigration laws too often punish permanent residents out of 
all proportion to their crimes. Relatively minor offenses are turned 
into aggravated felonies. Permanent residents who did not have criminal 
convictions or serve prison sentences are blocked from all relief from 
deportation.
  Our proposal restores the discretion that immigration judges 
previously had and responsibly exercised to evaluate cases on an 
individual basis and grant relief from deportation to deserving 
persons. Currently, immigration judges are precluded from granting such 
relief to many permanent residents, regardless of the circumstances or 
equities in the cases. As a result of the 1996 laws, the judges' hands 
are tied, even in the most compelling cases. This legislation will 
allow immigration judges to return to their proper role.
  Our bill will also end mandatory detention. The Attorney General will 
have the authority to release from detention persons who do not pose a 
danger to the community and are not a flight risk. Detention is an 
extraordinary power that should only be used in extraordinary 
circumstances. A judge should have the discretion to release from 
detention persons who are not a danger to the community and who do not 
pose a flight risk.
  Clearly, dangerous criminals should be detained and deported. But 
indefinite detention must end. No public purpose is served by wasting 
valuable resources detaining non-dangerous individuals, many of whom 
have lived in this country with their families for many years, 
established strong ties to their communities, paid taxes, and 
contributed in other ways to the fabric of our Nation.
  The 1996 laws also stripped the Federal courts of any authority to 
review the decisions of the INS and the immigration courts. Under 
present law, harsh determinations are often made at the unreviewable 
discretion of INS officers. Fundamental decisions are made on the basis 
of a brief review of a few pages in a file, or a perfunctory 
administrative hearing, without judicial review. Our proposal will 
restore such review. Immigrants deserve their day in court.
  Americans are proud of our heritage and history as a nation of 
immigrants. It is long past time for Congress to correct the laws 
enacted in 1996.
  Many heart-wrenching stories could be cited about the ``nightmares'' 
created by the 1996 laws and the people caught by its provisions.
  Consider the case of Carlos Garcia, who fled from his native land of 
El Salvador in 1978 during the civil war. Upon arriving in the United 
States, he became fluent in English and attended a local community 
college, and in 1982, he became a permanent resident. All of his family 
live in this country, including his U.S. citizen parents.
  In 1993, he pleaded guilty to taking $200 from a department store 
where he worked. He was sentenced to two years of probation, with a 
suspended jail sentence, and he completed his probation early. Apart 
from this single offense, he has no criminal history. For years, he has 
worked as a caterer, holding a security clearance, since his employer 
handled functions in Congress, the State Department and White House. He 
regularly attends church and participates in a bone marrow transplant 
program to help children.
  In 1998, the INS placed Carlos in removal proceedings after he 
returned from a four-day vacation cruise. Because the 1996 laws made 
his crime an aggravated felony, the immigration judge no longer had 
discretion to consider evidence of his positive contributions to his 
community, his family ties, or the potential hardship that severing 
those ties may cause.
  Or consider the case of Claudette Etienne, who fled from Haiti at the 
age of 23, and was a legal resident of the United States for 20 years. 
She had two young U.S. citizen children and lived with her husband in 
Miami. One day, during an argument, Claudette threatened her husband 
with a broken bottle, and was sentenced to a year of probation. In June 
1999, she was found guilty of selling a small amount of cocaine and was 
sentenced to another year of probation. When she was summoned to see 
her probation officer in February 2000, INS officers arrested her and 
placed her in deportation proceedings under the 1996 immigration laws. 
She was imprisoned in an INS detention center for the next seven 
months, and in September was taken by U.S. Marshals and put on a flight 
to Haiti.
  Upon arriving in Haiti, the police immediately jailed her in a cell 
that was pitch black. The air was thick with the stench of human sweat 
and waste, and the temperature reached 105 degrees. Claudette had to 
rely on the compassion of prisoners and guards for food, since the jail 
provided none. During her imprisonment in Haiti, she became sick with 
fever, stomach pains, diarrhea, and constant vomiting from drinking tap 
water. She died in the jail a few days later.
  Surely, Congress cannot ignore such abuses. Even many proponents of 
the 1996 laws now admit that these changes went too far and need to be 
corrected as soon as possible. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act 
will help to protect families, assure fairness and due process, and 
restore the integrity of our immigration laws, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Durbin, Inouye, Kerry, Leahy, Akaka, and 
Wellstone to introduce the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act of 2001. 
This legislation brings balance back to the legal system. It rights 
some of the wrongs of the 1996 immigration law. It restores fairness 
and justice to everyone in our country.
  As it stands today, the immigration laws violate those core American 
principles.
  The original aim of the 1996 immigration bill was to control illegal 
immigration. In practice, the law hurts legal permanent residents and 
others who entered, or wanted to enter, the United States legally.
  The 1996 laws, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act, IIRAIRA, and Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act, AEDPA, mandated deportation of legal aliens for relatively 
insignificant crimes. For the most part, these are crimes for which 
they have already served their punishment. They have restricted access 
to legal counsel and virtually no recourse in the courts.
  This violates the tradition of our country. It also violates the 
essence of our legal system. Our constitution demands that no person 
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of 
law. This fundamental right applies to all persons, regardless of their 
paperwork or where they were born.
  Our legal system should be about granting people their day at court, 
to provide a second chance, to keep the rules of the game fair.
  When we think about fairness, or lack of fairness, we should think 
about personal stories. John Gaul, formerly from Tampa, FL, has been 
punished twice for his mistakes. John was adopted from Thailand by his 
U.S. citizen parents when he was 4 years old. As a teenager, he was 
convicted of car theft and credit card fraud, two nonviolent offenses 
for which he served 20 months in jail. John does not remember Thailand. 
He does not speak Thai, nor does he know of relatives there. None of 
that mattered. John was deported to Thailand and may never be allowed 
to return to his parents in the United States.
  Was it fair to threaten Carolina Murry of Neptune Beach with 
deportation for voting, even though she never knew she was not a U.S. 
citizen? Carolina's father told her that she had become a U.S. citizen 
shortly after she moved with him from the Dominican Republic at the age 
of 3. Only in 1998, when she applied for a passport, did she learn that 
in fact she was not. In the process of becoming a citizen, INS 
officials asked her if she ever voted in a

[[Page S5633]]

U.S. election. She replied she had, because she takes her civic duties 
seriously. As a consequence, INS not only denied her application but 
also told her that she faced criminal prosecution and deportation for 
voting illegally. Only after the case caught media attention and raised 
a lot of public protest did the charges get dropped.
  Would it be fair to separate Aarti Shahani, a U.S. citizen, from her 
father, a legal permanent resident in the United States since 1984? Her 
father, a small businessman, is facing deportation to India. As early 
as next week he will be transferred to INS detention following a State 
sentence relating to his failure to report taxable business earnings. 
Aarti has taken a leave from the University of Chicago to help support 
her family. She and her two U.S. citizen siblings continue to fight for 
their father's right to stay in the United States. They are fighting to 
keep the family together.
  Earlier this month, President Bush urged Congress to establish 
immigration laws that recognize the importance of families and that 
help to strengthen them. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act does 
exactly that. Right now, our immigration laws tear families apart. The 
laws are harsh and offer no chance for review or appeal.
  I strongly believe that criminals should be punished. They should 
repay their debt to society by incarcertaion, monetary restitution or 
other sanctions. But I also believe that everyone deserves a chance at 
a fresh start after the debts are paid. No one should be punished 
twice.
  The 1996 law went too far. It is time to eliminate retroactivity. It 
is time to restore a system that punishes legal residents in proportion 
to their crimes. It is time to restore discretion so immigration judges 
can evaluate cases individually and grant relief to those deserving. It 
is time to ensure legal residents are not needlessly jailed or 
imprisoned.
  We need legislation that lives up to our nation's legacy as a country 
of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support the Immigrant Fairness 
Restoration Act to grant everyone equal protection under the law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 956. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to promote the 
use of safety belts and child restraint systems by children, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child 
Passenger Safety Act, a bill to ensure that our children are adequately 
restrained and protected in cars. I am pleased to join my colleague 
Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who has introduced this 
legislation in the House and who has a longstanding interest in child 
safety. I also want to recognize Senator Peter Fitzgerald's commitment 
to child safety. His recent hearing on the subject of child passenger 
safety laws shed important light on the need to encourage States to 
strengthen their laws, and I look forward to working with him to 
address this issue.
  No child should be placed at risk by a simple trip to the local 
grocer. No child should be in danger on a family trip to the beach. No 
child should be placed in jeopardy in the daily ride to school. Yet 
unfortunately, every year almost 1,800 children aged 14 and under die 
in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 274,000 kids are injured. In 
fact, traveling in a car without a seatbelt is the leading killer of 
children in America.
  Despite this compelling statistic, the lack of reasonable safety 
measures for kids in this country is staggering. We know that children 
who are not restrained are far more likely to suffer severe injuries or 
even death in motor vehicle crashes, yet approximately 30 percent of 
children ages four and under ride unrestrained, and of those who do 
buckle up, four out of five children are improperly secured. Only five 
percent of four- to eight-year-olds ride in booster seats.
  Unfortunately, States have done too little to protect child 
passengers, a conclusion documented in a recent study of child car 
safety laws by the non-profit National Safe Kids Campaign. This report 
rated the effectiveness of each State's laws in protecting children 
from injury in traffic accidents, and twenty-four of the fifty States 
received a failing grade, while only two States, Florida and 
California, received grades higher than a C. My own State of New 
Jersey's laws were ranked dead last in the survey, because the State 
does not require any protection for children aged five or older riding 
in the back seat.
  Among the study's alarming findings: no State fully protects all 
child passengers ages 15 and under, no States require children aged 6-8 
to ride in booster seats, 34 States allow child passengers to rider 
unrestrained due to exemptions, and in many States, children are 
legally allowed to ride completely unrestrained in the back seat of a 
vehicle.
  Statistics like these make it clear that we need new Federal 
legislation. States are simply not doing enough to protect children in 
car accidents, especially older children. That is why today I am 
introducing a bill that would help ensure that all children are safely 
secured in cars, no matter where they live. The Child Passenger Safety 
Act would encourage States to enact laws requiring that children up to 
age eight are properly secured in a child car safety seat or booster 
seat appropriate to the child's age or size. The legislation also would 
encourage States to ensure that children up to the age 16 are 
restrained in a seatbelt, regardless of where they are sitting in the 
vehicle.
  States that do not meet these critical goals would be subject to the 
loss of Federal transportation funds, the same approach used to 
encourage States to establish strong drunk driving standards.
  We cannot sit idly by while so many of our children are exposed to 
unnecessary danger on our nation's roads. I ask my colleagues to join 
me in support of the Child Passenger Safety Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Byrd, and Ms. 
        Stabenow)
  S. 957. A bill to provide certain safeguards with respect to the 
domestic steel industry; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, on 
behalf of myself and Senators Dayton, Byrd, and Stabenow, the Steel 
Revitalization Act of 2001. This is the companion measure to H.R. 808, 
which, as of this moment, has 189 cosponsors in the House. The measure 
represents a comprehensive approach to the serious crisis facing our 
domestic iron ore and steel industry.
  I want to note that several of the provisions contained in the Act 
are ones that my colleagues in the bi-partisan Steel Caucus here in the 
Senate and our counterparts in the House have been working on for some 
time. I want to publicly acknowledge and thank, in particular, Senators 
Rockefeller and Specter for their work in co-chairing the Caucus, and 
Senator Byrd for his unflinching support of the entire steel industry 
and his creative efforts on behalf of the industry's working families.
  The Steel Revitalization Act includes the following four components: 
1. A five-year period of quantitative restrictions on the import of 
iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel products. Import 
levels would be set for each product line at the average level of 
penetration that occurred during the three years prior to the onset of 
the steel import crisis in late 1997. 2. Creation of a Steelworker 
Retiree Health Care Fund to be administered by a Steelworker Retiree 
Health Care Board at the Department of Labor which would be accessible 
by all steel companies that provide health insurance to retirees at the 
time of enactment. The Fund would be underwritten through a 1.5 percent 
surcharge on the sale of all steel products in the United States, both 
imported and domestic. 3. Enhancement of the current Steel Loan 
Guarantee program to provide steel companies greater access to funds 
needed to invest in capital improvements and take advantage of the 
latest technological advancements. Among other things, the Act would 
(a) increase the current Steel Loan Guarantee authorization from $1 
billion to $10 billion, (b) increase the loan coverage from 85 percent 
to 95 percent, and (c) extend the duration of financing from 5 to 15 
years. 4. Creation of a $500 million grant program at the Department of 
Commerce to help defray the cost of environmental mitigation and 
restructuring as a result of consolidation. Companies which have merged

[[Page S5634]]

will be eligible to apply for such funds if their grant application 
outlines a merger that will retain 80 percent of the domestic blue-
collar workforce and production capacity for 10 years after the merger.
  The recent economic conditions facing the U.S. iron ore and steel 
industry are of particular concern to those in my home state of 
Minnesota. We are extremely proud of our state's history as the 
nation's largest producer of iron ore. The iron ore and taconite mines, 
located on the Iron Range in Minnesota and in our sister state of 
Michigan, have provided key raw materials to the nation's steel 
producers for over a century.
  You will not find a harder working, more committed group of workers 
anywhere in this country than you find in the iron ore and taconite 
industry. This is a group of people who work under the toughest of 
conditions, are absolutely committed to their families, and who now 
face dire circumstances, through no fault of their own, because of the 
effects of unfairly traded iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished 
steel products.
  Earlier this year, for example, citing poor economic conditions, LTV 
Steel Mining Company halted production at the Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota 
mine, leaving 1,400 workers out of good-paying jobs and affecting 
nearly 5,000 additional workers as well. These are people who believe 
in the importance of a strong domestic steel industry to the economic 
and national security of our country.
  The Steel Revitalization Act is a comprehensive measure designed to 
address the multiplicity of needs facing the iron ore and steel 
industry today. It provides import relief, industry-wide sharing of the 
huge retiree health care cost burdens resulting from massive layoffs 
during the 1970's and 1980's, improved access to capital, and 
assistance for industry consolidation that protects American jobs.
  It is imperative that we act and that we act soon. Failing economic 
conditions, huge health care legacy cost burdens, and staggering levels 
of iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel imports pose 
immense threats to this essential industry. I urge my colleagues in the 
Senate to join in helping to pass this critical legislation at the 
earliest possible date. Relief for this essential industry is long 
overdue. We cannot afford to delay.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Summary--Steel Revitalization Act

       In mid-January, the United States Steelworkers of America 
     presented a proposal for a comprehensive steel revitalization 
     package. The results is H.R. 808, the Steel Revitalization 
     Act, outlined below. This was introduced on March 1, 2001 by 
     Congressional Steel Caucus Vice Chairman Peter Visclosky, 
     with 84 other original cosponsors, including Congressional 
     Steel Caucus Chairman Jack Quinn and Congressional Steel 
     Caucus Executive Committee Chairman Phil English and Vice 
     Chairman Dennis Kucinich. The measure currently has 172 
     cosponsors.
     TITLE I--Import Relief
       This title will mirror H.R. 975, the Steel Import Quota 
     Bill, which was approved by the House in the 106th Congress, 
     but failed to achieve cloture in the Senate.


                         provisions of title i

       Provides import relief by imposing 5-year quotas on the 
     importation of steel and iron ore products into the U.S.
       The quotas will limit import penetration to the average 
     pre-crisis (1994 to 1997) levels (i.e., the import levels 
     allowed in will be linked to the percentage of domestic 
     consumption of foreign steel in the years preceding the 
     import crisis).


                         changes from h.r. 975

       H.R. 975 based quotas on tonnage, not percentage of 
     penetration. Because the market is weakening, we expect 
     tonnage imported to decrease anyway. Therefore, we will link 
     quota numbers to penetration to account for expected 
     decreases in imported tonnage. However, due to differences in 
     statistical methodology, iron ore, semifinished steel and 
     coke product quotas will be determined by tonnage.
       H.R. 975 did not include stainless and specialty steel 
     products. This provision will include those products.
       This measure will include a short supply clause to ensure 
     that sufficient supplies of steel products are available and 
     to prevent overpricing in some product areas.
     TITLE II--Legacy Cost Sharing
       This title will address the overwhelming cost many steel 
     companies face in retiree health care due to massive 
     downsizing and restructuring in the 1980s.


                         Provisions of Title II

       Imposes a 1.5 percent surcharge on the sale of steel and 
     iron ore in the U.S. The average cost of a ton of steel is 
     about $500, translating to a $7.50 per ton payment. With an 
     average of 130 million tons of steel sold in the U.S. per 
     year, the fund should generate approximately $880 million per 
     year.
       Revenues will be placed in a Steelworker Retiree Health 
     Care Trust Fund, to be administered by the Department of 
     Labor through a newly established Steel Retiree Health Care 
     Board.
       The Board will accept applications from steel and iron ore 
     companies for access to the Fund to defray the cost of 
     retiree health care benefits.
       Eligible retirees will have retired prior to enactment of 
     the bill.
       The fund will be available to defray up to 75 percent of 
     the cost of health care per individual, based on benefits 
     available at the time of enactment adjusted for inflation in 
     the health care market. New benefits negotiated by the union 
     or offered by the company will not be eligible for increased 
     funding.
       If there are insufficient funds to cover all eligible 
     health care rebates, the funds will be divided equally on a 
     per-beneficiary basis. The funds will not be divided based on 
     benefit costs.
       After the first year the level of the tax will be adjusted 
     annually based on the size of the fund and projected outlays, 
     until the tax sunsets automatically. The tax will never 
     exceed 1.5 percent.
     TITLE III--Steel Loan Guarantee Adjustments
       This title will address problems with the Steel Loan 
     Guarantee program, which has proven ineffective in finalizing 
     loans. Currently, 7 loans have been approved, but only one 
     has actually resulted in financing for a steel company 
     (Geneva Steel). Steel companies are finding it almost 
     impossible to raise capital through other sources, especially 
     due to plummeting stock prices and decreasing demand. This 
     portion of the bill was hammered out with the help of Senator 
     Byrd's office.


                        provisions of title iii

       The authorization of the program will be increased from $1 
     billion to $10 billion.
       The guarantee will cover 95 percent of the loan, up from 
     85% under the current program.
       The duration of the loan guarantee will be extended from 5 
     to 15 years.
       The period between application to the Board and 
     determination of a guarantee will be set at 45 days.
       The Board will be composed of the Secretaries of Treasury, 
     Commerce, and Labor, or their designees, with the 
     Chairmanship held by the Commerce Secretary. Currently the 
     Board includes the Fed and SEC Chairmen, who have limited 
     experience with the steel industry.
       The funds made available from loans will be limited to 
     capital expenditures, and will not be used to service 
     existing debt.
     TITLE IV--Incentives for Consolidation
       This title will encourage the responsible consolidation of 
     the steel industry, which is currently deeply fragmented.


                         Provisions of Title IV

       A $500 million grant program at the Department of Commerce 
     will be created.
       Any time up to 1 year after a merger is completed, an 
     eligible company, as defined as a producer of products 
     protected under the Quota portion of the bill, will be able 
     to apply for up to $100 million in grants to defray costs 
     associated with the merger.
       The Department of Commerce will review the merger proposal 
     to determine if the merger will promote the retention of jobs 
     and production capacity.
       If the merger meets certain thresholds in employment and 
     production capacity retention (retention of 80 percent of the 
     workforce and at least 50 percent of the workforce of the 
     acquired company and 80 percent of production capacity, not 
     utilization), the company applying will be awarded up to $100 
     million in funds to defray the costs of environmental 
     mitigation. There is clear language stating that the intent 
     of the measure is to promote the MAXIMUM retention of 
     workers, regardless of the 80 percent cutoff.
       The applicant will also be given access to the Steelworker 
     Retiree Health Care Trust Fund for new retirees created by 
     the merger, if the merger occurs prior to 2010.
       Requirements for employment must be met for ten years to 
     avoid penalties. Penalties for violation of the grant 
     agreements will be weighted more heavily in the first five 
     years, then will gradually phase out during the following 
     five years.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I join with the senior Senator from 
Minnesota and all my colleagues from steel states, in making every 
effort to revitalize this important and basic American industry.
  There are thirty-four Senators representing twenty-four States in the 
Steel Caucus, and we all agree that without immediate relief from the 
flood of foreign steel, the future of the United States steel industry 
is in jeopardy. The provisions of the Steel Revitalization Act will 
give our domestic steel industry the time it needs to recover from the 
import surges of the past three years.

[[Page S5635]]

  This bill also acknowledges the highly integrated process of making 
steel. It provides import relief for steel products that include iron 
ore and semi-finished steel. Minnesota and Michigan are the two leading 
states in the production of taconite. Taconite is essentially 
pelletized iron ore that is melted in blast furnaces and then blown 
with oxygen to make steel. Every ton of imported, semi-finished steel 
displaces 1.3 tons of iron ore in basic, domestic steel production. 
This means reduced production, cutbacks, and plant closings, causing 
devastating economic uncertainty in critical regions of these states.
  This bill will provide much needed help to the hardworking people and 
their families who live in the Iron Range regions of Northeastern 
Minnesota and Northern Michigan. The bill also helps the steelworkers 
and the steel-making communities of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Indiana, Ohio, to name only a few. In this crisis, we are all one 
family. We are people who believe that America's steel industry is a 
basic industry, essential to the economic and national security of our 
country.
  Yesterday, the Department of Labor informed 1,400 workers from the 
LTV Steel Mining Company in Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota that they are 
eligible for trade adjustment assistance because of the increase in 
imported steel products. Last December, LTV declared bankruptcy, making 
these workers permanently unemployed. Trade adjustment assistance will 
help with extended unemployment benefits, training and relocation. I 
know that these workers are grateful for this assistance, but it is 
help that comes after LTV has closed its doors forever.
  The bill we introduce today will give the industry time to 
restructure and provide needed capital to companies through the Steel 
Loan Guarantee program, a program established through the efforts of 
the distinguished Senator, Robert Byrd. The Steel Revitalization Act 
will help retired steelworkers with a health care fund; and help 
companies with necessary consolidation while at the same time requiring 
them to retain the majority of their workforce.
  The United Steelworkers state: ``On a level playing field, there 
would be no steel crisis, but there is no level playing field.'' The 
Steel Revitalization Act will help strengthen the steel industry and 
make American steel competitive once again.
  I promise the Minnesota taconite workers, their families, and the 
communities of the Iron Range, to work hard to pass this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 958. A bill to provide for the use and distribution of the funds 
awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under Indian Claims 
Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, 326-K, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and for Senator 
Ensign, to introduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. I am 
re-introducing this much needed bill for the Western Shoshone Tribe 
from the second session of the 106th Congress. It had been referred to 
the Indian Affairs Committee, but there was not enough time at the end 
of the Congress to act on it.
  In 1946, the Indian Claims Commission was established to compensate 
Indians for lands and resources taken from them by the United States. 
The Commission determined in 1962 that Western Shoshone homeland had 
been taken through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977, the Commission 
awarded the Tribe in over $26 million dollars. However, it was not 
until 1979, that the United States appropriated the funds to reimburse 
the descendants of these Tribes for their loss. Plans for claims 
distribution were further delayed by litigation; and the Western 
Shoshone concern that accepting the claims would impact their right to 
get back some of their traditional homelands.
  The Western Shoshone are an impoverished people. There is relatively 
little economic activity on some of their scattered reservations. Those 
who are employed, work for the tribal government, work in livestock and 
agriculture, or work in small businesses, such as day-cares and 
souvenir shops. They live from pay check to pay check, with little or 
no money for heating their homes, much less for their children's 
education. Many of the Western Shoshone continue to be 
disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational achievement. 
Many individuals of the Western Shoshone are willing to accept the 
distribution of the claim settlement funds to relieve these difficult 
economic conditions. About $128.8 million (in principal and interest) 
would be distributed to over 6,000 eligible members of the Western 
Shoshone; $1.27 million (in principal and interest) would be placed in 
an educational trust fund for the benefit of and distribution to future 
generations of the Tribe.
  The Western Shoshone have waited long enough for the distribution of 
these much needed funds. The final distribution of this fund has 
lingered for more than twenty years, and the best interests of the 
Tribe will not be served by a further delay in enacting this 
legislation. My bill will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone 
tribal members, and ensure that future generations will be able to 
enjoy the financial benefits of this settlement by establishing a grant 
program for education and other individual needs. The Western Shoshone 
Steering Committee, a coalition of Western Shoshone individual tribal 
members, has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to 
affect this distribution.
  This Act also provides that acceptance of these funds is not a waiver 
of any existing treaty rights pursuant to the Ruby Valley Treaty. Nor 
will acceptance of these funds prevent any Western Shoshone Tribe or 
Band or individual Western Shoshone Indian from pursuing other rights 
guaranteed by law.
  Twenty-three years has been more than long enough.
  Finally, I would like to highlight the fact that Senator Ensign of 
Nevada joins me today to introduce this important bill. I know that 
Senator Ensign is concerned, as I, about the delay of the distribution 
of the claims to the Western Shoshone, and his support for this bill 
will help ensure that the Tribe will receive their long-awaited 
compensation.
  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. 958

  [Data not available at time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 959. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Transportation to consider the impact of severe 
weather conditions on Montana's aviation public and establish 
regulatory distinctions consistent with those applied to the State of 
Alaska; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Montana 
Rural Aviation Improvement Act.
  As many in this body know, flying in Montana can be an adventure. 
There's an old saying in Montana that ``if you want the weather to 
change, wait five minutes''.
  Simply put, this act would provide the aviation public with an 
accurate report of Montana's weather conditions at airports across the 
state.
  This year the Federal Aviation Administration eliminated the use of 
on-site certified weather observers at Service Level D Airports in 
Montana. These Level D Airports are an important part of Montana's 
transportation infrastructure and economy. Without accurate 
information, both commercial and private planes may not be able to land 
at these airports because of inaccurate readings from the Automated 
Surface Observing System, ASOS.
  In August 2000 I directed a member of my staff to spend a day at the 
Miles City weather observation station, where the Automated Surface 
Observing Systems system was being tested.
  I am now even more convinced that the commission of the Automated 
Surface Observing Systems as a stand-alone weather observation service 
is a grave mistake.
  Many of the following conditions are characteristic of Montana's 
complicated weather patterns and can't be

[[Page S5636]]

accurately read by the Automated Surface Observing System.
  The Automated Surface Observing System User's Guide, dated March 
1998, states that the following weather elements cannot be sensed or 
reported by Automated Surface Observing System; hail; ice crystals 
(snow grains, ice pellets, snow pellets); drizzle, freezing drizzle; 
volcanic ash; blowing obstruction sand, dust, spray; smoke; snow fall 
and snow depth; hourly snow increase; liquid equivalent of frozen 
precipitation; water equivalent of snow on the ground; clouds above 
12,000 feet; operationally significant clouds above 12,000 feet in 
mountainous areas; virga; distant precipitation in mountainous and 
areas and distant clouds obscuring mountains; and operationally 
significant local variations in visibility.
  Five of the seven airports affected provide commercial airline 
service through the Essential Air Service, EAS, program--a program that 
is indispensable to the transportation and economy of Eastern Montana. 
With Automated Surface Observing System on stand-alone, Montana's EAS 
commercial carrier has expressed real reservations to landing at 
airports where data may or may not be current or correct, and 
especially in circumstances where Automated Surface Observing System 
does not yet read inclement or severe weather conditions common to 
Montana. As you know, airline service is dependent on one thing--
passengers. If they cannot land, who would pay to fly?
  This past summer I hosted the Montana Economic Summit, a statewide 
conference that brought together a strong public- private partnership 
to examine the evidence, chart a course and focus on those elements we 
can execute to help move this state forward. Transportation is a strong 
component of this state's economy. If commercial air service is 
impacted, it will have a dire and immediate impact on my state's 
economy, currently ranked at 49th in per capita income and struggling 
to climb out of the basement.
  I would like to add an accountability log compiled by the Miles City 
weather observers that identifies errors Automated Surface Observing 
System in data collected and reported by the Automated Surface 
Observing System at the Miles City Airport from April-July 2000. My 
staff observed the hourly accounting throughout the day, particularly 
noting the frustration by weather observers to input, correct and 
transmit data via the keyboard and terminal. It is extremely important 
to note that Montana's weather observers see the Automated Surface 
Observing System as a compatible tool to complement their professional 
training and provide the safest environment for Montana aviation.
  Maintenance and operational backup are of additional concern in 
Montana's rural landscape. It goes without saying that in instances of 
severe weather, when the Automated Surface Observing System should go 
down without backup, it effectively closes the airport to any traffic, 
commercial or private, that cannot or will not land without the 
technological benefit of reliable weather data. This process could 
clearly impact the safety of Montana's flying public.
  It cannot be overemphasized that in many smaller airports, 
specifically Service Level C&D sites, these observers are critical to 
the overall operation and safety of community airspace. I know you 
would have felt the same pride and support for the human weather 
observer positions that I do. We are one team, working for the same 
goal.
  The best available tools should be used to provide the most accurate 
data in situations involving public safety. The human weather observers 
assure me that Automated Surface Observing System as a tool, combined 
with their individual ability to override, correct or supplement 
weather data gathered by the sensors, will provide the American public 
with the highest quality safety and weather reporting capability in the 
world.
  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. 959

  [Data not available at time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cochran, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
        Stabenow, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 960. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand coverage of medical nutrition therapy services under the 
Medicare program for beneficiaries with cardiovascular diseases; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan 
legislation with my good friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig 
and a bipartisan group of additional Senators. This legislation, 
entitled the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 
2001,'' provides for the coverage of nutrition therapy for 
cardiovascular disease under Part B of the Medicare program by a 
registered dietitian.
  This bill builds on provisions in the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP 
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act,'' otherwise known as BIPA, 
which included coverage of Medicare nutrition therapy for diabetes and 
renal disease taken from my legislation last year, S. 660, the 
``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999.''
  This bipartisan legislation is necessary because there is currently 
no consistent Medicare Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition 
therapy, despite the fact that poor nutrition is a major problem in 
older Americans. Nutrition therapy in the ambulatory or outpatient 
settings has been considered by Medicare to be a preventive service, 
and therefore, not explicitly covered.
  While it was significant that nutrition therapy coverage was added to 
Part B of the Medicare program for diabetes and renal disease, it is 
critical that the Congress also takes action to cover cardiovascular 
disease through passage of this legislation, as recommended by the 
Institute of Medicine in its report, The Role of Nutrition in 
Maintaining Health in the Nation's Elderly: Evaluating Coverage of 
Nutrition Services for the Medicare Population.
  The report, which had been requested by Congress in the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, found that nutrition therapy has been shown to be 
effective in the management and treatment of many chronic conditions 
which affect Medicare beneficiaries, including diabetes and chronic 
renal insufficiency, but also cardiovascular disease. As the IOM notes, 
``Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death and major 
contributors to medical utilization and disability . . . Furthermore, 
there is a striking age-related rise in mortality from heart disease 
such that the vast majority of deaths due to heart disease occur in 
persons age 65 and older.''
  In addition, the costs associated with cardiovascular disease are 
substantial with regard to the Medicare program. According to the IOM, 
``. . . in 1995, Medicare spent $24.6 billion for hospital expenses 
related to [cardiovascular diseases], an amount that corresponds to 33 
percent of its hospitalization expenditures.''
  Providing nutrition therapy to Medicare beneficiaries could 
positively impact the Medicare Part A Trust Fund if hospitalization 
could be reduced or avoided. The IOM found this would likely occur. As 
the report notes, ``Such programs can prevent readmissions for heart 
failure, reduce subsequent length of stay, and improve functional 
status and quality-of-life . . . In view of the high costs of managing 
heart failure, particular admissions for heart failure exacerbations, 
and the rapid response to therapies, there is a real potential for cost 
savings from multidisciplinary heart failure programs that include 
nutrition therapy.''
  It is exactly the type of cost effective care that we should 
encourage in the Medicare program. As the American Heart Association 
adds in their letter of support for this legislation, Dr. Robert Eckel 
points out that, in one study, ``for every dollar spent on [Medicare 
nutrition therapy] there is a three to ten dollar cost savings realized 
by reducing the need for drug therapy.'' With drug costs increasing 
dramatically, this could potentially result in significant cost savings 
to Medicare beneficiaries.
  Therefore, both the Medicare program and beneficiaries would benefit

[[Page S5637]]

from this expanded benefit. As the IOM concludes, ``Expanded coverage 
for nutrition therapy is likely to generate economically significant 
benefits to beneficiaries, and in the short term to the Medicare 
program itself, through reduced healthcare expenditures. . . .''
  Most importantly, it would also improve the quality of care of 
Medicare beneficiaries. As the IOM report adds, ``Whether or not 
expanded coverage reduces overall Medicare expenditures, it is 
recommended that these services be reimbursed given the reasonable 
evidence of improved patient outcomes associated with such care.''
  For these reasons, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Medicare 
Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001'' today with Senator 
Craig.
  However, as this legislation is introduced, I do want to note that 
the IOM also recommended nutrition therapy be covered based on 
physician referral rather than a specific medical condition. The 
original legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senator Craig 
and myself did just that but was made disease-specific in conference 
last year. While I am pleased to introduce this legislation to include 
cardiovascular disease, I do believe that we need to move toward 
eliminating this disease-specific approach in the near future. For 
example, I believe that Medicare should also provide Medicare nutrition 
therapy for HIV/AIDS, cancer, and osteoporosis, among other things.
  In the meantime, I urge the Congress to expand Medicare nutrition 
therapy benefits to cover cardiovascular diseases as soon as possible.
  I request 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. 960

  [Data not available at time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 962. A bill to preserve open competition and Federal Government 
neutrality towards the labor relations of Federal Government 
contractors on Federal and federally funded construction projects; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. 962

  [Data not available at time of printing.]

                          ____________________