Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7085-S7114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1118. A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 to identify certain routes in New Mexico as part
of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, a high priority corridor on the
National Highway System; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
promote the future economic vitality of the communities in Union and
Colfax Counties, and throughout Northeast New Mexico. Our bill
designates the route for New Mexico's section of the Ports-to-Plains
High Priority Corridor, which runs 1000 miles from Laredo, Texas, to
Denver, Colorado. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Domenici,
as a cosponsor.
I am certain every senator recognizes the importance of basic
transportation infrastructure to economic development in their State.
Roads and airports link a region to the world economy.
In New Mexico, it is well known that regions with four-lane highways
and economical commercial air service will most readily attract new
jobs. I have long pressed at the Federal level to ensure our
communities have the roads and airports they need for their long-term
economic health. That is why this bill I am introducing today is so
important. With the passage of NAFTA, the Ports-to-Plains corridor is
centrally situated to serve international trade and promote economic
development along its entire route.
In 1998 Congress identified the corridor from the border with Mexico
to Denver, CO, as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway
System. Last year, a comprehensive study was undertaken to determine
the feasibility of creating a continuous four-lane highway along the
corridor. Alternative highway alignments for the trade corridor were
also developed and evaluated. The study was conducted under the
direction of a steering committee consisting of the State departments
of transportation in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado.
It is important to note that public input was an important facet at
every stage of the study. The steering committee sponsored public
meetings in May of last year in Clayton, NM, and five other locations
along the corridor. A final series of seven public meetings was held
this year. I note that the level of public interest and participation
was highest in New Mexico. Over 600 citizens attended the public
meeting in Raton, NM, on March 6, 2001, while a total of only 700
people attended all six of the other public meetings in Texas,
Oklahoma, and Colorado clearly demonstrating the importance of this
trade corridor designation to Northeast New Mexico. A final report has
just been prepared and a summary can be found on the web at
www.wilbursmith.com/portstoplains.
The study evaluated two routes for the trade corridor between
Amarillo, TX, and Denver, CO. One route ran along U.S. Highway 64/87
between Clayton and Raton, NM. The other followed U.S. Highway 287,
bypassing New Mexico. The feasibility study found that either route
between Amarillo and Denver would result in favorable conditions.
However, the alignment through New Mexico, from Clayton to Raton, along
U.S. Highway 64/87, was dramatically more favorable than the
alternative in terms of travel efficiency, benefits and feasibility,
including travel time savings and accident cost reduction. In
particular:
The benefit-to-cost ratio of the New Mexico route was 75 percent
better than for the route bypassing New Mexico.
The traffic volume in 2025 would be 150 percent higher on the New
Mexico corridor than on the alternative, including 25 percent more
trucks.
Two thirds of the New Mexico alignment is already four lanes wide or
is soon slated to be widened to four lanes, compared to only one-third
of the alternative alignment.
The alternative would require acquisition of more than twice the
right-of-way and would displace nearly three times more residential and
commercial facilities.
The New Mexico alignment would serve a population of nearly 2 million
persons, compared to 1.5 million for the alternative.
Finally, the construction costs of the New Mexico alignment are $175
million less than the route bypassing New Mexico.
The alternative route had a very slight advantage over the New Mexico
alignment only in economic development benefits.
With the feasibility study results now complete, The New Mexico
Highway Commission last week voted unanimously to support the
designation New Mexico's portion of the Ports-to-Plains Trade High
Priority Corridor along U.S. Highway 64/87 between Clayton and Raton.
The designated route connects into Texas along Highway 87 to Dumas, and
to Denver along Interstate 25.
Very simply, this bill advances the same goal, to designate the route
between Clayton and Raton in New Mexico as part of the Ports-to-Plains
Corridor. As the huge turnout for the public meeting in Raton in March
clearly demonstrates, there is overwhelming public support for this
route throughout Union and Colfax Counties in New Mexico. There is also
very strong support in neighboring Las Animas and Pueblo Counties in
Colorado, including the cities of Trinidad and Pueblo.
In Texas, the state already plans to widen to four lanes its portion
of the route between Dumas and the New Mexico state line. In New
Mexico, the Citizens' Highway Assessment Task Force identified the
route between Clayton and Raton as a priority to upgrade to four lanes.
The initial needs and purposes study for the project is currently
listed in New Mexico's five-year Statewide Transportation Improvement
Study, STIP.
In addition to possible routes north of Amarillo, TX, I should also
note that the feasibility study considered a variety of alternative
routes south of Amarillo, on down to Laredo. However, Congress already
indicated its preferred southern leg in the Omnibus Appropriations Act
of 2001, though the

[[Page S7086]]

Congressional designation of the southern route was enacted long before
we had the results of the feasibility study. The Texas Transportation
Commission is voting today to confirm Congress' designation of the
southern leg.
The studies have now been completed. The results are in. The route
south of Amarillo has been set. Congress should now complete the
designation of the final leg of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by
passing our bill.
The time to act is now. Once the route is established the States can
move forward with their regional and statewide transportation plans,
environmental studies, design work, acquisition of rights of way, and
initial construction of the most critical segments.
I thank Senator Domenici for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all
senators will join us in support of this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New Mexico State Highway
Commission's resolution and the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1118

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

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PORTS-TO-PLAINS HIGH PRIORITY
CORRIDOR ROUTES IN NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO.

Section 1105(c)(38) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 114
Stat. 2763A-201) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i)
through (viii) as subclauses (I) through (VIII),
respectively;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (A) as clause (i);
(3) by striking ``(38) The'' and inserting ``(38)(A) The'';
(4) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (3))--
(A) in clause (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
(i) in subclause (VII) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subclause (VIII) (as redesignated by paragraph
(1)), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(IX) United States Route 87 from Dumas to the border
between the States of Texas and New Mexico.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) In the States of New Mexico and Colorado, the Ports-
to-Plains Corridor shall generally follow--
``(I) United States Route 87 from the border between the
States of Texas and New Mexico to Raton, New Mexico; and
``(II) Interstate Route 25 from Raton, New Mexico, to
Denver, Colorado.''; and
(5) by striking ``(B) The corridor designation contained in
paragraph (A)'' and inserting the following:
``(B) The corridor designation contained in subclauses (I)
through (VIII) of subparagraph (A)(i)''.
____

State of New Mexico, State Highway Commission, Resolution No 2001-3
(JUN)

Whereas, in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (Public Law 105-178, Section 1211) Congress
designated the Ports to Plains Corridor (Corridor), from the
Mexican border via I-27 (in Texas) to Denver, Colorado, as
one of 43 High Priority Corridors to integrate regions and to
improve the efficiency and safety of commerce and travel and
to promote economic development; and
Whereas, the Texas Department of Transportation has
identified the highways in Texas that it will recommend to
the Federal Highway Administration be part of the Corridor
from Laredo to Dumas, but has deferred to the States of New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado to reach a consensus on the
recommendation of highways to complete the Corridor from
Dumas to Denver; and
Whereas, a feasibility study (Study) under the direction of
a steering committee made up of representatives of the
affected states, has identified two alternatives to complete
the Corridor from Amarillo to Denver. The first alternative
designated N1, goes from Amarillo (following U.S. 287) to
Dumas, Texas, then follows U.S. 87 and U.S. 64/87 from Dumas,
through Clayton, New Mexico, to Raton, New Mexico, and then
continues to Denver following I-25 through Trinidad, Pueblo,
and Colorado Springs, Colorado. The second alternative,
designated N4, bypasses New Mexico by following U.S. 287
through Boise City, Oklahoma to Lamar and Limon, Colorado and
then follows I-70 to Denver; and
Whereas, the public participation process of the Study
reflects overwhelming support in the communities and related
areas of Clayton, Raton, Trinidad, and Pueblo for the N1
alternative; and
Whereas, the N1 alternative will better serve the intent of
Congress in creating the High Priority Corridor program
because it will integrate more regional population centers
and provide greater opportunities for economic development
than the N4 alternative, which bypasses these population
centers and thus limits the potential for economic
development; and
Whereas, the N4 alternative will cost more to construct
than the N1 alternative because the N4 alternative will
require the construction of more new four land highway,
including the cost of right of way acquisition; and
Whereas, portions of I-25 in alternative N1 from Denver to
Colorado Springs are being improved and need additional
improvements to better serve current needs and this
Commission understands that a bypass on the Interstate
Highway System for Colorado Springs is in conceptual plans of
the Colorado Department of Transportation: Now, therefore it
is
Resolved by the State Highway Commission, That it supports
the N1 alternative to bring the Ports to Plains Corridor
through New Mexico on U.S. 64/87, including upgrading U.S.
64/87 in New Mexico to a four-lane highway, in order to
achieve the intent of Congress in the High Priority Corridor
program to integrate regional population centers and provide
opportunities for economic development; and it is further
Resolved, That the State Highway Commission supports
additional federal funding for improvements to I-25 in
Colorado and a bypass of Colorado Springs if that plan is
adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation; and it
is further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be provided to the
Ports to Plains Project Steering Committee and feasibility
study consultant, the Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado
Departments of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, New Mexico, Division, the governing bodies of
the municipalities of Trinidad, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs,
Colorado, Clayton, Des Moines, Raton, Springer, Cimarron,
Eagle Nest, Angel Fire, Taos, Questa, and Red River, New
Mexico and Union, Colfax, and Taos Counties, New Mexico, the
New Mexico Municipal League, the New Mexico Association of
Counties, all members of the New Mexico Congressional
delegation, and all members of the New Mexico Legislative
leadership.
Adopted in open meeting by the State Highway Commission on
June 21, 2001.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Ports-to-
Plains NAFTA corridor designation through New Mexico, along U.S.
Highway 64/87 from Clayton to Raton.
From the beginning, I have vigorously supported the proposed route
through New Mexico. In fact, while a member of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I worked to make the
proposed route through New Mexico a possibility.
Further, representatives from my office attended a public comment
meeting on the route in Raton, New Mexico in March 2001. I thought it
important that the more than three hundred New Mexicans in attendance
know that I was behind them.
I have supported the route from the beginning because I knew that it
would be good for the people of my state and good for the country.
The conclusions of the feasibility study give clear and convincing
evidence supporting what I had suspected all along. The route through
New Mexico, known as the N-1 route, is the best choice.
In order to demonstrate that a particular infrastructure best meets
the public interest over another, one must consider a host of factors.
Those factors include considering the public's preferences, the cost
of the competing projects, and the relative efficiency of implementing
each project.
The feasibility study concluded that the Ports-to-Plain route best
meets this criteria.
The traveling public overwhelmingly prefers the route through New
Mexico, which carries 28,000 vehicles per day. The competing proposal
only has traffic flows of 11,000 vehicles each day.
The N-1 route through New Mexico represents the best deal for the
taxpayer since it costs $175 million less than the competing route.
Last, the route through New Mexico would be the most efficient to
implement since sixty-seven percent of the highway has already been
programmed for four-lane expansion. The competing route has only
programmed thirty-seven percent of the road for crucial four-lane
improvements.
Furthermore, the State of New Mexico is committed to securing the
Ports-to-Plains designation. Evidencing that commitment, the State's
Highway Commission recently passed a resolution supporting the Ports-to
Plains designation from Dumas, Texas to Raton, New Mexico.
I pledge to continue working to ensure that the Ports-to-Plains
corridor is designated through New Mexico. The route through Raton, New
Mexico is the most efficient and cost effective

[[Page S7087]]

option for the U.S. taxpayer, furthers the interest of the people of my
State, and is supported by the State government.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Cochran,
Mrs. Carnahan, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1119. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to carry out a
study of the extent to the coverage of members of the Selected Reserve
of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces under health benefits plans
and to submit a report on the study of Congress, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important
legislation that will impact the health and readiness of the Selected
Reserve. The Selected Reserves includes over 900,000 dedicated men and
women divided between the National Guard and the Reserves. Over the
past ten years, this force has become increasingly critical to carrying
out our Nation's defense, whether deploying to far-flung regions of the
globe or backfilling for other units making those deployments.
The country simply cannot meet its commitments without these proud
citizen-soldiers. It follows, then, that steps to increase the
readiness of the Selected Reserves will have a positive effect on the
readiness of the entire force. It was this goal in mind that I
introduce the Health Care for Selected Reserve Act.
This legislation will ensure that all members of the drilling
reserves have adequate health insurance. The legislation acknowledges
our reserves' continuing contributions to the defense of the Nation and
expresses the need for full medical coverage. The legislation will
commission an independent study on the extent of insurance shortfalls
and examine the feasibility of extending the TRICARE or FEHBP program
to the reserves.
Currently, when a member of the Selected Reserve goes on active duty
over 60 days, they are provided full coverage under the TRICARE Prime
program conducted through the active military's medical treatment
facilities. But when reservists are not on active duty, they are left
to gain insurance through their civilian employers. Like the rest of
society, most gain adequate coverage through their employers like the
rest of society, but, mirroring broader shortfalls in the wider
population, many go without any health coverage at all. This shortfall
has an even more noticeable affect on the country because it affects
military readiness.
There is also an underlying issue of fairness here. It seems wrong to
me that one week someone can be patrolling the skies over Iraq with
full coverage and the next week they can have no health coverage at
all. That situation gives the impression that the National Guard and
the Reserves are the poorly-paid subcontractor to the active duty
force. If we really believe in the idea of the Total Force, we cannot
let these health coverage shortfalls exist.
I want to thank the other sponsors of this bill for helping me craft
this bill. Senators DeWine, Daschle, Cochran, Carnahan, Snowe, and
Johnson are deeply interested in this issue, and I look forward to
working with them to develop a set of concrete steps to meet this
problem. I urge the legislation's adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1119

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the Armed
Forces is the element of the Armed Forces of the United
States that has the capability quickly to augment the active
duty forces of the Armed Forces successfully in times of
crisis.
(2) The Selected Reserve has been assigned increasingly
critical levels of responsibility for carrying out the
worldwide military missions of the Armed Forces since the end
of the Cold War.
(3) Members of the Selected Reserve have served proudly as
mobilized forces in numerous theaters from Europe to the
Pacific and South America, indeed, around the world.
(4) The active duty forces of the Armed Forces cannot
successfully perform all of the national security missions of
the Armed Forces without augmentation by the Selected
Reserve.
(5) The high and increasing tempo of activity of the
Selected Reserve causes turbulence in the relationships of
members of the Selected Reserve with their families,
employers, and reserve units.
(6) The turbulence often results from lengthy, sometimes
year-long, absences of the members of the Selected Reserve
from their families and their civilian jobs in the
performance of military duties necessary for the execution of
essential missions.
(7) Family turbulence includes the difficulties associated
with vacillation between coverage of members' families for
health care under civilian health benefits plans and coverage
under the military health benefits options.
(8) Up to 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve,
including, in particular, self-employed members, do not have
adequate health benefits.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that steps should be taken to
ensure that every member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve of the Armed Forces and the member's family have
health care benefits that are adequate--
(1) to ease the transition of the member from civilian life
to full-time military life during a mobilization of reserve
forces;
(2) to minimize the adverse effects of a mobilization on
the member's ability to provide for the member's family to
have ready access to adequate health care; and
(3) to improve readiness and retention in the Selected
Reserve.

SEC. 3. STUDY OF HEALTH CARE BENEFITS COVERAGE FOR MEMBERS OF
THE SELECTED RESERVE.

(a) Requirement for Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall
enter into a contract with a federally funded research and
development center to carry out a study of the needs of
members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the
Armed Forces and their families for health care benefits.
(b) Report.--(1) Not later than March 1, 2002, the
Secretary shall submit a report on the results of the study
to Congress.
(2) The report shall include the following matters:
(A) Descriptions, and an analysis, of how members of the
Selected Reserve and their dependents currently obtain
coverage for health care benefits, together with statistics
on enrollments in health care benefits plans.
(B) The percentage of members of the Selected Reserve, and
dependents of such members, who are not covered by any health
insurance or other health benefits plan, together with the
reasons for the lack of coverage.
(C) Descriptions of the disruptions in health benefits
coverage that a mobilization of members of the Selected
Reserve causes for the members and their families.
(D) At least three recommended options for cost-effectively
preventing or reducing the disruptions by means of extending
health care benefits under the Defense Health Program or the
Federal Employees Health Benefits program to all members of
the Selected Reserve and their families, together with an
estimate of the costs of individual coverage and family
coverage under each option.
(E) A profile of the health status of members of the
Selected Reserve and their dependents, together with a
discussion of how that profile would affect the cost of
providing adequate health benefits coverage for that
population of beneficiaries.
(F) An analysis of the likely effects that providing
enhanced health benefits coverage to members of the Selected
Reserve and their families would have on recruitment and
retention for, and the readiness of, the Selected Reserve.
(3) In formulating the options to recommend under paragraph
(2)(D), the Secretary shall consider an expansion of the
TRICARE program or the Federal Employees Health Benefits
program to cover the members of the Selected Reserve and
their families.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join with several important
leaders of the Senate's National Guard Caucus to introduce S. 1119,
which we believe will one day result in improved health care for Guard
and Reserve members and their families.
It is appropriate that we introduce this now, during a week in which
Senate floor debate has focused almost exclusively on health care, with
several lively discussions about the importance of expanding health
coverage to the uninsured.
Unfortunately, Guard members and leaders in South Dakota tell me that
many of the uninsured serve in the National Guard. Many of them work
for small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to
their employees. Some of them have insurance for themselves, but cannot
afford to insure their dependents.
Meanwhile, this Nation is utilizing the Guard more heavily than at
any other time in our Nation's history. During the Cold War, a Guard
member

[[Page S7088]]

might serve and retire without ever being called to active duty.
Staring with the Persian Gulf War and continuing to this day in Bosnia,
Kosovo and Iraq, reservists are serving alongside the active duty
military during deployments that can last 6 months or more.
Each of these deployments strains the Guard member's employer, who
temporarily gives up a valued employee. And it strains individual
soldiers and their families, even if they have health insurance,
because employer-provided coverage often lapses during periods of
active duty.
The premise of our bill is that health coverage can help the Guard
attract and retain top-flight personnel and also improve readiness;
that it can help service members and their families, especially in
coping with mobilization; and that it can relieve some of the burdens
faced today by National Guard employers, particularly small businesses.
This bill lays the groundwork for a solution. S. 1119 would authorize
a study by a non-government research center to explore the extent of
the problem and recommend at least three cost-effective solutions,
including the possibility of opening the TRICARE program or the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program to reservists and their families. The
study would look at disruptions to health coverage caused by
mobilizations and analyze the likely impact of enhanced health care on
recruitment and retention.
We have developed this bill in consultation with the Military
Coalition and several of its members. I appreciate their concern for
this problem and their work to help develop a solution. In this regard,
I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of the Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve
Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United
States, and the Retired Officers Association.
I hope and believe that today's bill introduction can be an important
step toward providing adequate health care for members of the South
Dakota National Guard and other reservists around the Nation, who do so
much on behalf of their communities, their States, and this Nation.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 1120. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
increase the authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2002, and
to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003, to combat HIV and
AIDS, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, as the United Nations meets to
prepare a global strategy to combat the growing worldwide HIV-AIDS
crisis, I am proud to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that the
United States continues to be a leader in the fight against this deadly
disease.
I am pleased to once again join my good friend and colleague from
Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bill. Last year, we teamed
up to offer the Global AIDS Prevention Act that doubled funding for the
United States Agency for International Development's HIV-AIDS programs.
Not only was this legislation included in broader international health
legislation which became law, it was also fully funded for the current
fiscal year. This year, we are looking to build upon last year's
success by again doubling the amount USAID spends on fighting the
global HIV-AIDS epidemic.
The Global AIDS Research and Relief Act would authorize $600 million
in each of the next two fiscal years. It is designed to complement
international HIV-AIDS relief efforts so that a truly global response
can be implemented in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Southeast
Asia, Russia, and all places where people are suffering from this
epidemic.
In the 20 years since AIDS was first recognized, 22 million people
worldwide have died from the disease, and 36 million more are living
with HIV or AIDS today. Of those living with the disease, 95 percent
live in the developing world where advanced technology to combat AIDS
is not readily available. It is predicted that AIDS will soon become
the deadliest infectious epidemic in world history, surpassing the
Plague, which killed an estimated 25 million people.
This new chapter in the AIDS epidemic is especially tragic because
its growth is preventable. While there is no cure for this horrible
disease, progress is being made. New medical breakthroughs afford HIV-
positive people a much greater life expectancy than they would have had
ten years ago. Unfortunately, these efforts are not reaching the
Nations whose people need help the most. By increasing authorization
for USAID to establish and expand these valuable initiatives in
developing countries, our bill helps to remedy this disparity in the
quality of care.
Specifically, the bill addresses the need for increased voluntary
testing and counseling, so that we can educate people and keep its
spread in check. With this funding authorization, the USAID will be
able to provide more for the most vulnerable constituencies, children
and young adults. The money will be used for drugs like neviropine,
which is given to expectant HIV-positive mothers to prevent the spread
of the infection to their unborn children.
The United States is a trendsetter in efforts to address the pandemic
of HIV-AIDS. Through the work of USAID, we have instituted prevention,
care, and treatment programs in some of the hardest-hit countries in
sub-Saharan Africa. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
worked with partners in other countries to expand treatment programs.
Other agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Defense are contributing to the
effort to end the spread of AIDS. But far more remains to be done.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure and 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. 1120

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 ``Global AIDS Research and
Relief Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) AIDS.--The term ``AIDS'' means the acquired immune
deficiency syndrome.
(2) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
International Development Association.
(3) Bank.--The term ``Bank'' or ``World Bank'' means the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
(4) HIV.--The term ``HIV'' means the human immunodeficiency
virus, the pathogen, which causes AIDS.
(5) HIV/AIDS.--The term ``HIV/AIDS'' means, with respect to
an individual, an individual who is infected with HIV or
living with AIDS.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the Surgeon General of the United States,
the epidemic of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) will soon become the worst
epidemic of infectious disease in recorded history, eclipsing
both the bubonic plague of the 1300s and the influenza
epidemic of 1918-1919 which killed more than 20,000,000
people worldwide.
(2) According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/
AIDS (UNAIDS), more than 36,100,000 people in the world today
are living with HIV/AIDS, of which approximately 95 percent
live in the developing world.
(3) UNAIDS data shows that among children age 15 and under
worldwide, more than 4,300,000 have died from AIDS, more than
1,400,000 are living with the disease; and in 1 year alone--
2000--an estimated 600,000 became infected, of which over 90
percent were babies born to HIV-positive women.
(4) Although sub-Saharan Africa has only 10 percent of the
world's population, it is home to more than 25,300,000--
roughly 70 percent--of the world's HIV/AIDS cases.
(5) Worldwide, there have already been an estimated
21,800,000 deaths because of HIV/AIDS, of which more than 80
percent occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.
(6) According to UNAIDS, by the end of 1999, 13,200,000
children have lost at least one parent to AIDS, including
12,100,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa, and are thus
considered AIDS orphans.
(7) At current infection and growth rates for HIV/AIDS, the
National Intelligence Council estimates that the number of
AIDS orphans worldwide will increase dramatically,
potentially increasing threefold or more in the next 10
years, contributing to economic decay, social fragmentation,
and political destabilization in already volatile and
strained societies. Children without care or hope are often
drawn into prostitution, crime, substance abuse, or child
soldiery.

[[Page S7089]]

(8) The discovery of a relatively simple and inexpensive
means of interrupting the transmission of HIV from an
infected mother to the unborn child--namely with nevirapine
(NVP), which costs $4 a tablet--has created a great
opportunity for an unprecedented partnership between the
United States Government and the governments of Asian,
African, and Latin American countries to reduce mother-to-
child transmission (also known as ``vertical transmission'')
of HIV.
(9) According to UNAIDS, if implemented this strategy will
decrease the proportion of orphans that are HIV-infected and
decrease infant and child mortality rates in these developing
regions.
(10) A mother-to-child antiretroviral drug strategy can be
a force for social change, providing the opportunity and
impetus needed to address often longstanding problems of
inadequate services and the profound stigma associated with
HIV-infection and the AIDS disease. Strengthening the health
infrastructure to improve mother-and-child health, antenatal,
delivery, and postnatal services, and couples counseling
generates enormous spillover effects toward combating the
AIDS epidemic in developing regions.
(11) A January 2000 United States National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) report on the global infectious disease threat
concluded that the economic costs of infectious diseases--
especially HIV/AIDS--are already significant and could reduce
GDP by as much as 20 percent or more by 2010 in some sub-
Saharan African nations.
(12) The HIV/AIDS epidemic is of increasing concern in
other regions of the world, with UNAIDS estimating that there
are more than 5,800,000 cases in South and Southeast Asia,
that the rate of HIV infection in the Caribbean is second
only to sub-Saharan Africa, and that HIV infections have
doubled in just 2 years in the former Soviet Union.
(13) Russia is the new ``hot spot'' for the pandemic and
more Russians are expected to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS by
the end of 2001 than all cases from previous years combined.
(14) Despite the discouraging statistics on the spread of
HIV/AIDS, some developing nations--such as Uganda, Senegal,
and Thailand--have implemented prevention programs that have
substantially curbed the rate of HIV infection.
(15) Accordingly, United States financial support for
medical research, education, and disease containment as a
global strategy has beneficial ramifications for millions of
Americans and their families who are affected by this
disease, and the entire population, which is potentially
susceptible.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) help prevent human suffering through the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of HIV/AIDS; and
(2) help ensure the viability of economic development,
stability, and national security in the developing world by
advancing research to--
(A) understand the causes associated with HIV/AIDS in
developing countries; and
(B) assist in the development of an AIDS vaccine.

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE AUTHORITIES TO COMBAT HIV AND
AIDS.

Paragraphs (4) through (6) of section 104(c) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)) are amended to
read as follows:
``(4)(A) Congress recognizes the growing international
dilemma of children with the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) and the merits of intervention programs aimed at this
problem. Congress further recognizes that mother-to-child
transmission prevention strategies can serve as a major force
for change in developing regions, and it is, therefore, a
major objective of the foreign assistance program to control
the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic.
``(B) The agency primarily responsible for administering
this part shall--
``(i) coordinate with UNAIDS, UNICEF, WHO, national and
local governments, other organizations, and other Federal
agencies to develop and implement effective strategies to
prevent vertical transmission of HIV; and
``(ii) coordinate with those organizations to increase
intervention programs and introduce voluntary counseling and
testing, antiretroviral drugs, replacement feeding, and other
strategies.
``(5)(A) Congress expects the agency primarily responsible
for administering this part to make the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS) a priority in the foreign
assistance program and to undertake a comprehensive,
coordinated effort to combat HIV and AIDS.
``(B) Assistance described in subparagraph (A) shall
include help providing--
``(i) primary prevention and education;
``(ii) voluntary testing and counseling;
``(iii) medications to prevent the transmission of HIV from
mother to child;
``(iv) programs to strengthen and broaden health care
systems infrastructure and the capacity of health care
systems in developing countries to deliver HIV/AIDS
pharmaceuticals, prevention, and treatment to those afflicted
with HIV/AIDS; and
``(v) care for those living with HIV or AIDS.
``(6)(A) In addition to amounts otherwise available for
such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated to the
President $600,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 and
2003 to carry out paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(B) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under
subparagraph (A), not less than 65 percent is authorized to
be available through United States and foreign
nongovernmental organizations, including private and
voluntary organizations, for-profit organizations, religious
affiliated organizations, educational institutions, and
research facilities.
``(C)(i) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
subparagraph (A), priority should be given to programs that
address the support and education of orphans in sub-Saharan
Africa, including AIDS orphans and prevention strategies for
vertical transmission referred to in paragraph (4)(A).
``(ii) Assistance made available under this subsection, and
assistance made available under chapter 4 of part II to carry
out the purposes of this subsection, may be made available
notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts
assistance to foreign countries.
``(D) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
subparagraph (A), not more than 7 percent may be used for the
administrative expenses of the agency primarily responsible
for carrying out this part of this Act in support of
activities described in paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(E) Funds appropriated under this paragraph are
authorized to remain available until expended.''.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague
Senator Boxer to introduce the ``Global AIDS Research and Relief Act of
2001.'' This important legislation increases the authorization for
USAID to carry out its prevention, treatment and care programs to $600
million for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These additional resources will
help prevent human suffering through the prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of HIV/AIDS.
The world is facing a global health problem of disastrous proportions
in the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. In the past year, this issue has
received much needed attention from the international community and the
U.S. Government. But, unfortunately, our efforts and the efforts of
other governments, the private sector, and foundations have not been
enough and the pandemic continues to wreak havoc on the lives of
millions of people around the world. The United States plays a key role
in the global effort and our bill seeks to strengthen those efforts.
Over 58 million people have already been infected with HIV/AIDS and
36 million people are living today with HIV/AIDS. Of those living with
the disease, over 95 percent live in the developing world where the
economic and social structures in those countries are being destroyed.
Sub-Saharan Africa is truly an epicenter for this disease, but
increasingly, people are becoming infected in Asia, the Caribbean, and
Eastern Europe. Soon, HIV/AIDS will become the worst infectious disease
epidemic in recorded history, causing more deaths than both the bubonic
plague of the 1930s and the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919.
Young adults and children have been particularly hard hit by the
pandemic. Among children under the age of 15, more than 4.3 million
have died of AIDS and more than 1.4 million are living with AIDS. Just
last year, 600,000 young people became infected and over 90 percent
were babies born to HIV-positive mothers.
HIV/AIDS is also hitting those between the ages of 15--24. In some
sub-Saharan African countries, the infection rates are more than 40
percent in this population. These high infection rates will have a
significant impact on the social and economic health of developing
nations. The United States Census Bureau has found the life expectancy
in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen almost 30 years within a decade. By
2010, it is estimated that the average life expectancy in Botswana will
be 29 years of age, 30 years in Swaziland, 33 years in Namibia, and 36
years in South Africa. Millions of young adults are losing their lives
and this will significantly impact the economic and political viability
of these Nations. Some Nations are estimated to have a reduced GDP of
at least 20 percent or more by 2010 due to decreased productivity of
its workers. Over the past thirty years, the United States has invested
millions of dollars in democracy building programs and economic
stabilization programs. HIV/AIDS has quickly erased much of this
progress.
As we look to the future of the world, we are also confronted by the
problem of AIDS orphans. USAID estimates that there will be 44 million
orphans by 2010. Without a parent or family to

[[Page S7090]]

care for them, many will be drawn into prostitution, crime, substance
abuse or child soldiery. Furthermore, without stability many of these
children will not seek help when they are sick. AIDS threatens to
reverse years of steady progress of child survival in developing
countries.
The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the young will have a significant
impact on the economic future of the world. The pandemic is
contributing to economic decay, social fragmentation, and political
destabilization in already strained and volatile societies. These
factors are of particular concern in South and Southeast Asia, the
Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union where the
pandemic is just beginning to become a problem. It is estimated that
there are more than 5.8 million cases in South and Southeast Asia and
the rate of HIV infection in the Caribbean is second only to sub-
Saharan Africa. Russia is the new ``hot spot'' for HIV/AIDS. More
Russians are expected to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2001
than all cases from previous years combined. Many of these countries do
not yet have prevention, treatment and care programs in place and we
must equip our federal agencies with the resources and flexibility
needed to address the pandemic in all of these areas.
The United States is seen as a leader in efforts to address the
epidemic. We contributed almost $500 million to fight HIV/AIDS in
fiscal year 2001. Through programs at the U.S. Agency for International
Development, we have instituted prevention, care and treatment programs
in some of the worst hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we have worked with
partners in other countries to expand treatment and home-based care
programs. Other agencies, including the Department of Labor, the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture have
contributed in their areas of expertise.
This legislation recognizes the growing problems encountered by
children around the world and instructs USAID to make efforts to
prevent mother-to-child transmission and orphan programs a major
objective of their program. Through coordination with UN agencies,
national and local governments, non-governmental organizations and
foundations, the U.S. government shall implement effective strategies
to prevent vertical transmission of HIV. Further, the bill states that
the agency must strengthen and expand all of its primary prevention and
education programs.
This bill also calls on USAID to continue to provide support to
research that will help the world to understand the causes associated
with HIV/AIDS in developing countries and assist in the development of
an effective AIDS vaccine.
I believe the ``Global AIDS Research and Relief Act of 2001'' can
make a profound difference in the lives of millions of people facing
the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I ask all my colleagues to join us and support
this legislation at this critical moment in the spread of the disease.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1123. A bill to amend the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of
1983 to ensure that all persons who benefit from the dairy promotion
and research program contribute to the cost of the program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator
Craig and Senator Kohl to introduce a modified version of the ``Dairy
Promotion Fairness Act,'' which I introduced earlier this year. This
legislation provides equity to domestic producers who have been paying
into the Promotion Program while importers have gotten a free ride.
I introduce a revised version of this legislation, after I received
suggestions on how to improve this legislation from America's dairy
farmers. Their input is vital to enacting effective dairy legislation,
and I thank all the dairy producers of my State not only for their
views, but also their work to strengthen Wisconsin's rural economy.
Since the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts only
generic promotion and general product research, domestic farmers and
importers alike benefit from these actions. The Dairy Promotion
Fairness Act requires that all dairy product importers contribute to
the program.
Unlike other agricultural commodity checkoff promotion programs, such
as beef, cotton and eggs, the dairy checkoff program collects funds
solely from domestic producers. Importers of dairy products do not have
to pay into the program, yet they reap the benefits of dairy promotion.
I would also like to make sure my colleagues are aware that June is
Dairy Month. This tradition of honoring our hard working dairy farmers,
began as ``National Milk Month'' first held in the summer of 1937.
Wisconsin celebrates this proud heritage every June by honoring our
past accomplishments of Wisconsin as America's Dairy State.
Wisconsin became a leader in the dairy industry after the first dairy
cow came to Wisconsin in the 1800's and by 1930 it earned the nickname,
America's Dairyland. Dairy history and the State's history have been
intertwined from the beginning. The people of Wisconsin are defined by
the image of dairy farmers: hardworking, honest and the heirs of a
great tradition.
I would like to share with you some of the accomplishments of
Wisconsin's Dairy Farmers. Wisconsin is the No. 1 cheese-producing
State in the country, with 28 percent of the total annual U.S. cheese
production. Wisconsin's 130 cheese plants produce more than 350
varieties, types and styles of Wisconsin cheese.
We produce more than 2 billion pounds of cheese annually. We have
more licensed cheese makers than any other state with some of the most
stringent state standards for cheesemaking and overall dairy product
quality. We lead the nation in the production of specialty cheeses,
such as Gorgonzola, Gruyere (gru-yure), Asiago, Provolone, Aged
Cheddar, Gouda, Blue, Feta and many others. In fact, we are the only
producer of Limburger cheese in the country.
Colby, Wisconsin is the home Colby cheese. And Brick cheese was
invented in Wisconsin, Brick is named for its shape, and because cheese
makers originally used bricks to press moisture from the cheese.
Wisconsinites have recognized this proud tradition by holding over
100 dairy celebrations across our State, including dairy breakfasts,
ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events.
These events are all designed to make the public aware of the quality,
variety and great taste of Wisconsin dairy products and to honor the
producers who make it all possible.
We must follow the lead of Wisconsin, and honor our dairy farmers by
passing this legislation and halting the free ride dairy importers
currently receive.
The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act supports the dairy marketing board's
efforts to educate consumers on the nutritional value of dairy
products. It also treats our farmers fairly by asking them not to bear
the entire financial burden for a promotional program that benefits
importers and domestic producers alike.
We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far
too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of the
program.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Specter, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1125. A bill to conserve global bear populations by prohibiting
the importation, exportation, and interstate trade of bear viscera and
items, products, or substances containing, or labeled or advertised as
containing, bear viscera, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, incredibly, there is a good chance that
today someone will put on a facial cream, apply a medicine, or even eat
a

[[Page S7091]]

soup that contains bear parts. Bear bile, gallbladders, paws and claws
are found in culinary delicacies, cosmetics and traditional ethnic
medicines in Asia, and these parts often fetch thousands of dollars. A
cup of bear paw soup has sold for up to $1,500 in Taiwan, and wildlife
experts say that a gallbladder can command tens of thousands of dollars
on the Asian market. Not surprisingly, the lure of astronomical profits
overseas has spawned rampant poaching of American bears. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service continues to find bear carcasses
rotting with their gallbladders ripped out and their paws sliced off.
Just today, creator Jack Elrod chronicled this heinous act in his
wildlife preservation comic strip, ``Mark Trail.''
The slaughter of American black bears and the sale of their parts is
a deliberate and dastardly plot hatched by a black market of poachers,
traders, and smugglers who have been known to transport bear parts in
cans of chocolate syrup or bottles of scotch. Because certain Asian
bear populations are being poached to near extinction, poachers and
smugglers often target American black bears to meet the demand for bear
parts in Asia and even within certain communities here at home. In
Oregon alone, one poaching-for-profit ring reportedly killed between
50-100 black bears a year for 5 to 10 years simply to harvest their
gallbladders. While the bear population in North America presently is
stable, the growth of illegal and inhumane poaching, coupled with the
difficulty of anti-poaching enforcement efforts, could pose a real
threat to our resident bear population. We should not stand by and
allow American bears to be decimated by poachers.
The depleted bear populations in Asia suffer a different, but equally
cruel, fate as they are ``protected'' to meet the demand for their
bile. National Geographic, U.S News and World Report and The Los
Angeles Times each have reported that Asiatic bears in China have been
trapped in bear ``farms'' and milked for their bile through catheters
inserted into their gallbladders. Bears in other countries often fare
no better. In South Korea, for example, bears have been bludgeoned to
death or boiled alive in front of patrons to prove they are purchasing
authentic Asian bear parts.
Some States in America prohibit trading in bear parts. But others do
not. And to make matters more complicated, some States prohibit such
trading only if the bear was killed within that State. It hardly takes
a lawyer to quickly find the loophole in such a law, poachers and black
market profiteers can simply kill a bear in another State and take it
back across State lines to sell the parts. And because it is almost
impossible to tell where a bear was killed just by looking at its
parts, traders and smugglers can always claim that the bear was killed
out of State. So, as you can see, our conflicting web of State laws
does little to deter poachers from their prey. In fact, the confusing
labyrinth of laws may make it easier for poachers to slaughter still
more bear.
To help bring the complex, sometimes criminal, and inhumane trade in
bear parts to an end, I am once again introducing the Bear Protection
Act. This legislation always has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support
since I first introduced the bill in the 103rd Congress. Last year the
bill passed this chamber by unanimous consent, only to be returned by
the House under the blue-slip rule. I am proud to be joined by 25
original cosponsors of the bill today, including 14 Democrats, 10
Republicans and an Independent, and I hope that others soon will join
me to help shepherd this important legislation to passage.
My legislation is straightforward. It prohibits the import, export,
or sale of bear viscera, or any products containing bear viscera, and
it imposes criminal and civil penalties for violators. Enacting a
uniform Federal prohibition on the trade in bear parts is necessary to
close the loopholes left open by the patchwork of State laws that have
facilitated the illegal trade of bear parts in the United States and
overseas.
This legislation will in no way affect the rights of sportsmen to
hunt bears legally in any State. Illegal bear poaching and legal
recreational hunting are separate and distinct acts. Indeed, we should
remember that every bear poached for illegal profiteering of bear parts
is a bear taken away from sportsmen. A former chief enforcement officer
for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that
approximately 40,000 bears are hunted legally each year, but an almost
equal number are poached illegally. Many States understand this
problem, as over two-thirds of the States that allow bear hunting also
ban the trade of bear parts.
This bill is another example of what I like to call consensus
conservation. The legislation does not pit hunters against
environmentalists. Nor does it pit States against the heavy hand of the
Federal Government on wildlife management or sporting laws. Indeed, I
am happy to report that there are no political fireworks in this bill.
One look at the cosponsor list should indicate that.
Instead, what we have is a bill that targets a specific legislative
goal, to protect bears from illegal and inhumane poaching and black
market profiteering. By carefully crafting this legislation with that
single goal in mind, we have an opportunity to pass a common sense bill
that is supported by wildlife enthusiasts and conservationists while
protecting the autonomy of states and the rights of sportsmen.
I continue to believe that these types of targeted, bipartisan
conservation efforts that are rooted in consensus goals, rather than
conflicting politics, can, in the end, make the most noticeable strides
toward protecting our national wildlife and environmental treasures.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record, and I further ask unanimous consent that the Record include
letters of support from the Humane Society of the United States, the
Society for Animal Protective Legislation, and the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1125

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 ``Bear Protection Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) all 8 extant species of bear--Asian black bear, brown
bear, polar bear, American black bear, spectacled bear, giant
panda, sun bear, and sloth bear--are listed on Appendix I or
II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2)(A) Article XIV of CITES provides that Parties to CITES
may adopt stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions
for trade, taking, possession, or transport of species listed
on Appendix I or II; and
(B) the Parties to CITES adopted a resolution in 1997
(Conf. 10.8) urging the Parties to take immediate action to
demonstrably reduce the illegal trade in bear parts;
(3)(A) thousands of bears in Asia are cruelly confined in
small cages to be milked for their bile; and
(B) the wild Asian bear population has declined
significantly in recent years as a result of habitat loss and
poaching due to a strong demand for bear viscera used in
traditional medicines and cosmetics;
(4) Federal and State undercover operations have revealed
that American bears have been poached for their viscera;
(5) while most American black bear populations are
generally stable or increasing, commercial trade could
stimulate poaching and threaten certain populations if the
demand for bear viscera increases; and
(6) prohibitions against the importation into the United
States and exportation from the United States, as well as
prohibitions against the interstate trade, of bear viscera
and products containing, or labeled or advertised as
containing, bear viscera will assist in ensuring that the
United States does not contribute to the decline of any bear
population as a result of the commercial trade in bear
viscera.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purpose of this Act is to ensure the long-term
viability of the world's 8 bear species by--
(1) prohibiting interstate and international trade in bear
viscera and products containing, or labeled or advertised as
containing, bear viscera;
(2) encouraging bilateral and multilateral efforts to
eliminate such trade; and
(3) ensuring that adequate Federal legislation exists with
respect to domestic trade in bear viscera and products
containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, bear
viscera.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

[[Page S7092]]

(1) Bear viscera.--The term ``bear viscera'' means the body
fluids or internal organs, including the gallbladder and its
contents but not including the blood or brains, of a species
of bear.
(2) CITES.--The term ``CITES'' means the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249).
(3) Import.--The term ``import'' means to land on, bring
into, or introduce into any place subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, regardless of whether the landing,
bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within
the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
(4) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
(A) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust,
association, or other private entity;
(B) an officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of--
(i) the Federal Government;
(ii) any State or political subdivision of a State; or
(iii) any foreign government; and
(C) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory,
commonwealth, or possession of the United States.
(7) Transport.--The term ``transport'' means to move,
convey, carry, or ship by any means, or to deliver or receive
for the purpose of movement, conveyance, carriage, or
shipment.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a
person shall not--
(1) import into, or export from, the United States bear
viscera or any product, item, or substance containing, or
labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera; or
(2) sell or barter, offer to sell or barter, purchase,
possess, transport, deliver, or receive, in interstate or
foreign commerce, bear viscera or any product, item, or
substance containing, or labeled or advertised as containing,
bear viscera.
(b) Exception for Wildlife Law Enforcement Purposes.--A
person described in section 4(4)(B) may import into, or
export from, the United States, or transport between States,
bear viscera or any product, item, or substance containing,
or labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera if the
importation, exportation, or transportation--
(1) is solely for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to
the protection of wildlife; and
(2) is authorized by a valid permit issued under Appendix I
or II of CITES, in any case in which such a permit is
required under CITES.

SEC. 6. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Criminal Penalties.--A person that knowingly violates
section 5 shall be fined under title 18, United States Code,
imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) Amount.--A person that knowingly violates section 5 may
be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than
$25,000 for each violation.
(2) Manner of assessment and collection.--A civil penalty
under this subsection shall be assessed, and may be
collected, in the manner in which a civil penalty under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 may be assessed and collected
under section 11(a) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1540(a)).
(c) Seizure and Forfeiture.--Any bear viscera or any
product, item, or substance imported, exported, sold,
bartered, attempted to be imported, exported, sold, or
bartered, offered for sale or barter, purchased, possessed,
transported, delivered, or received in violation of this
section (including any regulation issued under this section)
shall be seized and forfeited to the United States.
(d) Regulations.--After consultation with the Secretary of
the Treasury and the United States Trade Representative, the
Secretary shall issue such regulations as are necessary to
carry out this section.
(e) Enforcement.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall enforce this section in the
manner in which the Secretaries carry out enforcement
activities under section 11(e) of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540(e)).
(f) Use of Penalty Amounts.--Amounts received as penalties,
fines, or forfeiture of property under this section shall be
used in accordance with section 6(d) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3375(d)).

SEC. 7. DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING BEAR CONSERVATION AND THE BEAR
PARTS TRADE.

In order to seek to establish coordinated efforts with
other countries to protect bears, the Secretary shall
continue discussions concerning trade in bear viscera with--
(1) the appropriate representatives of Parties to CITES;
and
(2) the appropriate representatives of countries that are
not parties to CITES and that are determined by the Secretary
and the United States Trade Representative to be the leading
importers, exporters, or consumers of bear viscera.

SEC. 8. CERTAIN RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED.

Except as provided in section 5, nothing in this Act
affects--
(1) the regulation by any State of the bear population of
the State; or
(2) any hunting of bears that is lawful under applicable
State law (including regulations).
____

HSUS Statement in Support of the Bear Protection Act

The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's
largest animal protection organization with over seven
million members and constituents, strongly supports Senator
McConnell's Bear Protection Act.
The Bear Protection Act would eliminate the patchwork of
state laws in the U.S. and improve protection of America's
bears. Thirty-four states already ban commerce in bear
viscera. The remaining states fall into three categories: six
allow trade in gallbladders taken from bears legally killed
in-state; eight allow trade in gallbladders from bears killed
legally outside the state; and two states do not have
pertinent laws. This current patchwork of state laws creates
loopholes that are exploited by those engaged in the bear
parts trade. The loopholes enable poachers to launder
gallbladders through states that permit their sale. The Bear
Protection Act would eliminate this patchwork of state laws,
replacing it with one national law prohibiting import,
export, and interstate commerce in bear viscera.
Bear viscera, particularly the gallbladder and bile, have
been traditionally used in Asian medicines to treat a variety
of illnesses, from diabetes to heart disease. Today, bear
viscera is also used in cosmetics and shampoos. Asian demand
for bear viscera and products has increased with growing
human populations and increased wealth. Bear gallbladders in
South Korea are worth more than their weight in gold,
potentially yielding a price of about $10,000 each.
While demand for bear viscera and products has grown, Asian
bear populations have dwindled. Seven of the eight extant
species of bears are threatened by poaching to supply the
increasing market demand for bear viscera and products. Most
species of bears, and all Asian bear species, are afforded
the highest level of protection under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES). CITES has noted that the continued illegal
trade in bear parts and derivatives of bear parts undermines
the effectiveness of the Convention and that if CITES parties
do not take action to eliminate such trade, poaching may
cause declines of wild bears that could lead to the
extirpation of certain populations or even species.
Dwindling Asian bear populations have caused poachers to
look to American bears to meet market demand for bear parts
and products. While each year nearly 40,000 American black
bears are legally hunted in thirty-six states and Canada, it
is estimated that roughly the same number are illegally
poached each year, according to a former chief law
enforcement officer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The U.S. Senate passed this legislation in the 106th
Congress and we hope swift action will be taken again this
year. We also hope that the House will follow the Senate's
wise lead and act to protect bears across the globe before
it's too late. The Humane Society of the United States
applauds Senator McConnell and the quarter of the United
States Senate that has signed onto the Bear Protection Act as
original cosponsors. With Senator McConnell's leadership,
there may come a day when bear poachers and bear parts
profiteers no longer are able to ply their cruel trade
unpunished.
____

Bear Protection Act Is Urgently Needed

The Society for Animal Protective Legislation strongly
supports Senator Mitch McConnell in his effort to pass the
Bear Protection Act once again. This bill would end the
United States' involvement in the trade of bear viscera by
prohibiting the import, export and interstate commerce in
bear gallbladders and bile. Bears are targeted for their
internal organs, which fetch enormous profits for the
poachers who illegally kill them and the merchants who sell
their organs for use in traditional medicine remedies.
The insatiable, growing demand for bear viscera contributed
mightily to the decimation of the Asiatic black bear and may
do the same to the stable population of American black bears
if a law is not passed to eliminate the United States' role
in supplying this devastating bear parts trade.
There is a price on the head of every bear in this country
and Senator Mitch McConnell deserves high praise for
introducing proactive legislation protecting bears from the
looming threat of the gallbladder trade.
The current patchwork of state laws addressing the trade in
bear gallbladders and bile allows an illegal trade to
flourish. It is impossible to distinguish visually the
dissociated gallbladder of one state's black bear from
another. This enables smugglers to acquire gallbladders
illegally in one state, transport them to a state where
commercialization of bear parts is legal, and sell the
gallbladders under false pretenses. These gallbladders are
also smuggled out of the country, providing a laundering
opportunity for the sale of gallbladders from highly
endangered bears.
Enactment of Senator McConnell's Bear Protection Act will
ensure that those who seek to profit by the reckless
destruction of America's bears can be punished appropriately
for their illegal and immoral activity.

[[Page S7093]]

Mr. McConnell's bill does not impact a state's ability to
manage its resident bear population or a lawful hunter's
ability to hunt bears in accordance with applicable state
laws and regulations. The Bear Protection Act is not about
bear hunting--it's about ending bear poaching. This is a
laudable goal that all Americans should support.
American citizens should not sit by helplessly while bears
are slaughtered, their gallbladders ripped out and the
carcass unceremoniously left to rot. It's time to take a
stand against bear poachers and profiteers. Congratulations
to Senator McConnell for taking up the charge.
____

American Zoo and Aquarium Association,

Silver Spring, MD, June 26, 2001.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing on behalf of the 196
accredited members of the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association (AZA) in support of your proposed Bear Protection
Act of 2001.
AZA institutions draw over 135 million visitors annually
and have more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members who
provide almost $100 million in support. Collectively, these
institutions teach more than 12 million people each year in
living classrooms, dedicate over $50 million annually to
education programs, invest over $50 million annually to
scientific research and support over 1,300 field conservation
and research projects in 80 countries.
In addition, AZA member institutions have established the
Species Survival Plan (SSP) program--a long-term plan
involving genetically-diverse breeding, habitat preservation,
public education, field conservation and supportive research
to ensure survival for many threatened and endangered
species. Currently, AZA member institutions are involved in
96 different SSP programs throughout the world, including
four species of bear--sloth, sun, spectacled and the giant
panda.
It is in this context that AZA expresses its support for
the Bear Protection Act. There is little question that most
populations of the world's eight bear species have
experienced significant declines during this century,
particularly in parts of Europe and Asia. Habitat loss has
been the major reason for this decline, although overhunting
and poaching have also been factors in some cases, especially
in Asia. In recent years, the commercial trade of bear body
parts, in particular gallbladders and bile, for use in
traditional Asian medicines has been implicated as the
driving force behind the illegal hunting of some bear
populations. Analyses by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), TRAFFIC and other organizations have documented the
existence of illicit commercial markets and smuggling rings
for bear body parts.
Recent information suggests that this is not only an
overseas issue but a domestic one as well. The American black
bear is listed on Appendix II of CITES due to the similarity
of appearance to other listed bear species, and conservation
and management of black bear populations remains largely in
the hands of the states. Most states prohibit commercial
trade in bear parts but there are some states that still
allow commercial trade of products from bears taken within
their borders. Several other states do not explicitly
prohibit the commercial trade in parts from bears taken
within the borders of other jurisdictions. This has raised
concerns that inconsistent state laws may facilitate illegal
trade and laundering of bear parts.
The relatively high value of the wild bear parts,
particularly viscera, on the international market warrants
that continued action be taken to minimize the threat or
potential threat of illegal trade. Your bill provides the
necessary first step for closing the potential loopholes that
are afforded to bear poachers and dealers by fragmented state
laws. Equally important, the bill encourages dialogue between
the U.S. and countries known to be leading importers,
exporters, and consumers of bear viscera in an attempt to
coordinate efforts to protect threatened and endangered bear
populations worldwide.
AZA applauds your efforts in this important wildlife
conservation matter. In addition, AZA stands ready to work
with you to ensure that the necessary funds are authorized
and appropriate for the effective administration and
enforcement of this critical work.
Please feel free to contact AZA if you have any question or
comments.
Regards,
Sydney J. Butler,
Executive Director.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1126. A bill to facilitate the deployment of broadband
telecommunications services, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1127. A bill to stimulate the deployment of advanced
telecommunications services in rural areas, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, next week our nation will celebrate
Independence Day. Yet, as we celebrate the land of opportunity that is
America, we must keep in mind those who, even in this great nation, do
not have the same opportunities as everyone else. In rural communities
across the nation, an entire segment of our population does not have
the opportunity to access powerful broadband communications services
representing the high-speed, high-capacity on-ramps to the information
super highway. Why? Because for all intents and purposes broadband does
not exist in most of rural America.
Broadband is increasing the speeds and capacity with which consumers
and businesses alike access the Internet, and opening up a whole new
world of information, e-commerce, real-time high quality telemedicine,
distance learning, and entertainment. The power of broadband will level
the playing field between rural and urban communities in a global
economy.
Today I rise to introduce the Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001
and the Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001.
Two bills designed to ensure that all Americans have access to the
advantages of broadband connections. I would like to thank my colleague
from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for his cosponsorship and support. These
two bills, together or individually, will ensure broadband deployment
in our nation's rural areas, and will enable us to renew our long-
standing commitment that rural communities have access to the same
telecommunications resources as urban communities.
My singular objective, in both bills, is high-speed Internet access
for everybody in America by 2007.
This is a bipartisan objective. The Democratic party has announced
its intention to ensure universal access to broadband by the end of
this decade. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for
their recognition of the importance of broadband and I look forward to
working with them to achieve our common goal.
New approaches will be needed to achieve universal broadband
availability. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation
consisting of tax incentives or loan subsidies. Programs such as these
can help to deliver on the commitment to make broadband universally
available, but these proposals alone will not achieve that goal.
Deregulation has a key role to play in this effort.
Deregulation has been the driver of broadband deployment to date:
cable companies, largely deregulated by the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, have invested almost 50 billion dollars in upgrades to their
networks. These upgrades have in turn enabled them to deploy broadband,
and cable companies now serve 70 percent of the broadband market.
Satellite companies, also unregulated in the broadband market, are
deploying one-way high-speed Internet access and are working to deploy
two-way broadband services. Some companies are utilizing wireless cable
licenses to deploy broadband, and they too are unregulated in the
broadband market.

Deregulation is a powerful motivator for the deployment of new
technologies and services. Unregulated small cable companies, and all
but unregulated rural and small telephone companies are taking
advantage of their regulatory status to deliver broadband to rural
consumers.
The broadband market, distinct from the local telephone market, is
new. Yet, federal and State regulators are placing local telephone
competition regulations on broadband-specific facilities deployed by
incumbent local exchange carriers, ILECs, the only regulated broadband
service providers, as if they were part and parcel of their local
telephone service. This is simply not the case. The local telephone
market is not synonymous with the broadband market. The disparate
regulatory treatment of phone companies deploying broadband and all
other broadband service providers is serving to deny broadband to many
rural communities.
Broadband facilities being deployed by ILECs throughout our cities
and towns require billions of dollars of capital investment in new
infrastructure that must be added to the existing telephone network.
The sparse populations of rural communities already diminish

[[Page S7094]]

the return on infrastructure investment so that, when combined with
local telephone market regulations, ILEC broadband deployment has not
proven to be cost effective.
As a result, rural telephone exchanges owned by regulated telephone
companies are not being upgraded for broadband services even while
unregulated companies seem to be capable of making that substantial
investment. In Wellington, Kansas, a rural community with around 10,000
residents, a small unregulated cable company called Sumner Cable has
deployed broadband service. Yet, Southwestern Bell, the local regulated
telephone company and a Bell operating company, is not deploying
broadband. Different regulatory treatments of these companies creates
the incentive for one to deploy broadband, but not the other. This is
being seen throughout our nation's rural communities, and is
particularly disappointing. The Bell operating companies serve
approximately 65 percent of rural telephone lines like those found in
Wellington.
Broadband is certainly being deployed at a much faster rate in urban
markets than rural markets. But that does not mean all is well in our
nation's cities. Today, broadband deployment in urban markets is being
characterized by the market dominance of the cable TV industry,
unregulated in the broadband market, which serves approximately 70
percent of all broadband subscribers. This is good for consumers. Cable
companies have taken full advantage of their deregulated status, and
the inherent economic incentives, to deploy new technologies and
provide new services to consumers. But while the cable industry
finishes rebuilding its entire infrastructure with digital technology
that permits it to offer broadband, ILECs are, in many instances, not
making the same investment to rebuild their infrastructure.
The Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001
promotes broadband deployment in rural markets by requiring ILECs to
deploy to all of their telephone exchange subscribers within 5 years.
In exchange, ILEC broadband services are placed on a more level-playing
field with their broadband competitors. This is achieved by
deregulating only those new technologies added to the local telephone
network that make broadband possible over telephone lines. By
permitting ILECs to compete on a level playing field with their
broadband competitors in their urban markets, we can create the proper
balance between requirements and incentives.
The limited deregulation in this legislation will not affect
competition in the local telephone market. CLECs will still have access
to the entire legacy telephone network to use as they see fit, and they
will still be permitted to combine their own broadband equipment with
the telephone network to compete in the broadband market. In those
parts of the local telephone network where new network architecture
must be deployed to make broadband possible, CLECs are free to add
their own facilities to the network so they can compete for every
potential broadband subscriber in a market.
In Kansas, we have many farms and small rural communities. I grew up
on a farm near Parker, Kansas. My hometown has 250 people. My singular
goal in introducing this legislation is to facilitate rural broadband
deployment. Given the importance of ensuring broadband is deployed in
rural communities, I have elected to introduce two different bills on
the same issue. I am willing to pursue either approach depending on
which one will get us to the day of ubiquitous broadband.
It seems clear that, no matter how worthy broad-based deregulation is
in the broadband market, any such effort must navigate through the
typical back and forth between the baby Bells, long distance companies,
and now CLECs. If a more limited approach can avoid the traditional
``phone wars'' then I am happy to put forth such an alternative.
The Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 is a more geographically
limited approach to spurring broadband deployment. It includes broader
deregulation of ILEC broadband services, but limits that deregulation
only to rural communities. By ramping up the deregulation, yet
restricting the size of the market where that deregulation is applied,
it is my intention to create the same balance of requirements that I
previously mentioned.
I realize that introducing two pieces of legislation on the same
issue on the same day is a bit unorthodox. But given the clear need and
importance of universal broadband, I feel it is my duty to do anything
I can to move this debate forward. Providing alternatives for the
consideration of my colleagues is part of this process.
I urge my colleagues to give consideration to either of these bills,
and I urge your cosponsorship.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of Senator
Brownback's Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of
2001. I thank my colleague from Kansas for drafting this innovative
legislation to help solve the problem of the lack of availability of
advanced telecommunications services in rural areas.
Telecommunications has come a long way from the days of the party
line and operator assisted calls. Telecommunications services have
allowed entrepreneurs to locate their business anywhere they can get a
dial tone and have helped to bring jobs to rural America. I have been
working to encourage more infrastructure development as a way of
creating a business environment that will attract new jobs to the
places that need them.
The 20th Century has seen the economy of the United States and the
world change from an industrial economy to an information economy. We
are only at the beginning of the ``Information Revolution'' and now is
the best time for private industry and government to take a pro-active
role in helping to create the business and regulatory conditions
necessary to encourage the widespread deployment of advanced
telecommunications services.
Since 1995, the State of Wyoming has been attempting to create a
competitive local phone market that would have a multitude of
competitors and result in lower rates. The cost of providing service in
Wyoming is significantly higher than in other areas of the Nation due
to our low population and long distances between towns. This has caused
many companies to pass Wyoming by in search of easier profits in urban
areas and leave many of our towns with only one choice for broadband
service, if they have a provider at all.
One of the reasons why advanced services have been slowly deployed is
that Wyoming's wide open spaces make the telecommunications needs of
our residents very different than people in urban areas. The economic
model of the industry is to serve areas with a high population density
in order to keep costs low. In the West, it's harder to make that model
work, but the independent telephone companies, Qwest and the cable
companies are working hard to offer their customers a full complement
of services at a reasonable price, many services that urban telephone
customers take for granted.
High speed Internet access has been delayed for two reasons, cost and
availability. Advanced telecommunications services can help to build
Wyoming's economy. Companies are beginning to realize that our State
has a ready work force and the lower costs of doing business are making
companies choose Wyoming. Many existing businesses are taking advantage
of the Internet to bring their products and services to the world.
Where once a store was limited to only being able to serve those within
driving distance of it, now it can bring Wyoming to the world. This
cannot take place without the continued roll out of broadband business
services.
Wyoming has for many years been promoting the benefits of
telecommuting. People living around the State have been able to connect
to their office via computer and remain in contact with clients.
Telecommuting now requires high speed access and that is available in
some limited areas. In other areas, the only data access is via a
regular dial-up modem. There are companies that are deploying digital
subscriber lines and cable modems, but those locations are limited and
the price is too high to be adopted by a majority of Wyoming residents.
Over time that price will come down, but this is not a call for public
subsidies or government mandates, but a call for more competition and
deregulation. Competition will bring lower prices and

[[Page S7095]]

greater deployment of services to even the smallest of towns.
That is why I am an original cosponsor of Senator Brownback's bill.
His bill creates a deregulatory regime that is backed by specific
performance requirements and strong enforcement provisions.
The bill requires Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, ILEC's, to be
able to provide advanced services to all of its customers within 5
years of the enactment of this legislation in order to receive the
benefits of deregulation. This ensures that companies will bring
advanced services and competition to rural areas by giving a hard
deadline for companies to complete their build-out.
Advanced services would be deregulated by exempting them from the
requirements that ILECs make packet switching and fiber available to
competitors at below cost rates. This would specifically deregulate the
equipment that makes it possible to provide advanced services over
traditional phone lines. The bill also exempts fiber optic lines owned
by ILECs from below cost pricing if the fiber is deployed either to the
home or in areas that never had telephone infrastructure before. I
believe that this will be key to making the economics of rural advanced
services more favorable for companies wanting to invest in rural
broadband deployment.

The bill would also give ILECs the necessary pricing flexibility for
their broadband services. I believe that we should not hamstring a new
technology in a very competitive marketplace with outdated regulations
on price. It is important that Congress ensure that in addition to the
wholesale pricing relief contained in this legislation, it also
includes retail pricing flexibility to further make the economics more
favorable.
The bill does not change the requirements that ILECs allow
competitors to collocate their equipment in an ILEC facility.
Collocation is very important since it ensures that competitors have
access to the network and do not have to build distant links or other
connections to the ILEC network.
The bill also does not eliminate the requirement that ILECs give
competitors access to local loops. In fact, if an ILEC does not grant a
competitor access to local lines the bill gives state regulators the
right to strip the ILEC of the deregulatory benefits contained in the
bill.
The bill's enforcement provisions are very strong and explicit. If a
company does not meet the build-out requirement, does not permit a
competitor to collocate and/or grant competitors access to local loops,
state regulators have the authority to return an ILEC to the old
regulatory regime. Deregulation without proper enforcement mechanisms
does not benefit consumers and competitors. It is important that we
hold ILECs accountable if they are granted relief from the pricing
requirements.
I have been working with my colleagues to create a mix of
deregulation and incentives to encourage private infrastructure
development. Government cannot force private firms to make unprofitable
investments, but government can work to make investments in rural
infrastructure more favorable. The Broadband Deployment and Competition
Investment Act helps to make investment in advanced services in rural
areas possible.
The great strides made by both Qwest, the smaller phone companies and
the cooperatives show that rural areas can support fiber optic based
services. The Wyoming Equality Network, the fiber based network linking
all of Wyoming's high schools, has been a great advancement for
education and I applaud the State's foresight for undertaking such a
far reaching project. The WEN has had the added effect of showing other
companies that it is possible to link rural areas with fiber, bringing
high speed data services and other advanced services to homes and
businesses.
I am pleased to see that Qwest and several smaller companies have
worked together to close the inter-office fiber loop, linking all local
phone exchanges with a fiber optic connection. This will allow for
greater capacity and new services like DSL and other high speed
broadband services. This connection will help many areas of Wyoming
overcome many of the service problems they have been experiencing for
the last several years.
The objective of telecommunications policy should be to bring as many
players into the marketplace and allow them to compete in the
marketplace. Congress should not tie a company's hands in a continually
changing and competitive marketplace. We should ensure that all parties
are on a level playing field and that all services are regulated in the
same manner regardless of the company that is offering the service or
the technology they are using. This legislation will help bring some
needed consistancy to the regulation of advanced services and I urge my
colleagues to support this vital legislation.
______

By Mr. WARNER:
S. 1129. A bill to increase the rate of pay for certain offices and
positions within the executive and judicial branches of the Government,
respectively, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today to provide relief from the pay compression affecting career
Federal employees serving in the Senior Executive Service, SES. It is
nearing a decade since Senior Executive Service members have seen a
meaningful adjustment in pay.
The salaries earned by these employees are, on average, well below
those earned by their peers in private industry. Pay caps for the
Senior Executive Service and certain other positions in the government
are tied to the Executive Schedule which includes senior level
officials as well as Members. Pay freezes for positions on the
Executive Schedule in five of the past eight years has resulted in pay
compression so severe that 60 percent of the entire executive corps
earns essentially the same salary despite differences in obligation and
executive level. Over the past eight years, pay increases for these
executives would average 1 percent per year. There is not much of an
incentive to accept a higher position with added responsibilities and
increased work hours for little or no increase in pay.
Many senior executives leave Federal service to begin second careers
in the private sector because of the salary compression. Others find
that retirement is a more sensible option, whereas Federal annuitants
receive an average two and a half percent cost of living adjustment
every year compared to the average one percent per year pay increase a
senior executive may receive if she or he remained in Federal service.
I have heard from many SES employees relating their own stories as to
how the problem of pay compression has affected them. I would like to
share a few of these personal accounts.
From an ES-6 with the Department of Defense: ``My pay has been capped
and I have not been receiving raises. This year I received a surprise.
I turned 55 and I subsequently experienced a $115.16 decrease in pay in
January because my life insurance increased considerably, along with
the contribution to retirement increase. Age 55 is not old! I expect to
work a few more years and I expect my pay to increase so that I can
enjoy my retired years with a reasonable retirement income that has not
been eroded by the pay cap.''
A Senior Executive at the Department of Health and Human Services:
``The highest career Deputy General Counsel position in my agency
became vacant, and I was called by the General Counsel to seriously
consider taking it. Aside from the many family issues involved in any
move to Washington, an overriding aspect is the fact that I am already
at the pay cap. Thus, a move into a position with more responsibility
would provide no financial incentive. Although I'm obviously not in
government serve for any huge financial rewards, I don't want to go
backward financially. Thus, I have decided to forgo this very
challenging opportunity that would be a fitting pinnacle to my career
with the Federal Government.''
Private Contractor, Department of Defense: ``I turned down a job at
the US Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff, where I'd been
stationed on active duty as a Regular Air Force Officer. I retired from
the NSS four years ago after over 23 years in the Air Force, and was
honored to get offered a Civil Service position back at the office.
Instead, I reluctantly turned

[[Page S7096]]

down the job. The reason was primarily monetary. In order to take the
job, it would have been necessary to give up part of my Air Force
retirement pay because I retired as a regular officer. To make matters
worse, my pay would have been capped. The bottom line is I would have
taken a pay cut with no prospect of a pay raise in the foreseeable
future. My family and I were asked to sacrifice pay and time together
which we willingly did for over 23 years. Instead, I'm supporting the
government in the role of a private sector contractor, where I'm fairly
compensated for my expertise.''
These are just a few examples which illustrate how the freeze on
executive pay and resulting pay compression have seriously eroded the
government's ability to attract and retain the most highly-competent
career executives. This is a very timely issue for the Federal
Government, seventy percent of the SES corps is eligible to retire over
the next four years and almost half are expected to retire upon
eligibility. Agencies are being forced to make special requests to
increase salaries for their managers and supervisors. They recognize
that when someone leaves Federal service, their knowledge and
experience goes with them.
The legislation I am introducing increases base pay for Senior
Executives from Executive Level IV to Executive Level III, extends
locality pay to the Executive Schedule, increases the locality cap from
Executive Level III to Executive Level III plus locality pay, and
increases the overall limit on compensation that can be received in a
single year by career executives from Executive Level I to the Vice-
Presidential level. The bill also includes certain positions in the
Federal judiciary which have been impacted by the pay caps. The actual
raises career executives would receive would continue to be determined
at the President's discretion.
The legislation does not, in and of itself, raise senior executive
pay and does not increase the salaries of Members of Congress.
It is also my intention to ensure that this issue remains a priority
for the incoming Director at the Office of Personnel Management. During
the confirmation hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee last week for Mrs. Kay Coles James, President Bush's nominee
to head the Office of Personnel Management, Mrs. James indicated her
willingness to work with Members to address the problem of pay
compression.
Pay compression within the Senior Executives Service is one of the
more pressing issues facing the Federal employee workforce and must be
addressed as the situation will only get worse. The only means to
alleviate pay compression for the Senior Executives at this time is
through legislation. Therefore, I encourage my Senate colleagues to
support the bill.
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. 1129

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

SECTION 1. PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN OFFICES AND
POSITIONS WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

(a) Executive Schedule Pay Rates.--
(1) In general.--Section 5318 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (a) as subsection (a)(1)
and subsection (b) as paragraph (2); and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1)(A) Effective at the beginning of the first
applicable pay period commencing on or after the first day of
the month in which any comparability payment becomes payable
under section 5304 or 5304a with respect to General Schedule
employees within the District of Columbia during any year,
the annual rate of pay for positions at each level of the
Executive Schedule (exclusive of any previous adjustment
under this subsection) shall be adjusted by an amount,
rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or if midway between
multiples of $100, to the next highest multiple of $100)
equal to the percentage of such annual rate of pay which
corresponds to the percentage adjustment becoming so payable
with respect to General Schedule employees within the
District of Columbia under such section 5304 or 5304a (as
applicable).
``(B) If an adjustment under this subsection is scheduled
to take effect on the same date as an adjustment under
subsection (a), the adjustment under subsection (a) shall be
made first.
``(2) An annual rate of pay, as adjusted under paragraph
(1), shall for all purposes be treated as the annual rate of
pay for the positions involved, except as otherwise provided
in subsection (a), paragraph (1), or any other provision of
law.
``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to
permit or require the continuation of an adjustment under
paragraph (1) after the comparability payment (for General
Schedule employees within the District of Columbia) on which
it was based has been terminated or superseded.''.
(2) Contract appeals board members.--Section 5372a of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``97 percent of the
rate under paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``no less than 97
percent of the rate under paragraph (1)'';
(B) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ``94 percent of the
rate under paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``no less than 94
percent of the rate under paragraph (1)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Subject to subsection (b), effective at the beginning
of the first applicable pay period commencing on or after the
first day of the month in which an adjustment takes effect
under section 5303 in the rates of basic pay under the
General Schedule, each rate of basic pay for contract appeals
board members shall be adjusted by an amount determined by
the President to be appropriate.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Section 5318 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in the first sentence of subsection (a)(1) (as
redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``Subject to subsection (b),'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (2),''; and
(ii) by inserting ``(exclusive of any previous adjustment
under subsection (b))'' after ``Executive Schedule''; and
(B) in subsection (a)(2) (as redesignated), by striking
``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
(b) Amendments Relating to Certain Limitation and Other
Provisions.--
(1) Provisions to be applied by excluding executive
schedule comparability adjustment.--Sections 5303(f),
5304(h)(1)(F), 5306(e), and 5373(a) of title 5, United States
Code, are each amended by inserting ``, exclusive of any
adjustment under section 5318(b)'' after ``Executive
Schedule''.
(2) Limitation on certain payments.--Section 5307(a) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(3) In the case of an employee who is receiving basic pay
under section 5372a, 5376, or 5383, paragraph (1) shall be
applied by substituting `the annual rate of salary of the
Vice President of the United States' for `the annual rate of
basic pay payable for level I of the Executive Schedule'.
Regulations under subsection (c) may extend the application
of the preceding sentence to other equivalent categories of
employees.''.
(3) References to level iv of the executive schedule.--
Sections 5372(b)(1)(C), 5372a(b)(1), 5376(b)(1)(B), and
5382(b) of title 5, United States Code, are each amended by
striking ``level IV'' each place it appears and inserting
``level III''.

SEC. 2. PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN OFFICES AND POSITIONS
WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

(a) Increase in Maximum Rates of Basic Pay Allowable.--
(1) For positions covered by section 604(a)(5) of title 28,
united states code.--Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``by law'' and inserting
``by law (except that the rate of basic pay fixed under this
paragraph for any such employee may not exceed the rate for
level IV of the Executive Schedule)''.
(2) For circuit executives.--Section 332(f)(1) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``level IV of the
Executive Schedule pay rates under section 5315'' and
inserting ``level III of the Executive Schedule pay rates
under section 5314''.
(3) For personnel of the administrative office of the
united states courts.--
(A) In general.--Section 3(a) of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts Personnel Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C.
602 note) is amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``level V'' and inserting
``level IV''; and
(ii) in paragraph (10), by striking ``level IV'' and
inserting ``level III''.
(B) Provisions relating to certain additional positions.--
Section 603 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315'' and inserting ``level III of the Executive Schedule
under section 5314''.
(b) Salary of the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts.--Section 603 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``district'' and
inserting ``circuit''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall be effective with
respect to pay periods beginning on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 1130. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan
for a magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment for the purpose of
accelerating the scientific understanding and development of fusion as
a long

[[Page S7097]]

term energy source, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill of great
significance to our energy future, the Fusion Energy Sciences Act of
2001. I am especially pleased that my colleague from California,
Senator Feinstein, is joining me as the primary cosponsor of this
legislation. This bill is designed to strengthen the fusion program at
the Department of Energy and to accelerate planning for the next major
step in fusion energy science development.
In recent months, the news has been dominated by energy concerns.
Although there may be differences of opinion about the causes of our
current energy problems and what the appropriate solutions might be,
there is general agreement that energy forms a vital link to our
economic prosperity and provides the means by which the conduct of our
daily lives is made easier and more comfortable. While we grapple with
short term remedies, we need to stay focused on long term investment in
those endeavors which have the potential to help secure our energy
future. I believe that fusion energy has this potential.
Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and the stars. At its
most basic, it is the combining or fusion of two small atoms into a
larger atom. When two atomic nuclei fuse, tremendous amounts of energy
are released.
If we can achieve this joining of atoms, and successfully contain and
harness the energy produced, fusion will be close to an ideal energy
source. It produces no air pollutants because the byproduct of the
reaction is helium, it is safe and its fuel source, hydrogen, is
practically unlimited and easily obtained.
In the technical community, the debate over the scientific
feasibility of fusion energy is now over. During the past decade,
substantial amounts of fusion energy have been created in the
laboratory setting. I am proud to note that some of this underlying
scientific work has been conducted at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory in my State, which has been selected by
the Department of Energy to lead efforts on fusion safety.
Although certain scientific questions remain, the primary outstanding
issue about fusion energy at this point is whether fusion energy can
make the challenging step from the laboratory into a practical energy
resource. Achieving this goal will require high quality science,
innovative research and international collaboration, and the resources
to make this possible. That is the goal to which this legislation is
directed.
According to the scientific experts, the path to practical fusion
will involve three steps. First, there is a need to conduct a ``burning
plasma'' experiment. Second, this effort would be further developed in
an engineering test facility. The third step would be a demonstration
plant. If taken in series, each of these steps would take approximately
fifteen years, but through international collaboration, it may be
possible to accelerate this process. In addition to these steps,
continued investment in a strong underlying program of fusion science
and plasma physics will still be necessary.
Therefore, this bill instructs the Secretary of Energy to transmit to
the Congress by July 1, 2004 a plan for a ``burning plasma''
experiment, which is the next necessary step towards the eventual
realization of practical fusion energy. At a minimum, the Secretary
must submit a plan for a domestic U.S. experiment, but may also submit
a plan for U.S. involvement in an international burning plasma
experiment if such involvement is cost effective and has equivalent
scientific benefits to a domestic experiment. The bill also requires
that within six months of the enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall
submit a plan to Congress to ensure a strong scientific base for the
fusion energy sciences program. Finally, for ongoing activities in the
Department of Energy's fusion energy sciences program and for the
purpose of preparing the plans called for, the bill authorizes
$320,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $335,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.

As we suffer through near term challenges in the energy sector and
meeting our immediate needs, it is more crucial than ever that we
invest in those items that hold the promise for long term solutions.
Recent accomplishments in the laboratory demonstrate that fusion energy
has this long term potential. The Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001
will bring this promise closer to reality for future generations.
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. 1130

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 my be cited as the ``Fusion Energy Sciences Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) economic prosperity is closely linked to an affordable
and ample energy supply;
(2) environmental quality is closely linked to energy
productions and use;
(3) population, worldwide economic development, energy
consumption, and stress on the environment are all expected
to increase substantially in the coming decades;
(4) the few energy options with the potential to meet
economic and environmental needs for the long-term future
must be pursued aggressively now, as part of a balanced
national energy plan;
(5) fusion energy is a long-term energy solution that is
expected to be environmentally benign, safe, and economical,
and to use a fuel source that is practically unlimited;
(6) the National Academy of Sciences, the President's
Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology, and the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board have each recently
reviewed the Fusion Energy Sciences Program and each strongly
supports the fundamental science and creative innovation of
the program, and has confirmed that progress toward the goal
of producing practical fusion energy has been excellent;
(7) each of these reviews stressed the need for the Fusion
Energy Sciences Program to move forward to a magnetic fusion
burning plasma experiment, capable of producing substantial
fusion power output and providing key information for the
advancement of fusion science;
(8) the National Academy of Sciences has also called for a
broadening of the Fusion Energy Sciences Program research
base as a means to more fully integrate the fusion science
community into the broader scientific community; and
(9) the Fusion Energy Sciences Program budget is inadequate
to support the necessary science and innovation for the
present generation of experiments, and cannot accommodate the
cost of a burning plasma experiment constructed by the United
States, or even the cost of key participation by the United
States in an international effort.

SEC. 3. PLAN FOR FUSION EXPERIMENT.

(a) Plan for United States Fusion Experiment.--The
Secretary of Energy (in this Act referred to as `the
Secretary'), on the basis of full consultation with, and the
recommendation of, the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee (in this Act referred to as ``FESAC''), shall
develop a plan for United States construction of a magnetic
fusion burning plasma experiment for the purpose of
accelerating scientific understanding of fusion plasmas. The
Secretary shall request a review of the plan by the National
Academy of Sciences, and shall transmit the plan and the
review to the Congress by July 1, 2004.
(b) Requirements of Plan.--The plan described in subsection
(a) shall--
(1) address key burning plasma physics issues; and
(2) include specific information on the scientific
capabilities of the proposed experiment, the relevance of
these capabilities to the goal of practical fusion energy,
and the overall design of the experiment including its
estimated cost and potential construction sites.
(c) United States Participation in an International
Experiment.--In addition to the plan described in subsection
(a), the Secretary, on the basis of full consultation with,
and the recommendation of, FESAC, may also develop a plan for
United States participation in an international burning
plasma experiment for the same purpose, whose construction is
found by the Secretary to be highly likely and where United
States participation is cost effective relative to the cost
and scientific benefits of a domestic experiment described in
subsection (a). If the Secretary elects to develop a plan
under this subsection, he shall include the information
described in subsection (b), and an estimate of the cost of
United States participation in such an international
experiment. The Secretary shall request a review by the
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering of a plan
developed under this subsection, and shall transmit the plan
and the review to the Congress no later than July 1, 2004.
(d) Authorization of Research and Development.--The
Secretary, through the Fusion Energy Sciences Program, may
conduct any research and development necessary to fully
develop the plans described in this section.

SEC. 4. PLAN FOR FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM.

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary, in full

[[Page S7098]]

consultation with FESAC, shall develop and transmit to the
Congress a plan for the purpose of ensuring a strong
scientific base for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program and to
enable the experiment described in section 3. Such plan shall
include as its objectives--
(1) to ensure that existing fusion research facilities and
equipment are more fully utilized with appropriate
measurements and control tools;
(2) to ensure a strengthened fusion science theory and
computational base;
(3) to encourage and ensure that the selection of and
funding for new magnetic and inertial fusion research
facilities is based on scientific innovation and cost
effectiveness;
(4) to improve the communication of scientific results and
methods between the fusion science community and the wider
scientific community;
(5) to ensure that adequate support is provided to optimize
the design of the magnetic fusion burning plasma experiments
referred to in section 3; and
(6) to ensure that inertial confinement fusion facilities
are utilized to the extent practicable for the purpose of
inertial fusion energy research and development.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
for the development and review of the plans described in this
Act and for activities of the Fusion Energy Sciences Program
$320,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and $335,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Larry Craig, in introducing this legislation to accelerate the
development of fusion energy as a practical and realistic alternative
to fossil fuels for our nation's energy needs.
I would also like to commend my colleague, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren,
who introduced the ``Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001'' on the House
side as H.R. 1781.
Since the beginning of the Manhattan Project, scientists have been
trying to harness energy from fusion to produce electricity. This
legislation will help the scientific community expedite the development
of fusion as a viable option for our energy needs.
To help fusion science move from the lab to the grid, this bill fast-
tracks a key experimental fusion project. This bill also authorizes
$320 million for Fiscal Year 2002 and $335 million for Fiscal Year 2003
to speed up fusion's current estimated 45-year implementation
timetable.
I have spoken frequently to my colleagues on California's current
energy situation.
Last week the Department of Energy predicted the State will suffer
from around 110 hours of rolling blackouts this summer. Experts say
$21.8 billion of economic output will be lost and over 135,000 workers
will lose their jobs because of this summer's blackouts.
I will continue to try to help California and the rest of the West in
the short-term. Making rolling blackouts less frequent, lowering
electricity costs on the wholesale market, keeping natural gas prices
reasonable, and bringing new supplies of power online are the key
objectives I have been working toward to bring stability to the Western
Energy Market.
While I work on the short-term problems in California, I join my
colleague from Idaho on this bill to develop a key long-term solution
to our current energy problems.
As world populations grow, and as civilization advances, we need to
pursue new energy sources beyond traditional fossil fuels.
It is no secret that fossil fuels are finite and polluting. Beyond
expanding renewable energy sources such as those from the sun and the
wind, fusion holds a great deal of potential to expand our nation's
energy supply.
Fusion is a safe, almost inexhaustible energy source with major
environmental advantages. As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I hope
to see fusion move quickly from an experiment in the lab to a reality
for our homes and businesses.
We have already succeeded in using scientific advancements to harness
energy occurring elsewhere on our planet. Solar panels collect the
sun's rays to heat pools and power homes. Windmills transfer nature's
gusts into electrical currents. Water running from mountaintops to the
sea can produce significant amounts of hydroelectric power.
And now, with fusion energy, we will be able to harness the power of
the stars to create an almost unlimited and clean form of energy.
Fusion energy is the result of two small hydrogen atoms combining
into a larger atom. The energy released from this fusion of the atoms
can be harnessed to generate electricity.
Unlike nuclear power, which uses radioactive materials for fuel,
fusion uses hydrogen from water. Unlike fossil fuels, which pollute the
air when burned, the only byproduct in a hydrogen fusion reaction is
helium, an element already plentiful in the air.
Besides being environmentally benign, fusion is a practically
unlimited fuel source. In fact, scientists predict that using 1 gallon
of sea water, fusion can yield the energy produced from 300 gallons of
gasoline. And with fusion, 50 cups of sea water can be the energy
equivalent of 2 tons of coal.
Fusion energy has been proven to be a practical energy endeavor,
worthy of more investment for research and development. So just where
do we go from here? How do we harness the power of the stars?
A 1999 review by the Department of Energy's task force on Fusion
Energy concluded: one, substantial scientific progress has been made in
the science of fusion energy; two, the budget for fusion research needs
to grow; and three, a burning plasma experiment needs to be carried
out.
To expedite the use of fusion to meet our energy needs, we need to
strengthen the efforts already underway in fusion research and
development and create new programs financed by the government.
Scientists agree that at current funding levels, fusion is
approximately 45 years away from entering the marketplace as a viable
energy source.
This timetable is based upon a three step process in which the
scientific community can: first, carry out a burning plasma experiment;
second, build a fusion energy test facility; and third, establish a
fusion demonstration plant to generate electricity.
Since practical fusion energy generation is still three stages from
real implementation, the first thing we can do is fund the development
of a burning plasma experiment.
This legislation will ensure this project will happen soon, carried
out either by the scientific community in the United States, or in
collaboration with an international effort. The bill requires the
Secretary of Energy to develop a plan by 2004 for a magnetic fusion
burning plasma experiment.
It is important to point out that this bill adds the burning plasma
experiment in addition to, and not at the expense of, other ongoing
projects.
The goal of fusion energy is to create a continually burning fuel
like a fire refueling itself. Developing a magnetic fusion plasma
experiment will help the scientific community demonstrate how the heat
from the fusion reaction can maintain the reaction as a self-generating
fuel. Strong magnetic fields allow the hydrogen plasma to be heated to
high temperatures for fusion.
This legislation will help the scientific community overcome the key
stumbling block to fusion development. By authorizing $320 million for
Fiscal Year 2002 and $335 for Fiscal Year 2003 the fusion plasma
experiment will be carried out and fusion funding that peaked in the
1970s, but has since tapered off, will be restored.
Let me just take a moment to mention where this funding is going,
because it is particularly important for me to point this out.
Annual Federal funding for fusion energy has averaged around $230
million in the last few years. In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress
appropriated $248.49 million for fusion research.
This money has provided approximately 1,100 jobs in California at the
following U.S. Fusion Program Participant locations: UC Davis, UC
Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, Cal Tech, UC San Diego, UC
Irvine, Occidental College, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Sandia
National Lab, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab, TSI Research Inc. and General Atomics.
Despite all of the past advancements at these facilities and others,
the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee has concluded that lack of
funding is hindering the technological advance towards fusion energy
development. And the Department of Energy's task force on Fusion Energy
has concluded that, ``In light of the promise of fusion,'' funding
remains ``subcritical.''
Currently, the international community is outpacing us on the road to
realizing the myriad benefits of this new energy resource. The Japanese
budget for this type of research is about 1.5

[[Page S7099]]

times that of the U.S., and the European budget is about 3 times
greater.
It is critical that we be the leader in the renewable energy
resources sector.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in supporting
fusion energy as a clean, safe, and abundant energy source for our
Nation's long-term energy supply.
______

By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 1131. A bill to promote economically sound modernization of
electric power generation capacity in the United States, to establish
requirements to improve the combustion heat rate efficiency of fossil
fuel-fired electric utility generating units, to reduce emissions of
mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxides, and sulfur dioxide, to
require that all fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units
operating in the United States meet new sources review requirements, to
promote the use of clean coal technologies, and to promote alternative
energy and clean energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass, and fuel
cells; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Administration finally released its
National Energy Policy last month. As I noted at the time, I have
serious concerns about several of its recommendations, not the least of
which was its proposal to build 1,300 to 1,900 new electric power
plants many of them burning relatively dirty fossil fuels, while, at
same time, questioning the enforcement of clean air laws that protect
the public from excess power plant emissions.
Today, fossil fuel-fired power plants constitute the largest source
of air pollution in the United States. Every year, they collectively
emit approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 13 million tons
of acid rain-producing sulfur dioxide, 7 million tons of acid rain- and
smog-producing nitrogen oxides, and 43 tons of highly toxic mercury.
How could pollutants still be dumped into our atmosphere at this
scale? One reason that cannot be ignored is that more than 75 percent
of the fossil-fuel fired power plants in the United States are still
``grandfathered,'' or exempt from modern Clean Air Act standards. When
the Clean Air Act and its amendments were passed, Congress assumed that
old, 1950's era power plants would be retired over time and replaced by
newer, cleaner plants within 30 years. They were not. Unfortunately,
utilities have kept these inefficient, pollution-prone power plants on
line because they are inexpensive. Those grandfathered plants continue
to burn cheap fuel and refuse to invest in emissions control
technologies that protect air quality.
The continuing harm to our atmosphere, lands, waters, State
economies, and public health by excess power plant emissions is well
documented. In my home state of Vermont, acid deposition caused by
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide has scarred our forests
and poisoned our streams. Emissions of mercury have contaminated our
rivers and lakes to the point that statewide advisories against fish
consumption are necessary to protect citizens. Emissions of greenhouse
gas threaten to negatively change the climate for Vermont maple trees
the source of Vermont maple syrup and other economic Vermont crops. And
despite Vermont's tough air laws and small population, out-of-state
particulates and smog lower our air quality, endanger our health, and
ruin views of our Green Mountains.
Earlier this year, I cosponsored bipartisan legislation, the ``Clean
Power Act of 2001,'' that strictly capped national power plant
emissions and ended ``grandfather'' loophole exemptions. To promote
rapid and reliable changes in the utility industry, that legislation
also gave utilities the regulatory tools needed to make those changes
with incentives for free market trading of emissions credits, a so-
called ``cap-and-trade'' mechanism. I remain a supporter of the Clean
Power Act of 2001 and hope it becomes key to energy policy negotiations
in Congress. However, I believe we can do even more.
So today I am introducing a second piece of legislation covering
power plant emissions that I also intend to promote during the energy
debate. The ``Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001'' again
strictly caps emissions and ends the ``grandfather'' loophole on old
plants. Instead of providing utilities the incentive of free market
trading, however, my bill creates strong financial incentives, in the
form of accelerated tax depreciation, for older utilities that cut
emissions and upgrade their plants to 45 percent to 50 percent
efficiency. With current average energy efficiency of U.S. power plants
at only 33 percent, this bill is another proposal that protects the
environment and public health while providing the energy industry with
a comprehensive and predictable set of long-term regulatory
requirements.
Under this bill, mercury emissions would be cut by 90 percent, annual
emissions of sulfur dioxide would be cut by more than 6 million tons
beyond Phase II Clean Air Act Amendments requirements, and nitrogen
oxide emissions would be cut by more than 3 million tons per year
beyond Phase II requirements. This bill would also prevent at least 650
million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.
And this bill goes beyond emissions caps and transition incentives to
recognize the emergence of energy technologies that are more
environmentally sustainable. It provides substantial funding for
research, development, and commercial demonstrations of renewable and
clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and
fuel cells. It also authorizes expenditures for implementing known ways
of biologically sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as
planting trees, preserving wetlands, and soil restoration.
The bill emphasizes the importance of immediately capping, if not
totally eliminating, the release of mercury from power plants. In
December, the EPA finally determined to regulate mercury emissions from
electric utility power plants, an action I strongly commended. However,
such regulations are years away, and it is uncertain what form they
will take. Yet, just last year, 41 states issued more than 2,200 fish
consumption advisories because of mercury contamination. Eleven states,
including Vermont, issued statewide advisories. In 2000, the National
Academy of Sciences confirmed the health risks of mercury, emphasizing
the special vulnerability of unborn and young children. I believe we
need to do something now.
As the energy landscape of our nation changes, this bill also
recognizes the need to train a new national energy work force. As U.S.
power plants become more efficient and more power is produced by
renewable technologies, less fossil fuel will be consumed. This will
have an impact on the workers and communities that produce fossil
fuels. These effects are likely to be greatest for coal, even with
significant deployment of clean coal technology. The bill provides
funding for programs to help workers and communities during the period
of transition. I am eager to work with organized labor to ensure that
these provisions address the needs of workers, particularly those who
may not fully benefit from retraining programs.
Finally, this bill holds the electric power industry, and Congress,
accountable for any and all taxpayer dollars used to aid the transition
to cleaner electric generation facilities. To assess how well clean air
laws and emissions reductions are working, our nation must have robust,
nationwide monitoring networks capable of generating reliable,
consistent, long-term data about natural ecosystems. Networks such as
the National Atmospheric Deposition Program currently provide the
national data needed by scientists and Federal agencies to accurately
assess the trends in pollutant deposition. Yet, over the past 30 years,
these networks have struggled to survive with ever-decreasing funding.
My bill provides modest appropriations for both operational support and
modernization of scientific sites that are so critical to understanding
of our ecosystems and our public health.
The American public overwhelmingly supports the environmental
commitments that we have made since the early 1970s. It is our
responsibility to preserve the environment for our children and
grandchildren, and it is our duty to protect their health as well. The
proposed energy policy of this administration needs to be less about
drilling and more about energy efficiency and protection of air
quality. This bill will, I hope, add another way

[[Page S7100]]

in which we can ensure reliable, affordable electric power while
modernizing energy efficiency and protecting our national resources.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and the section-
by-section overview of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1131

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean
Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Combustion heat rate efficiency standards for fossil fuel-fired
generating units.
Sec. 5. Air emission standards for fossil fuel-fired generating units.
Sec. 6. Extension of renewable energy production credit.
Sec. 7. Megawatt hour generation fees.
Sec. 8. Clean Air Trust Fund.
Sec. 9. Accelerated depreciation for investor-owned generating units.
Sec. 10. Grants for publicly owned generating units.
Sec. 11. Recognition of permanent emission reductions in future climate
change implementation programs.
Sec. 12. Renewable and clean power generation technologies.
Sec. 13. Clean coal, advanced gas turbine, and combined heat and power
demonstration program.
Sec. 14. Evaluation of implementation of this Act and other statutes.
Sec. 15. Assistance for workers adversely affected by reduced
consumption of coal.
Sec. 16. Community economic development incentives for communities
adversely affected by reduced consumption of coal.
Sec. 17. Carbon sequestration.
Sec. 18. Atmospheric monitoring.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States is relying increasingly on old,
needlessly inefficient, and highly polluting power plants to
provide electricity;
(2) the pollution from those power plants causes a wide
range of health and environmental damage, including--
(A) fine particulate matter that is associated with the
deaths of approximately 50,000 Americans annually;
(B) urban ozone, commonly known as ``smog'', that impairs
normal respiratory functions and is of special concern to
individuals afflicted with asthma, emphysema, and other
respiratory ailments;
(C) rural ozone that obscures visibility and damages
forests and wildlife;
(D) acid deposition that damages estuaries, lakes, rivers,
and streams (and the plants and animals that depend on them
for survival) and leaches heavy metals from the soil;
(E) mercury and heavy metal contamination that renders fish
unsafe to eat, with especially serious consequences for
pregnant women and their fetuses;
(F) eutrophication of estuaries, lakes, rivers, and
streams; and
(G) global climate change that may fundamentally and
irreversibly alter human, animal, and plant life;
(3) tax laws and environmental laws--
(A) provide a very strong incentive for electric utilities
to keep old, dirty, and inefficient generating units in
operation; and
(B) provide a strong disincentive to investing in new,
clean, and efficient generating technologies;
(4) fossil fuel-fired power plants, consisting of plants
fueled by coal, fuel oil, and natural gas, produce more than
two-thirds of the electricity generated in the United States;
(5) since, according to the Department of Energy, the
average combustion heat rate efficiency of fossil fuel-fired
power plants in the United States is 33 percent, 67 percent
of the heat generated by burning the fuel is wasted;
(6) technology exists to increase the combustion heat rate
efficiency of coal combustion from 35 percent to 50 percent
above current levels, and technological advances are possible
that would boost the net combustion heat rate efficiency even
more;
(7) coal-fired power plants are the leading source of
mercury emissions in the United States, releasing more than
43 tons of this potent neurotoxin each year;
(8) in 1999, fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United
States produced nearly 2,200,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide,
the primary greenhouse gas;
(9) on average, fossil fuel-fired power plants emit
approximately 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every
megawatt hour of electricity produced;
(10) the average fossil fuel-fired generating unit in the
United States commenced operation in 1964, 6 years before the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) was amended to
establish requirements for stationary sources;
(11)(A) according to the Department of Energy, only 23
percent of the 1,000 largest emitting units are subject to
stringent new source performance standards under section 111
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411); and
(B) the remaining 77 percent, commonly referred to as
``grandfathered'' power plants, are subject to much less
stringent requirements;
(12) according to available scientific and medical
evidence, exposure to mercury and mercury compounds is of
concern to human health and the environment;
(13) according to the report entitled ``Toxicological
Effects of Methylmercury'' and submitted to Congress by the
National Academy of Sciences in 2000, and other scientific
and medical evidence, pregnant women and their developing
fetuses, women of childbearing age, children, and individuals
who subsist primarily on fish are most at risk for mercury-
related health impacts such as neurotoxicity;
(14) although exposure to mercury and mercury compounds
occurs most frequently through consumption of mercury-
contaminated fish, such exposure can also occur through--
(A) ingestion of breast milk;
(B) ingestion of drinking water, and foods other than fish,
that are contaminated with methylmercury; and
(C) dermal uptake through contact with soil and water;
(15) the report entitled ``Mercury Study Report to
Congress'' and submitted by the Environmental Protection
Agency under section 112(n)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7412(n)(1)(B)), in conjunction with other scientific
knowledge, supports a plausible link between mercury
emissions from combustion of coal and other fossil fuels and
mercury concentrations in air, soil, water, and sediments;
(16)(A) the Environmental Protection Agency report
described in paragraph (15) supports a plausible link between
mercury emissions from combustion of coal and other fossil
fuels and methylmercury concentrations in freshwater fish;
(B) in 2000, 41 States issued health advisories that warned
the public about consuming mercury-tainted fish, as compared
to 27 States that issued such advisories in 1993; and
(C) the number of mercury advisories nationwide increased
from 899 in 1993 to 2,242 in 2000, an increase of 149
percent;
(17) pollution from power plants can be reduced through
adoption of modern technologies and practices, including--
(A) methods of combusting coal that are intrinsically more
efficient and less polluting, such as pressurized fluidized
bed combustion and an integrated gasification combined cycle
system;
(B) methods of combusting cleaner fuels, such as gases from
fossil and biological resources and combined cycle turbines;
(C) treating flue gases through application of pollution
controls;
(D) methods of extracting energy from natural, renewable
resources of energy, such as solar and wind sources;
(E) methods of producing electricity and thermal energy
from fuels without conventional combustion, such as fuel
cells; and
(F) combined heat and power methods of extracting and using
heat that would otherwise be wasted, for the purpose of
heating or cooling office buildings, providing steam to
processing facilities, or otherwise increasing total
efficiency;
(18) adopting the technologies and practices described in
paragraph (17) would increase competitiveness and
productivity, secure employment, save lives, and preserve the
future; and
(19) accurate, long-term, nationwide monitoring of
atmospheric acid and mercury deposition is essential for--
(A) determining deposition trends;
(B) evaluating the local and regional transport of
emissions; and
(C) assessing the impact of emission reductions.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect and preserve the environment while
safeguarding health by ensuring that each fossil fuel-fired
generating unit minimizes air pollution to levels that are
technologically feasible through modernization and
application of pollution controls;
(2) to greatly reduce the quantities of mercury, carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides entering the
environment from combustion of fossil fuels;
(3) to permanently reduce emissions of those pollutants by
increasing the combustion heat rate efficiency of fossil
fuel-fired generating units to levels achievable through--
(A) use of commercially available combustion technology,
including clean coal technologies such as pressurized
fluidized bed combustion and an integrated gasification
combined cycle system;
(B) installation of pollution controls;
(C) expanded use of renewable and clean energy sources such
as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and fuel cells; and
(D) promotion of application of combined heat and power
technologies;
(4)(A) to create financial and regulatory incentives to
retire thermally inefficient generating units and replace
them with new units that employ high-thermal-efficiency
combustion technology; and

[[Page S7101]]

(B) to increase use of renewable and clean energy sources
such as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and fuel cells;
(5) to establish the Clean Air Trust Fund to fund the
training, economic development, carbon sequestration, and
research, development, and demonstration programs established
under this Act;
(6) to eliminate the ``grandfather'' loophole in the Clean
Air Act relating to sources in operation before the
promulgation of standards under section 111 of that Act (42
U.S.C. 7411);
(7) to express the sense of Congress that permanent
reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases that are
accomplished through the retirement of old units and
replacement by new units that meet the combustion heat rate
efficiency and emission standards specified in this Act
should be credited to the utility sector and the owner or
operator in any climate change implementation program;
(8) to promote permanent and safe disposal of mercury
recovered through coal cleaning, flue gas control systems,
and other methods of mercury pollution control;
(9) to increase public knowledge of the sources of mercury
exposure and the threat to public health from mercury,
particularly the threat to the health of pregnant women and
their fetuses, women of childbearing age, and children;
(10) to decrease significantly the threat to human health
and the environment posed by mercury;
(11) to provide worker retraining for workers adversely
affected by reduced consumption of coal;
(12) to provide economic development incentives for
communities adversely affected by reduced consumption of
coal;
(13) to promote research concerning renewable energy
sources, clean power generation technologies, and carbon
sequestration; and
(14) to promote government accountability for compliance
with the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and other
emission reduction laws by ensuring accurate, long-term,
nationwide monitoring of atmospheric acid and mercury
deposition.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Generating unit.--The term ``generating unit'' means an
electric utility generating unit.

SEC. 4. COMBUSTION HEAT RATE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FOSSIL
FUEL-FIRED GENERATING UNITS.

(a) Standards.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the day that is 10 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, each fossil fuel-
fired generating unit that commences operation on or before
that day shall achieve and maintain, at all operating levels,
a combustion heat rate efficiency of not less than 45 percent
(based on the higher heating value of the fuel).
(2) Future generating units.--Each fossil fuel-fired
generating unit that commences operation more than 10 years
after the date of enactment of this Act shall achieve and
maintain, at all operating levels, a combustion heat rate
efficiency of not less than 50 percent (based on the higher
heating value of the fuel), unless granted a waiver under
subsection (d).
(b) Test Methods.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate methods for
determining initial and continuing compliance with this
section.
(c) Permit Requirement.--Not later than 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, each generating unit shall
have a permit issued under title V of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) that requires compliance with this
section.
(d) Waiver of Combustion Heat Rate Efficiency Standard.--
(1) Application.--The owner or operator of a generating
unit that commences operation more than 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act may apply to the Administrator
for a waiver of the combustion heat rate efficiency standard
specified in subsection (a)(2) that is applicable to that
type of generating unit.
(2) Issuance.--The Administrator may grant the waiver only
if--
(A)(i) the owner or operator of the generating unit
demonstrates that the technology to meet the combustion heat
rate efficiency standard is not commercially available; or
(ii) the owner or operator of the generating unit
demonstrates that, despite best technical efforts and
willingness to make the necessary level of financial
commitment, the combustion heat rate efficiency standard is
not achievable at the generating unit; and
(B) the owner or operator of the generating unit enters
into an agreement with the Administrator to offset by a
factor of 1.5 to 1, using a method approved by the
Administrator, the emission reductions that the generating
unit does not achieve because of the failure to achieve the
combustion heat rate efficiency standard specified in
subsection (a)(2).
(3) Effect of waiver.--If the Administrator grants a waiver
under paragraph (1), the generating unit shall be required to
achieve and maintain, at all operating levels, the combustion
heat rate efficiency standard specified in subsection (a)(1).

SEC. 5. AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED
GENERATING UNITS.

(a) All Fossil Fuel-Fired Generating Units.--Not later than
10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, each fossil
fuel-fired generating unit, regardless of its date of
construction or commencement of operation, shall be subject
to, and operating in physical and operational compliance
with, the new source review requirements under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).
(b) Emission Rates for Sources Required To Maintain 45
Percent Efficiency.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, each fossil fuel-fired generating
unit subject to section 4(a)(1) shall be in compliance with
the following emission limitations:
(1) Mercury.--Each coal-fired or fuel oil-fired generating
unit shall be required to remove 90 percent of the mercury
contained in the fuel, calculated in accordance with
subsection (e).
(2) Carbon dioxide.--
(A) Natural gas-fired generating units.--Each natural gas-
fired generating unit shall be required to achieve an
emission rate of not more than 0.9 pounds of carbon dioxide
per kilowatt hour of net electric power output.
(B) Fuel oil-fired generating units.--Each fuel oil-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(C) Coal-fired generating units.--Each coal-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.55 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(3) Sulfur dioxide.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating unit
shall be required--
(A) to remove 95 percent of the sulfur dioxide that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.3 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per million British thermal units of fuel
consumed.
(4) Nitrogen oxides.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating
unit shall be required--
(A) to remove 90 percent of nitrogen oxides that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.15
pounds of nitrogen oxides per million British thermal units
of fuel consumed.
(c) Emission Rates for Sources Required To Maintain 50
Percent Efficiency.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating unit
subject to section 4(a)(2) shall be in compliance with the
following emission limitations:
(1) Mercury.--Each coal-fired or fuel oil-fired generating
unit shall be required to remove 90 percent of the mercury
contained in the fuel, calculated in accordance with
subsection (e).
(2) Carbon dioxide.--
(A) Natural gas-fired generating units.--Each natural gas-
fired generating unit shall be required to achieve an
emission rate of not more than 0.8 pounds of carbon dioxide
per kilowatt hour of net electric power output.
(B) Fuel oil-fired generating units.--Each fuel oil-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.2 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(C) Coal-fired generating units.--Each coal-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(3) Sulfur dioxide.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating unit
shall be required--
(A) to remove 95 percent of the sulfur dioxide that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.3 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per million British thermal units of fuel
consumed.
(4) Nitrogen oxides.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating
unit shall be required--
(A) to remove 90 percent of nitrogen oxides that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.15
pounds of nitrogen oxides per million British thermal units
of fuel consumed.
(d) Permit Requirement.--Not later than 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, each generating unit shall
have a permit issued under title V of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) that requires compliance with this
section.
(e) Compliance Determination and Monitoring.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate methods for
determining initial and continuing compliance with this
section.
(2) Calculation of mercury emission reductions.--Not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall promulgate fuel sampling techniques and
emission monitoring techniques for use by generating units in
calculating mercury emission reductions for the purposes of
this section.
(3) Reporting.--
(A) In general.--Not less often than quarterly, the owner
or operator of a generating unit shall submit a pollutant-
specific emission report for each pollutant covered by this
section.
(B) Signature.--Each report required under subparagraph (A)
shall be signed by a responsible official of the generating
unit, who shall certify the accuracy of the report.
(C) Public reporting.--The Administrator shall annually
make available to the public,

[[Page S7102]]

through 1 or more published reports and 1 or more forms of
electronic media, facility-specific emission data for each
generating unit and pollutant covered by this section.
(D) Consumer disclosure.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations requiring each owner or operator of a
generating unit to disclose to residential consumers of
electricity generated by the unit, on a regular basis (but
not less often than annually) and in a manner convenient to
the consumers, data concerning the level of emissions by the
generating unit of each pollutant covered by this section and
each air pollutant covered by section 111 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).
(f) Disposal of Mercury Captured or Recovered Through
Emission Controls.--
(1) Captured or recovered mercury.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations to ensure that mercury that is
captured or recovered through the use of an emission control,
coal cleaning, or another method is disposed of in a manner
that ensures that--
(A) the hazards from mercury are not transferred from 1
environmental medium to another; and
(B) there is no release of mercury into the environment.
(2) Mercury-containing sludges and wastes.--The regulations
promulgated by the Administrator under paragraph (1) shall
ensure that mercury-containing sludges and wastes are handled
and disposed of in accordance with all applicable Federal and
State laws (including regulations).
(g) Public Reporting of Facility-Specific Emission Data.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall annually make
available to the public, through 1 or more published reports
and the Internet, facility-specific emission data for each
generating unit and for each pollutant covered by this
section.
(2) Source of data.--The emission data shall be taken from
the emission reports submitted under subsection (e)(3).

SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION CREDIT.

Section 45(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to definitions) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting a comma; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) solar power, and
``(E) geothermal power.'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2016'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2016'';
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2016''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Solar power facility.--In the case of a facility
using solar power to produce electricity, the term `qualified
facility' means any facility owned by the taxpayer which is
originally placed in service after December 31, 2001, and
before January 1, 2016.
``(E) Geothermal power facility.--In the case of a facility
using geothermal power to produce electricity, the term
`qualified facility' means any facility owned by the taxpayer
which is originally placed in service after December 31,
2001, and before January 1, 2016.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Solar power.--The term `solar power' means solar
energy harnessed through photovoltaic systems, solar boilers
which provide process heat, and any other means.
``(6) Geothermal power.--The term `geothermal power' means
thermal energy extracted from the earth for the purposes of
producing electricity.''.

SEC. 7. MEGAWATT HOUR GENERATION FEES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 38 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended by
inserting after subchapter D the following:

``Subchapter E--Megawatt Hour Generation Fees

``Sec. 4691. Imposition of fees.

``SEC. 4691. IMPOSITION OF FEES.

``(a) Tax Imposed.--There is hereby imposed on each covered
fossil fuel-fired generating unit a tax equal to 30 cents per
megawatt hour of electricity produced by the covered fossil
fuel-fired generating unit.
``(b) Adjustment of Rates.--Not less often than once every
2 years beginning after 2005, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, shall evaluate the rate of the tax imposed by
subsection (a) and increase the rate if necessary for any
succeeding calendar year to ensure that the Clean Air Trust
Fund established by section 9511 has sufficient amounts to
fully fund the activities described in section 9511(c).
``(c) Payment of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section
shall be paid quarterly by the owner or operator of each
covered fossil fuel-fired generating unit.
``(d) Covered Fossil Fuel-Fired Generating Unit.--The term
`covered fossil fuel-fired generating unit' means an electric
utility generating unit which--
``(1) is powered by fossil fuels;
``(2) has a generating capacity of 5 or more megawatts; and
``(3) because of the date on which the generating unit
commenced commercial operation, is not subject to all
regulations promulgated under section 111 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of subchapters for
such chapter 38 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to subchapter D the following:

``Subchapter E. Megawatt hour generation fees.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced in calendar years
beginning after December 31, 2003.

SEC. 8. CLEAN AIR TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 9511. CLEAN AIR TRUST FUND.

``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Clean Air Trust Fund' (hereafter referred to in this section
as the `Trust Fund'), consisting of such amounts as may be
appropriated or credited to the Trust Fund as provided in
this section or section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the
taxes received in the Treasury under section 4691.
``(c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the Trust
Fund shall be available, without further Act of
appropriation, upon request by the head of the appropriate
Federal agency in such amounts as the agency head determines
are necessary--
``(1) to provide funding under section 12 of the Clean
Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001, as in effect on
the date of enactment of this section;
``(2) to provide funding for the demonstration program
under section 13 of such Act, as so in effect;
``(3) to provide assistance under section 15 of such Act,
as so in effect;
``(4) to provide assistance under section 16 of such Act,
as so in effect; and
``(5) to provide funding under section 17 of such Act, as
so in effect.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 9511. Clean Air Trust Fund.''.

SEC. 9. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR INVESTOR-OWNED
GENERATING UNITS.

(a) In General.--Section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to classification of certain property)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E) (relating to 15-year property), by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the
period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) any 45-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) 12-year property.--The term `12-year property'
includes any 50-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 168(i) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and special rules) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Fossil fuel-fired generating units.--
``(A) 50-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired generating
unit.--The term `50-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit' means any property used in an investor-owned
fossil fuel-fired generating unit pursuant to a plan approved
by the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, to place into service
such a unit which is in compliance with sections 4(a)(2) and
5(c) of the Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001,
as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
``(B) 45-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired generating
unit.--The term `45-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit' means any property used in an investor-owned
fossil fuel-fired generating unit pursuant to a plan so
approved to place into service such a unit which is in
compliance with sections 4(a)(1) and 5(b) of such Act, as so
in effect.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table contained in section
168(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
applicable recovery period) is amended by inserting after the
item relating to 10-year property the following:

``12-year property........................................12 years''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property used after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 10. GRANTS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED GENERATING UNITS.

Any capital expenditure made after the date of enactment of
this Act to purchase, install, and bring into commercial
operation any new publicly owned generating unit that--
(1) is in compliance with sections 4(a)(1) and 5(b) shall,
for a 15-year period, be eligible for partial reimbursement
through annual grants made by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Administrator, in an amount equal to
the monetary value of the depreciation deduction that would
be realized by reason of section 168(c)(3)(E) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 by a similarly-situated investor-owned
generating unit over that period; and
(2) is in compliance with sections 4(a)(2) and 5(c) shall,
over a 12-year period, be eligible for partial reimbursement
through annual grants made by the Secretary of the

[[Page S7103]]

Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator, in an
amount equal to the monetary value of the depreciation
deduction that would be realized by reason of section
168(c)(3)(D) of such Code by a similarly-situated investor-
owned generating unit over that period.

SEC. 11. RECOGNITION OF PERMANENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN
FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) permanent reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and
nitrogen oxides that are accomplished through the retirement
of old generating units and replacement by new generating
units that meet the combustion heat rate efficiency and
emission standards specified in this Act, or through
replacement of old generating units with nonpolluting
renewable power generation technologies, should be credited
to the utility sector, and to the owner or operator that
retires or replaces the old generating unit, in any climate
change implementation program enacted by Congress;
(2) the base year for calculating reductions under a
program described in paragraph (1) should be the calendar
year preceding the calendar year in which this Act is
enacted; and
(3) a reasonable portion of any monetary value that may
accrue from the crediting described in paragraph (1) should
be passed on to utility customers.

SEC. 12. RENEWABLE AND CLEAN POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) In General.--Under the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Technology Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12001 et seq.),
the Secretary of Energy shall fund research and development
programs and commercial demonstration projects and
partnerships to demonstrate the commercial viability and
environmental benefits of electric power generation from--
(1) biomass (excluding unseparated municipal solid waste),
geothermal, solar, and wind technologies; and
(2) fuel cells.
(b) Types of Projects.--Demonstration projects may include
solar power tower plants, solar dishes and engines, co-firing
of biomass with coal, biomass modular systems, next-
generation wind turbines and wind turbine verification
projects, geothermal energy conversion, and fuel cells.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts made available under any other law, there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2012.

SEC. 13. CLEAN COAL, ADVANCED GAS TURBINE, AND COMBINED HEAT
AND POWER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Under subtitle B of title XXI of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13471 et seq.), the
Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to fund
projects and partnerships designed to demonstrate the
efficiency and environmental benefits of electric power
generation from--
(1) clean coal technologies, such as pressurized fluidized
bed combustion and an integrated gasification combined cycle
system;
(2) advanced gas turbine technologies, such as flexible
midsized gas turbines and baseload utility scale
applications; and
(3) combined heat and power technologies.
(b) Selection Criteria.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
promulgate criteria and procedures for selection of
demonstration projects and partnerships to be funded under
subsection (a).
(2) Required criteria.--At a minimum, the selection
criteria shall include--
(A) the potential of a proposed demonstration project or
partnership to reduce or avoid emissions of pollutants
covered by section 5 and air pollutants covered by section
111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411); and
(B) the potential commercial viability of the proposed
demonstration project or partnership.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts made available
under any other law, there is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $75,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2003 through 2012.
(2) Distribution.--The Secretary shall make reasonable
efforts to ensure that, under the program established under
this section, the same amount of funding is provided for
demonstration projects and partnerships under each of
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a).

SEC. 14. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT AND OTHER
STATUTES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and the Administrator, shall submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of this Act.
(b) Identification of Conflicting Law.--The report shall
identify any provision of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-486), the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 791 et seq.), the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), or the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
(42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), or the amendments made by those
Acts, that conflicts with the intent or efficient
implementation of this Act.
(c) Recommendations.--The report shall include
recommendations from the Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the
Administrator for legislative or administrative measures to
harmonize and streamline the statutes specified in subsection
(b) and the regulations implementing those statutes.

SEC. 15. ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY REDUCED
CONSUMPTION OF COAL.

In addition to amounts made available under any other law,
there is authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2003 through 2015 to provide assistance,
under the economic dislocation and worker adjustment
assistance program of the Department of Labor authorized by
title III of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1651
et seq.), to coal industry workers who are terminated from
employment as a result of reduced consumption of coal by the
electric power generation industry.

SEC. 16. COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR
COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY REDUCED
CONSUMPTION OF COAL.

In addition to amounts made available under any other law,
there is authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2003 through 2012 to provide assistance,
under the economic adjustment program of the Department of
Commerce authorized by the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.), to assist
communities adversely affected by reduced consumption of coal
by the electric power generation industry.

SEC. 17. CARBON SEQUESTRATION.

(a) Carbon Sequestration Strategy.--In addition to amounts
made available under any other law, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Energy for each of fiscal years 2003 through
2005 a total of $15,000,000 to conduct research and
development activities in basic and applied science in
support of development by September 30, 2005, of a carbon
sequestration strategy that is designed to offset all growth
in carbon dioxide emissions in the United States after 2010.
(b) Methods for Biologically Sequestering Carbon Dioxide.--
In addition to amounts made available under any other law,
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture for each
of fiscal years 2003 through 2012 a total of $30,000,000 to
carry out soil restoration, tree planting, wetland
protection, and other methods of biologically sequestering
carbon dioxide.
(c) Limitation.--A project carried out using funds made
available under this section shall not be used to offset any
emission reduction required under any other provision of this
Act.

SEC. 18. ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING.

(a) Operational Support.--In addition to amounts made
available under any other law, there are authorized to be
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2012--
(1) for operational support of the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program National Trends Network--
(A) $2,000,000 to the United States Geological Survey;
(B) $600,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency;
(C) $600,000 to the National Park Service; and
(D) $400,000 to the Forest Service;
(2) for operational support of the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program Mercury Deposition Network--
(A) $400,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency;
(B) $400,000 to the United States Geological Survey;
(C) $100,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; and
(D) $100,000 to the National Park Service;
(3) for the National Atmospheric Deposition Program
Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network $1,500,000
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
(4) for the Clean Air Status and Trends Network $5,000,000
to the Environmental Protection Agency; and
(5) for the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems
and Long-Term Monitoring Program $2,500,000 to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(b) Modernization.--In addition to amounts made available
under any other law, there are authorized to be
appropriated--
(1) for equipment and site modernization of the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program National Trends Network
$6,000,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) for equipment and site modernization and network
expansion of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program
Mercury Deposition Network $2,000,000 to the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(3) for equipment and site modernization and network
expansion of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program
Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network $1,000,000
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(4) for equipment and site modernization and network
expansion of the Clean Air Status and Trends Network
$4,600,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) Availability of Amounts.--Each of the amounts
appropriated under subsection (b) shall remain available
until expended.

[[Page S7104]]

Section-by-Section Overview of the Clean Power Plant and Modernization
Act of 2001

What will the Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001 do?

The Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001 lays
out an ambitious, achievable, and balanced set of financial
incentives and regulatory requirements designed to increase
power plant efficiency, reduce emissions, and encourage the
use of renewable energy and clean power generation methods.
The bill encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, and risk-
taking. In the long term, the bill will reduce acid
precipitation, decrease mercury contamination, help mitigate
climate change, improve visibility, and safeguard human
health.
Section 4. Combustion Heat Rate Efficiency Standards for
Fossil Fuel-Fired Generating Units
Fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States operate
at an average combustion efficiency of 33%. This means that,
on average, 67% of the heat generated by burning the fuel is
wasted. Without changing fuels, increasing combustion
efficiency is the best way to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. Section 4 lays out a phased two-stage process for
increasing efficiency. In the first stage, by 10 years after
enactment, all units in operation must achieve a combustion
heat rate efficiency of not less than 45%. In the second
stage, with expected advances in combustion technology, units
commencing operation more than 10 years after enactment must
achieve a combustion heat rate efficiency of not less than
50%. Carbon dioxide emission reductions on the order of 650
millions tons per year are expected, and the potential exists
for even larger reductions.
If, for some unforeseen reason, technological advances do
not achieve the 50% efficiency level, Section 4 contains a
waiver provision that allows the owners of new units to
offset any shortfall in carbon dioxide emission reductions
through implementation of carbon sequestration projects.
Section 5. Air Emission Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired
Generating Units
Subsection (a) eliminates the ``grandfather'' loophole in
the Clean Air Act and requires all units, regardless of when
they were constructed or began operation, to comply with
existing new source review requirements under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act.
Subsection (b) sets mercury, carbon dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emission standards for units that
are subject to the 45% thermal efficiency standard set forth
in Section 4. For mercury, 90% of the mercury contained in
the fuel must be removed. For carbon dioxide, the emission
limits are set by fuel type (i.e., natural gas = 0.9 pounds
per kilowatt-hour of output; fuel oil = 1.3 pounds per
kilowatt-hour of output; coal = 1.55 pounds per kilowatt-hour
of output). 95% of sulfur dioxide emissions and 90% of
nitrogen oxide emissions are to be removed, and emissions may
not exceed 0.3 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 0.15 pounds of
nitrogen oxides per million BTUs of fuel consumed.
Subsection (c) sets emission standards for units that are
subject to the 50% thermal efficiency standard set forth in
Section 4. Standards for mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides are the same as those in Subsection (b).
Greater combustion efficiency results in lower emissions of
carbon dioxide, and the fuel-specific emission limits are
lowered accordingly (i.e., natural gas = 0.8 pounds per
kilowatt-hour of output; fuel oil = 1.2 pounds per kilowatt-
hour of output; coal = 1.4 pounds per kilowatt-hour of
output).
Section 6. Extension of Renewable Energy Production Credit
Section 45(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended to include solar power and geothermal power and to
extend the renewable energy production credit through 2015.
(This credit is currently set to expire in 2001.)
Section 7. Megawatt-Hour Generation Fees and Section 8. Clean
Air Trust Fund
To offset the impact to the Treasury of the incentives in
Sections 9 and 10, the bill establishes the Clean Air Trust
Fund. The Trust Fund is similar to the Highway Trust Fund or
the Superfund. The revenue for the Trust Fund will be
provided by assessing a fee of 30 cents per megawatt-hour of
electricity produced by covered electric generating units.
The Trust Fund will also be used to pay for assistance to
workers and communities adversely affected by reduced
consumption of coal, research and development for renewable
power generation technologies (e.g., wind, solar, and
biomass), and carbon sequestration projects.
Section 9. Accelerated Depreciation for Investor-Owned
Generating Units
Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, utilities can
depreciate their generating equipment over a 20 year period.
Section 9 amends Section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow for depreciation over a 15 year period for
units meeting the 45% efficiency level and the emission
standards in Section 5(b). Section 9 also amends Section 168
to allow for depreciation over a 12 year period for units
meeting the 50% efficiency level and the emission standards
in Section 5(c).
Section 10. Grants for Publicly Owned Generating Units
No federal taxes are paid on publicly-owned generating
units. To provide publicly-owned utilities with comparable
incentives to modernize, Section 10 provides for annual
grants in an amount equal to the monetary value of the
depreciation deduction that would be realized by a similarly
situated investor-owned generating unit under Section 9.
Units meeting the 45% efficiency level and the emission
standards in Section 5(b) would receive annual grants over a
15 year period, and units meeting the 50% efficiency level
and the emission standards in Section 5(c) would receive
annual grants over a 12 year period.
Section 11. Recognition of Permanent Emission Reductions in
Future Climate Change Implementation Programs
This section expresses the sense of Congress that permanent
reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides
that are accomplished through the retirement of old
generating units and replacement by new generating units that
meet the efficiency and emission standards in the bill, or
through replacement with non-polluting renewable power
generation technologies, should be credited to the utility
sector and to the owner/operator in any climate change
implementation program enacted by Congress.
Section 12. Renewable and Clean Power Generation Technologies
This section provides a total of $750 million over 10 years
to fund research and development programs and commercial
demonstration projects and partnerships to demonstrate the
commercial viability and environmental benefits of electric
power generation from biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind
technologies. Types of projects may include solar power tower
plants, solar dishes and engines, co-firing biomass with
coal, biomass modular systems, next-generation wind turbines
and wind verification projects, and geothermal energy
conversion.
Section 13. Clean Coal, Advanced Gas Turbine, and Combined
Heat and Power Demonstration Program
This section provides a total of $750 million over 10 years
to fund research and development programs and commercial
demonstration projects and partnerships to demonstrate the
commercial viability and environmental benefits of electric
power generation from clean coal technologies, advanced gas
turbine technologies, and combined heat and power
technologies.
Section 14. Evaluation of Implementation of This Act and
Other Statutes
Not later than 2 years after enactment, DOE, in
consultation with EPA and FERC, shall report to Congress on
the implementation of the Clean Power Plant and Modernization
Act. The report shall identify any provisions of other laws
that conflict with the efficient implementation of the Clean
Power Plant and Modernization Act. The report shall include
recommendations for legislative or administrative measures to
harmonize and streamline these other statutes.
Section 15. Assistance for Workers Adversely Affected by
Reduced Consumption of Coal
Beginning 3 years after enactment, this section provides a
total of $975 million over 13 years to provide assistance to
coal industry workers who are adversely affected as a result
of reduced consumption of coal by the electric power
generation industry. The funds will be administered under the
economic dislocation and worker adjustment assistance program
of the Department of Labor authorized by Title III of the Job
Training Partnership Act.
Section 16. Community Economic Development Incentives for
Communities Adversely Affected by Reduced Consumption of
Coal
Beginning 3 years after enactment, this section provides a
total of $975 million over 13 years to provide assistance to
communities adversely affected as a result of reduced
consumption of coal by the electric power generation
industry. The funds will be administered under the economic
adjustment program of the Department of Commerce authorized
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
Section 17. Carbon Sequestration
This section authorizes $45 million over 3 years for DOE to
conduct research and development in support of a national
carbon sequestration strategy. This section also authorizes
$300 million over 10 years for EPA and USDA to fund carbon
sequestration projects such as soil restoration, tree
planting, wetlands protection, and other ways of biologically
sequestering carbon.
Section 18. Atmospheric Monitoring
This section authorizes $13.6 million over 10 years to
support the operation of existing instrument networks that
monitor the deposition of sulfates, nitrates, mercury, and
other pollutants, as well as the effects of these pollutants
of ecosystem health. This section also authorizes a one-time
expenditure of $13.6 million for equipment modernization for
these instrument networks.
______

By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 1132. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
relating to the distribution chain of prescription drugs; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed
to

[[Page S7105]]

prevent a serious disruption in the distribution of prescription drugs
across America. Unless changed by this legislation, or modified by the
agency itself, a regulation issued by the Food and Drug Administration
will drive out of business thousands of small and medium sized drug
wholesalers. Tens of thousands of small nursing homes, clinics,
doctor's offices, drug stores, and veterinary practices, especially in
rural areas, would be forced to find new suppliers of prescription
drugs, who would almost certainly charge higher prices. Consumers,
especially the sickest and the least able to pay, would be even further
hard-pressed to afford the prescription drugs they need to maintain
their health.
There is no real health or safety reason behind the FDA's action,
which is simply a lack of understanding of how the wholesale
distribution of drugs actually works. The agency's regulation would
complete the implementation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act,
which was enacted in April 1988. That statute, which was designed to
stop the misuse of drug samples, prevent various types of resale fraud,
stop the importation of counterfeit drugs, and establish minimum
national standards for the storage and handling of drugs by
wholesalers, has worked well.
However, the FDA's regulation, which will go into effect on April 1,
2001, created two problems for wholesalers, neither of which were
present when the agency issued its initial policy guidance on the
statute in 1988. The first problem relates to the sales history of drug
products which wholesalers must provide their customers. A wholesaler
who does not purchase directly from a manufacturer must provide their
customer with a detailed history of all prior sales of that product
back to the wholesaler who did purchase the drugs from the
manufacturer. This provision was designed to prevent the introduction
of counterfeits or other drugs from questionable or unknown sources
into the marketplace. The FDA's initial guidance was that resellers who
did not purchase drugs directly from a manufacturer had to trace the
product back to the wholesaler who did purchase directly from the
manufacturer. This wholesaler is known as an authorized distributor.
Not withstanding the fact that this system has produced a drug
distribution system of exceptional quality, the FDA has changed its
mind as to what the statute required and proposed that a reseller now
be required to trace the product history all the way back to the
manufacturer. At the same time, however, the agency also concluded that
the statute does not require either the manufacturer or the authorized
distributor to provide this sales history to the secondary reseller.
But without this very detailed sales history, it will be illegal for
the secondary wholesaler to resell products. Since it is economically
and logistically impractical for manufacturers or authorized
distributors to keep track of the huge volume of product in the extreme
detail required by the FDA rule, thousands of secondary wholesalers
will be forced to cease business.
Fortunately, there is a simple solution. In 1990, the FDA finalized a
regulation implementing another part of the PDMA, which requires
wholesalers to keep very detailed records of all purchases, sales, or
other dispositions of the drugs they obtain. These records, which are
very similar to the detailed sales history in the FDA's latest
regulation, are also subject to audit by the agency, by state
regulators, and must be made available to law enforcement agencies if
needed. Thus, there is really no need for a secondary wholesaler to try
and assemble the detailed and virtually unobtainable sales history now
demanded by the FDA and to pass it on to their customers. Instead, the
bill I am introducing today requires only that secondary wholesalers
provide a written statement to their customers that the drug products
were first purchased from a manufacturer or authorized distributor.
Substituting the written statement would prevent a serious disruption
in the wholesale drug sector while preserving the original intent of
the PDMA, which was to guard the network of licensed and inspected
wholesalers from counterfeits or drugs from questionable sources. It
would be a simple matter for a secondary wholesaler to determine that a
shipment of drugs was first purchased by an authorized wholesaler, and
the written statement would be subject to criminal penalties if
falsified under existing law. Substituting the written statement for
the paper trail requirement would also reduce selling costs, which
could be passed on to the consumer.
This bill is a companion to H.R. 68, introduced on January 3, 2001,
by Representatives Jo Ann Emerson and Marion Berry. That bill now has
45 co-sponsors who represent an especially diverse geographical and
ideological cross section of the House and is supported by nine major
trade and professional organizations representing most companies that
wholesale or retail prescription drugs in the U.S. I invite my
colleagues in the Senate to add their names to this commonsense
measure.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. Carnahan, and Mr. Bond):
S. 1133. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve
nonstop air service to and from Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport for certain communities in case of airline bankruptcy; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week the Bush Administration
eliminated the only nonstop air service between Los Angeles
International Airport, LAX, and National Airport, DCA, in Washington,
DC. The elimination of the flight makes Los Angeles the largest U.S.
city without nonstop air service to this vital airport in the Nation's
capital.
Since the DCA to lax flight began 10 months ago, 45,000 passengers
have taken the flight. Not only is it popular, but many small and mid-
sized communities throughout the state, including Bakersfield, Fresno,
Monterey, and San Luis Obispo, rely on this flight. They have
connecting flights into LAX specifically designed so that passengers
can take the LAX-DCA nonstop flight. These communities will suffer
because of this decision.
This happened because TWA, which operated the flight, went bankrupt.
Even though American Airlines purchased the assets of TWA and was
willing to continue the flight, the Administration gave the LAX slot at
National Airport to another city.
This was an unfortunate decision, and one that was both unnecessary
and unjustified. Therefore, today, I am introducing legislation to
reinstate the service. It is narrowly crafted to address the unique
situation we have here.
My bill only applies in cases where a community loses service to DCA
because the airline operating the flight went bankrupt. In those cases,
the air carrier that purchases the assets of the bankrupt airlines has
a right to continue the nonstop service. In exchange, however, the air
carrier must give up one of its several slots that it uses to fly to
its hub airport.
In this way, my bill would not create any additional flights to
National Airport. Nor would it take away any of the long-distance
nonstop flights now in operation, including to the city that just
received the slot originally granted to Los Angeles. But, it would
allow the very popular nonstop air service between LAX and DCA to
continue.
It seems to me that this is a fair compromise to ensure that service
between National Airport and Los Angeles continues. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to address this problem before the end of
the summer.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 1134. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the rules applicable to qualified small business stock; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to provide an incentive for capital formation for entrepreneurs.
This incentive is tailor-made to form capital for entrepreneurial
firms so they can spur economic growth, create high wage jobs, and
ensure American competitiveness into the 21st Century. It focuses on
equity investments as this is the only form of capital most
entrepreneurial firms secure to fund research and development; most
such firms are unable to secure debt capital.
Because this incentive applies to founders stock and employee stock
options, and not just stock offered to outside investors, it provides a
powerful

[[Page S7106]]

incentive for the human infrastructure and culture that drives and
grows our nation's entrepreneurial firms.
This legislation could not be more timely given the drought we see in
equity capital for entrepreneurs. Nationwide we saw 850 Initial Public
Offerings of stock, IPOs, in 1996, 610 in 1997, 362 in 1998, 501 in
1999, and 379 in 2000. So far in 2001 we have seen only 50. The total
value of these offerings was $47 billion in 1996, $39 billion in 1997,
$37 billion in 1998, $53 billion in 1999, and $54 billion in 2000. So
far in 2001, it's only $20 billion. Entrepreneurs are starved for
capital and this incentive is tailor made to provide an incentive to
investors to provide it to them.
The details of our proposal are straight forward. They call for a 100
percent exclusion, a zero capital gains rate, for new, direct, long-
term investments in the stock of a small corporation. ``New'' means
that the stock must be offered after the effective date of the bill and
does not apply to sale of previously acquired equity shares. ``Direct''
means the stock must have been acquired from the firm and not in
secondary markets, so it includes founders stock, stock options,
venture capital placements, IPOs, and subsequent public stock
offerings. ``Long-term'' means the stock must be held for three years.
``Stock'' includes any type of stock, including convertible preferred
shares. ``Small corporation'' means a corporation with $300 million or
less in capitalization (not valuation, but paid-in capital). The
incentive applies to both individual and corporate taxpayers. And the
excluded gains are not a preference item for the Alternative Minimum
Tax.
I am pleased that Senator Hatch has agreed to serve as the lead
cosponsor of the legislation. He and I worked closely together from
1995 through 1997 to restore the capital gains incentive. There were
many Members involved with that effort, but Senator Hatch and I were
pleased to be the leaders of the legislative coalition that proved to
be so effective. Our work now on this venture capital gains legislation
is a continuation of that long and successful partnership.
I am pleased that Representatives Jennifer Dunn and Robert Matsui are
introducing the same bill in the other body.
I have long championed this approach to capital gains incentives.
Most recently, this proposal was included as Section 4 of S. 798, the
Productivity, Opportunity, and Prosperity Act of 2001. The first
proposal on this subject was introduced on April 7, 1987 in the 100th
Congress by Senator Dale Bumpers as S. 932. I was an early supporter of
this proposal and I cosponsored a version of this proposal introduced
in 1991 by Senator Bumpers as S.1932. A version of that bill was
enacted as part of the 1993 tax bill, Section 1202, but it was laden
with technical requirements that limited its effectiveness. In the
104th Congress sent amendments to strengthen Section 1202 to President
Clinton in the tax bill vetoed he vetoed in 1996. In the 105th Congress
these amendments were included in all of the key capital gains,
including S. 2 (Roth), S. 20 (Daschle), S. 66 (Hatch-Lieberman), S. 501
(Mack), and S. 745 (Bumpers). These amendments were sent to the
conference on that bill but did not emerge from it. A broad-based
capital gains incentive, which I supported, was enacted into law and a
rollover provision was enacted with regard to Section 1202 stock. In
the 106th Congress, amendments to strengthen Section 1202 were
introduced in the House by Representatives Jennifer Dunn and Bob
Matsui, H.R. 2331. Then I introduced the incentive as part of S. 798
and we are today introducing it again as a stand-alone bill.
Today I am pleased to cosponsor S. 818, the capital gains proposal
introduced by Senator Hatch and Torricelli and others. That proposal
calls for a reduction in the current 20 percent capital gains tax rate
for a broad class of investments, simplifies the capital gains tax, and
provides special benefits to low income taxpayers. This bill and the
bill we introduce today are complementary and should both be enacted.
I recognize that the Joint Committee on Taxation, which determines
the ``cost'' of all tax proposals, will determine that our proposal
today, and S. 818, will lose revenue. I believe this finding to be
short-sighted given the dramatic effect that these incentives will have
on entrepreneurs and therefore on economic growth, but there is no way
to appeal these determinations. There is no revenue remaining available
under the budget resolution to tap to finance these proposals.
Accordingly, I fully accept the obligation to find a way to pay for
these and other tax proposals, an offset, so that we do not adversely
affect the deficit.
The reasons for setting a special capital gains rate for venture
capital are compelling. Entrepreneurial firms are the ones which can
dramatically change our whole health care system, clean up our
environment, link us in international telecommunication networks, and
increase our capacity to understand our world. The firms are founded by
dreamers, adventurers, and risk-takers who embody the best we have to
offer in our free-enterprise economy.
Entrepreneurship drives growth and small, emerging companies need
capital investment to innovate, create jobs, and create wealth.
According to the National Commission on Entrepreneurship, a small
subset of entrepreneurial firms that comprise only 5-15 percent of all
U.S. businesses created about two-thirds of new jobs between 1993-96.
Although venture capital is critical to the transition from a fledgling
company to a growth company, only a small share of it is associated
with small and new firms. In addition, we are currently experiencing a
venture capital slow down that makes it even more difficult for small
and new firms to attract capital. According to the National Venture
Capital Association, NCVA, investment in the fourth quarter of last
year slowed by more than 30 percent from the previous quarter.

The primary goal of the Productivity, Opportunity, and Prosperity Act
and this venture capital incentive is to protect, stimulate and expand
economic growth. Government's role is not to create jobs but to help
create the environment in which the private sector will create jobs.
This legislation helps to create the right context for private sector
growth by providing incentives for investment in training, technology,
and small entrepreneurial firms. These investments are critical to
economic growth and the creation of jobs and wealth.
The Productivity, Opportunity, and Prosperity Act of 2001, including
this venture capital proposal, is a tax plan with a purpose. And that
purpose is, above all else, to stimulate private sector economic
growth, to raise the tide that lifts the lot of all Americans. In the
spirit of the ``New Economy,'' where the fundamentals of our economy
have changed through entrepreneurship and innovation, this package
includes business tax incentives that will spur the real drivers of
growth: innovation, investment, a skilled workforce, and productivity.
Ten years from now we will be judged by the economic policy decisions
we make today. People will ask, did we fully understand the awesome
changes taking place in our economy and in our society? Did we give our
industry and workers the environment and the tools they need to seize
the opportunities that an innovation economy offers? I believe that a
true Prosperity Agenda is within our grasp. Never before has America
been in a stronger position, economically, socially, or politically, to
shape our future. But it will take strong and focused leadership. I am
confident that if we in the public sector in Washington work in
partnership with the private sector throughout our country, we can
truly say of America's future that the best is yet to come. I believe
that the Productivity, Opportunity, and Prosperity Act and this venture
capital incentive are an important step toward that future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
section analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:

S. 1134

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 ``Venture Capital Gains and
Growth Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS
STOCK.

(a) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--

[[Page S7107]]

(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 57 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items of tax
preference) is amended by striking paragraph (7).
(2) Technical amendment.--Subclause (II) of section
53(d)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking ``, (5),
and (7)'' and inserting ``and (5)''.
(b) Increase in Rollover Period for Qualified Small
Business Stock.--Subsections (a)(1) and (b)(3) of section
1045 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
rollover of gain from qualified small business stock to
another qualified small business stock) are each amended by
striking ``60-day'' and inserting ``180-day''.
(c) Reduction in Holding Period.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to partial exclusion
for gains from certain small business stock) is amended by
striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsections (g)(2)(A) and
(j)(1)(A) of section 1202 of such Code are each amended by
striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
(d) Repeal of Per-Issuer Limitation.--Section 1202(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to per-issuer
limitations on taxpayer's eligible gain) is repealed.
(e) Qualified Trade or Business.--Section 1202(e)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified trade or
business) is amended by inserting ``, and is anticipated to
continue to be,'' before ``the reputation'' in subparagraph
(A).
(f) Other Modifications.--
(1) Repeal of working capital limitation.--Section
1202(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
working capital) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2 years'' and
inserting ``5 years''; and
(B) by striking the last sentence.
(2) Exception from redemption rules where business
purpose.--Section 1202(c)(3) of such Code (relating to
certain purchases by corporation of its own stock) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Waiver where business purpose.--A purchase of stock
by the issuing corporation shall be disregarded for purposes
of subparagraph (B) if the issuing corporation establishes
that there was a business purpose for such purchase and one
of the principal purposes of the purchase was not to avoid
the limitations of this section.''.
(g) Increased Exclusion.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 50-percent
exclusion for gain from certain small business stock) is
amended by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``100
percent''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(5) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) collectibles gain, over''.
(B) Section 1(h) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (8).
(C) Paragraph (9) of section 1(h) of such Code is amended
by striking ``, gain described in paragraph (7)(A)(i), and
section 1202 gain'' and inserting ``and gain described in
paragraph (7)(A)(i)''.
(D) Section 1(h) of such Code is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (9) (as amended by subparagraph (C)), (10), (11),
and (12) as paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11),
respectively.
(E) The heading for section 1202 of such Code is amended by
striking ``PARTIAL'' and inserting ``100-PERCENT''.
(F) The table of sections for part I of subchapter P of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking ``Partial'' in
the item relating to section 1202 and inserting ``100-
percent''.
(h) Exclusion Available to Corporations.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to partial exclusion
for gains from certain small business stock) is amended by
striking ``other than a corporation''.
(2) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 1202 of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Stock held among members of controlled group not
eligible.--Stock of a member of a parent-subsidiary
controlled group (as defined in subsection (d)(3)) shall not
be treated as qualified small business stock while held by
another member of such group.''.
(i) Stock of Larger Businesses Eligible for Exclusion.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 1202(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified small
business) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' each place
it appears and inserting ``$300,000,000''.
(2) Inflation adjustment.--Section 1202(d) of such Code
(defining qualified small business) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) Inflation adjustment of asset limitation.--In the
case of stock issued in any calendar year after 2002, the
$300,000,000 amount contained in paragraph (1) shall be
increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(j) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to stock issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
____

Description of Venture Capital Gains Incentive

Section 1202 enacted in 1993:
50% capital gains exclusion for new investments--not sale
of previously acquired assets--new investments made after
effective date, August 1993.
Only if investments made directly in stock--not secondary
trading, founders stock, stock options, venture capital,
public offerings, common, preferred, convertible preferred.
Only if made in stock of a ``small corporation''--defined
as a corporation with $50 million or less in capitalization--
ceiling not indexed for inflation.
Only if investment held for five years.
Only if investment made by an individual taxpayer--not by a
corporate taxpayer.
50% of the excluded gains not covered by the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT).
Limit on benefits per taxpayer of ``10 times basis or $10
million, whichever is greater''.
Technical problems--redemption of stock, ``spending speed-
up'' provision.
Section 1045 enacted in 1997:
Permits investors in Section 1202 stock to roll over their
investments in a new Section 1202 investment without
``realizing'' gains and paying taxes within 60 days.
Nine proposed amendments to Section 1202 and Section 1045:
(1) Sets a zero capital gains rate, compared to the 20
percent rate for other capital gains investments.
Only new investments--same.
Only if direct investments--same.
Only if investment in stock--same.
(2) Apply to corporate taxpayers--now only applies to
individual taxpayers.
(3) Define ``small corporation'' as one with $300 million
in capitalization and index for inflation--up from $50
million with no indexing.
(4) 100 percent exemption from AMT--now 50 percent
exemption.
(5) Increase the time permitted to roll over a Section 1202
investment into another Section 1202 investment to 180 days.
(6) Only if investment held for three years--reduction from
five years.
(7) Delete ``10 times or $10 million'' limitation.
(8) Extend coverage of Section 1202 to additional
corporations.
(9) Fix technical problems--modify redemption of stock,
``spending speed-up'' provision.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Conrad, Mrs. Lincoln,
Mr. Miller, Mr. Rockefelelr, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Carper):
S. 1135. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to
provide comprehensive reform of the Medicare program, including the
provision of coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under such
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleagues to
introduce the Medicare Reform Act of 2001.
Today we are in the midst of a major health-care debate on the
Patients' Bill of Rights. This crucial bill should be the beginning,
not end, of reform in the health care system. Now we need to take this
momentum and turn to Medicare reform.
Reform is not a word to be tossed around lightly. When we bat around
the term Medicare reform, this is what we need to be talking about,
ideas that go to the very heart of the existing Medicare program and
reform it.
The Medicare Reform Act offers such ideas. It keeps what is best
about Medicare intact. Under this bill the program will remain, as it
has always been, reliable and affordable. But the Medicare Reform Act
also does just what it says. It reforms the program to reflect new
realities both scientific and economic, that the program's creators
could not possibly have planned for in 1965.
One of these realities is that prescription drugs are a crucial part
of any modern health care regime. In fact it is unthinkable that
prescription drugs would be excluded if Medicare were created today.
The Medicare Reform Act offers a benefit that, like the existing
Medicare program, is both affordable and available for all seniors,
regardless of income. The benefit also harnesses the power of today's
competitive health care marketplace to keep costs down and offer
seniors choices.
Perhaps most importantly, the benefit offered by the Medicare Reform
Act has no gaps, no caps and no gimmicks.
This is our line-in-the-sand.
Other plans being discussed have major gaps.
Let's look at one: the bill the House Republicans passed last year
offers seniors a benefit of a scant $1,050-a year.

[[Page S7108]]

Once they hit that cap, coverage stops. It picks up again only if the
beneficiary spends $6,000 a year.
Imagine this scenario: An 85-year-old woman pays her monthly
prescription drug premium. For the first 6 months of the year, she goes
to the drugstore each month to pick up her cholesterol medication and
pays $25.
But then she comes to the 7th month, and has hit her benefit cap. Now
she has to pay $50 for the same prescription. She's still paying her
premium, but she's getting no benefit. Under this benefit, Medicare
says ``Sorry. Can't help. Come see me if you have a catastrophe.''
I call plans like this donuts, substance around the edges, giant hole
in the middle. I also call them pointless. Who needs insurance you
can't be sure of?
No caps, no gaps, no gimmicks. That is set in stone. What is not set
is stone is the exact level of the coinsurance or deductible. We're
going to be listening to seniors as we move toward a markup, and if we
hear they would prefer a lower premium in exchange for higher cost-
sharing, we can turn those dials, as long as it's within the parameter
of $300 billion.
In structure, the Medicare Reform Act represents a true compromise.
It takes the best ideas of all engaged in this issue.
One school of thought has been that the private sector is best
equipped to offer an affordable prescription drug benefit.
We agree, up to a point. We do not believe that private insurers
should assume all of the risk for this benefit. We do not believe this
because private insurers have told us they want no part of this type of
system. And we know that we can pass all the laws we want, but we can't
make private companies take on Medicare patients.
Rather than foreign the private sector to attempt to do something
they do not want to do, we take advantage of the fact that we already
have an efficient, workable mechanism in place. That mechanism is the
pharmacy benefit manager of PBM. These businesses operate successfully
today in every ZIP code of the country. They are in a perfect position
to manage the Medicare prescription drug benefit--and to offer seniors
a choice.
The Medicare Reform Act would allow multiple PBMs in each geographic
region to administer, manage and deliver the prescription drug benefit.
They would be allowed to use all of the methods they use currently in
the private sector to provide benefits economically, including the use
of formularies, preferred pharmacy networks, and generic drug
substitution. Additionally, PBMs would be allowed to use mechanisms to
encourage beneficiaries to select cost-effective drugs, including the
use of disease management and therapeutic interchange programs.
Beneficiareis in every part of the country would have access to
coverage provided by PBMs that would not assume full insurance risk for
drug costs. In this way, adverse selection and inappropriate incentives
would be avoided.
However, to ensure that PBMs pursue and are held accountable for high
quality beneficiary services, improved health outcomes, and managing
costs, we require PBMs to put a substantial portion of their management
fees at risk for their performance. Performance goals would include
price discounts and generic substitution rates, timely action with
regard to appeals, sustained pharmacy network access and notifications
to avoid adverse drug reactions.

Although all PBMs would be required to offer the standard benefit at
a minimum, payments received on the basis of their performance could be
used to reduce beneficiary cost-sharing or to waive the deductible for
generic drugs.
Requiring PBMs to share risk provides a middle ground between
proposals that have included no risk being assumed by the private
sector, and proposals that have required the assumption of insurance
and selection risk for the cost of drugs.
This arrangement would bring us the benefits of private sector
competition without the instabilities that would be associated with a
full risk-bearing model. It would take advantage of the fact that the
private sector has provided an efficient, workable, stable system for
the delivery of prescription drugs, and the management of drug costs,
and would allow beneficiaries to choose between multiple vendors.
Prescription drugs are not all that is missing from Medicare.
We live in a world of near miracles. We can stop disease in its
track. We can keep a health problem from becoming a health crisis. We
can make the lives our seniors better. We can make their bodies
stronger. We have the technology.
It's time to let our seniors have it as well.
The ``Medicare Reform Act'' would shift the focus of Medicare from
simply treating illness to promoting wellness.
Several proven-effective preventive benefits, like cholesterol
screening and smoking cessation counseling, would be added to package.
These benefits could save lives.
We also provide a new process for changes to the preventive benefit
package. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have sat through
hours-long discussions on coverage of screening for colorectal cancer.
I've heard debated the relative benefits of barium x-rays v.
colonscopies in minute details. I'm not qualified to make these
decisions. A new ``fast-track'' process would move members of Congress
out of the picture of making decisions about the clinical and
scientific merits of different benefits, and move the doctors and
scientists in.
The Medicare Reform Act is not just about adding benefits. It's also
about changing the way we do business.
We've looked to the private sector for lessons on how to run the fee-
for-service program. We allow Medicare to use the same competitive
tools insurance companies have in place to control costs. This will
save the Medicare program money, in contrast to some other competition
proposals.
We've looked to the private sector and learned that to serve seniors
and providers better, we need to make an investment in the program, and
provide additional administrative funds. Our bill gives the agency
responsible for these programs the money to truly serve their clients,
our seniors.
We've turned again to the medical and scientific experts. We've taken
the decision about what Medicare should and shouldn't cover out of the
hands of bureaucrats and given it to independent medical, clinical and
scientific experts who have the skills to assess new technologies and
procedures.
We also need to prepare for the future. The Medicare program is in
the best shape it has been in over a quarter century. But, the baby-
boomers are going to be joining the program soon.
We need to begin to fortify the program now, so that we are ready for
them. Our bill takes modest steps in that direction by indexing the
Part B deductible to inflation, and providing the Part B premium
subsidy on a sliding scale basis.
While I think we need to spend the lion's share of our efforts on
reforming the part of the program with the lion's share of the
beneficiaries, we also need to take a close look at the Medicare+Choice
program. There are several different proposals on the table to replace
the current payment system with one based on competitive bidding, and
we face a lot of questions regarding which of the proposals would work
best.
In 1997, Senators Breaux and Mack proposed a Medicare Competitive
Pricing Demonstration Project; the Project was included in the Balanced
Budget Act. The purpose of the demonstration project was to test a new
method of paying plans based on a competitive market approach. It has
not yet been implemented.
This demonstration project is exactly what we need to learn how to
design and implement a competitive system. It is not sound to undertake
a wholesale restructuring of the Medicare+Choice system without knowing
what would, and would not, work.
The ``Medicare Reform Act of 2001'' would lay the groundwork for a
sound, workable, competitive system by moving forward with the
Demonstration project in the state of Florida.
Taken together these disparate pieces represent real reform.
Before the recess, I hope we will have passed legislation to protect
basic rights of managed-care patients.
Then we need to pick up that ball and run with it.
The time is now. The money is there. The plan exists. Our seniors are
waiting.

[[Page S7109]]

______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Cleland,
Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer,
Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1136. A bill to provide for mass transportation in certain
Federally owned or managed areas that are open to the general public;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
help protect our nation's natural resources and improve the visitor
experience in our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The Transit in
Parks Act, or ``TRIP,'' will establish a new Federal transit grant
initiative to support the development of mass transit and alternative
transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges,
Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be
joined by Senators Baucus, Bayh, Cleland, Corzine, Dodd, Feinstein,
Reid, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, Thompson, and Wyden, who are cosponsors
of this legislation.
Let me begin with a little history. When the National parks first
opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, visitors arrived
by stagecoach along dirt roads. Travel through parklands, such as
Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many
people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the
automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which
included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great
natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the
National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of
Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering
that opened the National park lands to millions of Americans.
Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very
environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The
ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a
challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of
visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The
Grand Canyon alone has almost five million visitors a year. As many as
6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,400
parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park
each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a
giant parking lot.
In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was
190 million. By 1999, that number has risen to 287 million annual
visitors, almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in
this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an
overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic
congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers
being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the
Grand Canyon is visible at many other pars: Yosemite, which has more
than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than
three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic
congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and
many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm
to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage.
Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks
themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities.
For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse $3 billion a year into the
local economy of the surrounding area. At Yellowstone, tourists spend
$725 million annually in adjacent communities. Wildlife-related tourism
generates an estimated $60 billion a year nationwide. If the parks are
forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic
vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized.
The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to
conserve and protect the Nation's natural, historical, and cultural
resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment
of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal
transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to
provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private
automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do
more than simply build roads; we must invest in alternative
transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond
repair.
In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this
legislation builds upon the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between
Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to
address transportation and resource management needs in and around
National Parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing:
Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy
traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor
experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain
significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to
that found on the city streets they left behind. In many National Park
units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic
areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides,
damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety
conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas. On
occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high
visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing
infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the
capacity for which they were designed.
In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the
recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative
transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section
3039. The study is nearing completion, and is expected to confirm what
those of us who have visited our National parks already know: there is
a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation
solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these
incomparable natural treasures.
The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward meeting this need. The
bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services
throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and
protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and
wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those
resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while
at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving
the visitor experience.
The new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the
Federal land management agencies that manage the 379 various sites
within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal
recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest
System lands, and to their state and local partners. The program will
provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean
fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike
paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks
and other public lands. The bill authorizes $65 million for this new
program for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2007. It is
anticipated that other resources, both public and private, will be
available to augment these amounts.

The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU
between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the
Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures
relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in
national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning,
research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial
resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The
projects eligible for funding would be developed through the TEA-21
planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the
Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of
Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior
would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While
major National

[[Page S7110]]

parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate
candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there
are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit
enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved
connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single
project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available
in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for
assistance.
In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new
opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with
local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks,
both through the TEA-12 planning process and in developing integrated
transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within
these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park
visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other
public lands.
The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a
challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new
dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource
degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This
legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land
management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation
and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is
essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks--
quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the
same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of
our gateway communities.
As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy
endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks,
wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging
alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly
supported by the American Public Transportation Association, the
National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Defense,
Community Transportation Association, Friends of the Earth, National
Association of Counties, American Planning Association, Surface
Transportation Policy Project, Smart Growth America, Scenic America,
National Center for Bicycling and Walking, National Association of
Railroad Passengers, Great American Station Foundation, and others.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic
benefits that transit can bring to our national parks.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis,
and letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1136

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 ``Transit in Parks Act'' or
the ``TRIP Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL LAND TRANSIT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 5315 the
following:

``Sec. 5316. Federal land transit program

``(a) Findings and Purposes.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(A) section 3039 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (23 U.S.C. 138 note; Public Law 105-178)
required a comprehensive study, to be conducted by the
Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Interior, of alternative transportation
needs in national parks and related public lands in order
to--
``(i) identify the transportation strategies that improve
the management of national parks and related public lands;
``(ii) identify national parks and related public lands
that have existing and potential problems of adverse impact,
high congestion, and pollution, or that can otherwise benefit
from alternative transportation modes;
``(iii) assess the feasibility of alternative
transportation modes; and
``(iv) identify and estimate the costs of those alternative
transportation modes;
``(B) many national parks are experiencing increased
visitation and congestion and degradation of the natural,
historical, and cultural resources;
``(C) there is a growing need for new and expanded mass
transportation services throughout national parks to conserve
and protect fragile natural, historical, and cultural
resources, prevent adverse impact on those resources, and
reduce pollution and congestion while facilitating
appropriate visitor mobility and accessibility and improving
the visitor experience;
``(D) the Department of Transportation can assist the
Federal land management agencies through financial support
and technical assistance and further the achievement of
national goals to--
``(i) enhance the environment;
``(ii) improve mobility;
``(iii) create more livable communities;
``(iv) conserve energy; and
``(v) reduce pollution and congestion in all regions of the
country;
``(E) immediate financial and technical assistance by the
Department of Transportation, working with Federal land
management agencies and State and local governmental
authorities to develop efficient and coordinated mass
transportation systems within and in the vicinity of eligible
areas, is essential to--
``(i) protect and conserve natural, historical, and
cultural resources;
``(ii) prevent or mitigate adverse impacts on those
resources;
``(iii) relieve congestion;
``(iv) minimize transportation fuel consumption;
``(v) reduce pollution (including noise pollution and
visual pollution); and
``(vi) enhance visitor mobility, accessibility, and the
visitor experience; and
``(F) it is in the interest of the United States to
encourage and promote the development of transportation
systems for the betterment of eligible areas to meet the
goals described in clauses (i) through (vi) of subparagraph
(E).
``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(A) to develop a cooperative relationship between the
Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior
to carry out this section;
``(B) to encourage the planning and establishment of mass
transportation systems and nonmotorized transportation
systems needed within and in the vicinity of eligible areas,
located in both urban and rural areas, that--
``(i) enhance resource protection;
``(ii) prevent or mitigate adverse impacts on those
resources;
``(iii) improve visitor mobility, accessibility, and the
visitor experience;
``(iv) reduce pollution and congestion;
``(v) conserve energy; and
``(vi) increase coordination with gateway communities;
``(C) to assist Federal land management agencies and State
and local governmental authorities in financing areawide mass
transportation systems and nonmotorized transportation
systems to be operated by public or private mass
transportation providers, as determined by local and regional
needs, and to encourage public-private partnerships; and
``(D) to assist in research concerning, and development of,
improved mass transportation equipment, facilities,
techniques, and methods with the cooperation of public and
private companies and other entities engaged in the provision
of mass transportation service.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible area.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible area' means any
Federally owned or managed park, refuge, or recreational area
that is open to the general public.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible area' includes--
``(i) a unit of the National Park System;
``(ii) a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
``(iii) a recreational area managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.
``(2) Federal land management agency.--The term `Federal
land management agency' means a Federal agency that manages
an eligible area.
``(3) Mass transportation.--
``(A) In general.--The term `mass transportation' means
transportation by bus, rail, or any other publicly or
privately owned conveyance that provides to the public
general or special service on a regular basis.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `mass transportation' includes
sightseeing service.
``(4) Qualified participant.--The term `qualified
participant' means--
``(A) a Federal land management agency; or
``(B) a State or local governmental authority with
jurisdiction over land in the vicinity of an eligible area
acting with the consent of the Federal land management
agency,

alone or in partnership with a Federal land management agency
or other Governmental or nongovernmental participant.
``(5) Qualified project.--The term `qualified project'
means a planning or capital project in or in the vicinity of
an eligible area that--
``(A) is an activity described in section 5302(a)(1),
5303(g), or 5309(a)(1)(A);
``(B) involves--
``(i) the purchase of rolling stock that incorporates clean
fuel technology or the replacement of buses of a type in use
on the date of enactment of this section with clean fuel
vehicles; or
``(ii) the deployment of mass transportation vehicles that
introduce innovative technologies or methods;
``(C) relates to the capital costs of coordinating the
Federal land management agency mass transportation systems
with other mass transportation systems;

[[Page S7111]]

``(D) provides a nonmotorized transportation system
(including the provision of facilities for pedestrians,
bicycles, and nonmotorized watercraft);
``(E) provides waterborne access within or in the vicinity
of an eligible area, as appropriate to and consistent with
the purposes described in subsection (a)(2); or
``(F) is any other mass transportation project that--
``(i) enhances the environment;
``(ii) prevents or mitigates an adverse impact on a natural
resource;
``(iii) improves Federal land management agency resource
management;
``(iv) improves visitor mobility and accessibility and the
visitor experience;
``(v) reduces congestion and pollution (including noise
pollution and visual pollution); and
``(vi) conserves a natural, historical, or cultural
resource (excluding rehabilitation or restoration of a
nontransportation facility).
``(6) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
``(c) Federal Agency Cooperative Arrangements.--The
Secretary shall develop cooperative arrangements with the
Secretary of the Interior that provide for--
``(1) technical assistance in mass transportation;
``(2) interagency and multidisciplinary teams to develop
Federal land management agency mass transportation policy,
procedures, and coordination; and
``(3) the development of procedures and criteria relating
to the planning, selection, and funding of qualified projects
and the implementation and oversight of the program of
projects in accordance with this section.
``(d) Types of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a contract,
grant, cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, intra-
agency agreement, or other agreement to carry out a qualified
project under this section.
``(2) Other uses.--A grant, cooperative agreement,
interagency agreement, intra-agency agreement, or other
agreement for a qualified project under this section shall be
available to finance the leasing of equipment and facilities
for use in mass transportation, subject to any regulation
that the Secretary may prescribe limiting the grant or
agreement to leasing arrangements that are more cost-
effective than purchase or construction.
``(e) Limitation on Use of Available Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may allocate not more than
5 percent of the amount made available for a fiscal year
under section 5338(j) for use by the Secretary in carrying
out planning, research, and technical assistance under this
section, including the development of technology appropriate
for use in a qualified project.
``(2) Amounts for planning, research, and technical
assistance.--Amounts made available under this subsection are
in addition to amounts otherwise available for planning,
research, and technical assistance under this title or any
other provision of law.
``(3) Amounts for qualified projects.--No qualified project
shall receive more than 12 percent of the total amount made
available under section 5338(j) for any fiscal year.
``(f) Planning Process.--In undertaking a qualified project
under this section--
``(1) if the qualified participant is a Federal land
management agency--
``(A) the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of
the Interior, shall develop transportation planning
procedures that are consistent with--
``(i) the metropolitan planning provisions under sections
5303 through 5305;
``(ii) the statewide planning provisions under section 135
of title 23; and
``(iii) the public participation requirements under section
5307(c); and
``(B) in the case of a qualified project that is at a unit
of the National Park system, the planning process shall be
consistent with the general management plans of the unit of
the National Park system; and
``(2) if the qualified participant is a State or local
governmental authority, or more than 1 State or local
governmental authority in more than 1 State, the qualified
participant shall--
``(A) comply with sections 5303 through 5305;
``(B) comply with the statewide planning provisions under
section 135 of title 23;
``(C) comply with the public participation requirements
under section 5307(c); and
``(D) consult with the appropriate Federal land management
agency during the planning process.
``(g) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Departmental share.--The Secretary, in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish the share
of assistance to be provided under this section to a
qualified participant.
``(2) Considerations.--In establishing the departmental
share of the net project cost of a qualified project, the
Secretary shall consider--
``(A) visitation levels and the revenue derived from user
fees in the eligible area in which the qualified project is
carried out;
``(B) the extent to which the qualified participant
coordinates with a public or private mass transportation
authority;
``(C) private investment in the qualified project,
including the provision of contract services, joint
development activities, and the use of innovative financing
mechanisms;
``(D) the clear and direct benefit to the qualified
participant; and
``(E) any other matters that the Secretary considers
appropriate to carry out this section.
``(3) Nondepartmental share.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, Federal funds appropriated to any Federal
land management agency may be counted toward the
nondepartmental share of the cost of a qualified project.
``(h) Selection of Qualified Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, after
consultation with and in cooperation with the Secretary,
shall determine the final selection and funding of an annual
program of qualified projects in accordance with this
section.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining whether to include a
project in the annual program of qualified projects, the
Secretary of the Interior shall consider--
``(A) the justification for the qualified project,
including the extent to which the qualified project would
conserve resources, prevent or mitigate adverse impact, and
enhance the environment;
``(B) the location of the qualified project, to ensure that
the selected qualified projects--
``(i) are geographically diverse nationwide; and
``(ii) include qualified projects in eligible areas located
in both urban areas and rural areas;
``(C) the size of the qualified project, to ensure that
there is a balanced distribution;
``(D) the historical and cultural significance of a
qualified project;
``(E) safety;
``(F) the extent to which the qualified project would--
``(i) enhance livable communities;
``(ii) reduce pollution (including noise pollution, air
pollution, and visual pollution);
``(iii) reduce congestion; and
``(iv) improve the mobility of people in the most efficient
manner; and
``(G) any other matters that the Secretary considers
appropriate to carry out this section, including--
``(i) visitation levels;
``(ii) the use of innovative financing or joint development
strategies; and
``(iii) coordination with gateway communities.
``(i) Qualified Projects Carried Out in Advance.--
``(1) In general.--When a qualified participant carries out
any part of a qualified project without assistance under this
section in accordance with all applicable procedures and
requirements, the Secretary may pay the departmental share of
the net project cost of a qualified project if--
``(A) the qualified participant applies for the payment;
``(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and
``(C) before carrying out that part of the qualified
project, the Secretary approves the plans and specifications
in the same manner as plans and specifications are approved
for other projects assisted under this section.
``(2) Interest.--
``(A) In general.--The cost of carrying out part of a
qualified project under paragraph (1) includes the amount of
interest earned and payable on bonds issued by a State or
local governmental authority, to the extent that proceeds of
the bond are expended in carrying out that part.
``(B) Limitation.--The rate of interest under this
paragraph may not exceed the most favorable rate reasonably
available for the qualified project at the time of borrowing.
``(C) Certification.--The qualified participant shall
certify, in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the
qualified participant has exercised reasonable diligence in
seeking the most favorable interest rate.
``(j) Full Funding Agreement; Project Management Plan.--If
the amount of assistance anticipated to be required for a
qualified project under this section is more than
$25,000,000--
``(1) the qualified project shall, to the extent that the
Secretary considers appropriate, be carried out through a
full funding agreement in accordance with section 5309(g);
and
``(2) the qualified participant shall prepare a project
management plan in accordance with section 5327(a).
``(k) Relationship to Other Laws.--Qualified participants
shall be subject to--
``(1) the requirements of section 5333;
``(2) to the extent that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, requirements consistent with those under
subsections (d) and (i) of section 5307; and
``(3) any other terms, conditions, requirements, and
provisions that the Secretary determines to be appropriate to
carry out this section, including requirements for the
distribution of proceeds on disposition of real property and
equipment resulting from a qualified project assisted under
this section.
``(l) Innovative Financing.--A qualified project assisted
under this section shall be eligible for funding through a
State Infrastructure Bank or other innovative financing
mechanism otherwise available to finance an eligible project
under this chapter.
``(m) Asset Management.--The Secretary may transfer the
interest of the Department of Transportation in, and control
over, all facilities and equipment acquired under this
section to a qualified participant for use and disposition in
accordance with any property management regulations that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.

[[Page S7112]]

``(n) Coordination of Research and Deployment of New
Technologies.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of the Interior, may undertake, or make grants or
contracts (including agreements with departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities of the Federal Government) or other
agreements for research, development, and deployment of new
technologies in eligible areas that will--
``(A) conserve resources;
``(B) prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impact;
``(C) improve visitor mobility, accessibility, and
enjoyment; and
``(D) reduce pollution (including noise pollution and
visual pollution).
``(2) Access to information.--The Secretary may request and
receive appropriate information from any source.
``(3) Funding.--Grants and contracts under paragraph (1)
shall be awarded from amounts allocated under subsection
(e)(1).
``(o) Report.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, shall annually submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the allocation of
amounts to be made available to assist qualified projects
under this section .
``(2) Annual and supplemental reports.--A report required
under paragraph (1) shall be included in the report submitted
under section 5309(p).''.
(b) Authorizations.--Section 5338 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Section 5316.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out section 5316 $65,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2007.
``(2) Availability.--Amounts made available under this
subsection for any fiscal year shall remain available for
obligation until the last day of the third fiscal year
commencing after the last day of the fiscal year for which
the amounts were initially made available under this
subsection.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
53 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5315 the following:

``5316. Federal land transit program.''.

(2) Project management oversight.--Section 5327(c) of title
49, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or 5311'' and inserting ``5311, or
5316''; and
(B) by striking ``5311, or'' and inserting ``5311, 5316,
or''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--Chapter 53 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5309--
(A) by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q); and
(B) by redesignating the second subsection designated as
subsection (o) (as added by section 3009(i) of the Federal
Transit Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 356)) as subsection (p);
(2) in section 5328(a)(4), by striking ``5309(o)(1)'' and
inserting ``5309(p)(1)''; and
(3) in section 5337, by redesignating the second subsection
designated as subsection (e) (as added by section 3028(b) of
the Federal Transit Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 367)) as
subsection (f).
____

Transit in Parks Act--Section-by-Section

Section 1: Short title
The Transit in Parks (TRIP) Act.
Section 2: In general
Amends Federal transit laws by adding new section 5316,
``Federal Land Transit Program.''
Section 3: Findings and purposes
The purpose of this Act is to promote the planning and
establishment of alternative transportation systems within,
and in the vicinity of, the national parks and other public
lands to protect and conserve natural, historical, and
cultural resources, mitigate adverse impact on those
resources, relieve congestion, minimize transportation fuel
consumption, reduce pollution, and enhance visitor mobility
and accessibility and the visitor experience. The Act
responds to the need for alternative transportation systems
in the national parks and other public lands identified in
the study conducted by the Department of Transportation
pursuant to section 3039 of TEA-21, by establishing Federal
assistance to finance mass transportation projects within and
in the vicinity of the national parks and other public lands,
to increase coordination with gateway communities, to
encourage public-private partnerships, and to assist in the
research and deployment of improved mass transportation
equipment and methods.
Section 4: Definitions
This section defines eligible projects and eligible
participants in the program. A ``qualified participant'' is a
Federal land management agency, or a State or local
governmental authority acting with the consent of a Federal
land management agency. A ``qualified project'' is a planning
or capital mass transportation project, including rail
projects, clean fuel vehicles, joint development activities,
pedestrian and bike paths, waterborne access, or projects
that otherwise better protect the eligible areas and increase
visitor mobility and accessibility. ``Eligible areas'' are
lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, as well
as any other Federally-owned or -managed park, refuge, or
recreational area that is open to the general public.
Qualified projects may be located either within eligible
areas or in gateway communities in the vicinity of eligible
areas.
Section 5: Federal Agency cooperative arrangements
This section implements the 1997 Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of Transportation and
the Interior for the exchange of technical assistance in mass
transportation, the development of mass transportation policy
and coordination, and the establishment of criteria for
planning, selection, and funding of projects under this
section.
Section 6: Types of assistance
This section gives the Secretary of Transportation
authority to provide Federal assistance through grants,
cooperative agreements, inter- or intra-agency agreements, or
other agreements, including leasing under certain conditions,
for a qualified project under this section.
Section 7: Limitation on use of available amounts
This section specifies that the Secretary may not use more
than 5% of the amounts available under this section for
planning, research, and technical assistance; these amounts
can be supplemented from other sources. In addition, to
ensure a broad distribution of funds, no project can receive
more than 12% of the total amount available under this
section in any given year.
Section 8: Planning process
This section requires the Secretaries of Transportation and
the Interior to cooperatively develop a planning process
consistent with TEA-21 for qualified participants which are
Federal land management agencies. If the qualified
participant is a State or local governmental authority, the
qualified participant shall comply with the TEA-21 planning
process and consult with the appropriate Federal land
management agency during the planning process.
Section 9: Department's share of the costs
This section requires that in determining the Department's
share of the project costs, the Secretary of Transportation,
in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, must
consider certain factors, including visitation levels and
user fee revenues, coordination in project development with a
public or private transit provider, private investment, and
whether there is a clear and direct financial benefit to the
qualified participant. The intent is to establish criteria
for a sliding scale of assistance, with a lower Departmental
share for projects that can attract outside investment, and a
higher Departmental share for projects that may not have
access to such outside resources. In addition, this section
specifies that funds from the Federal land management
agencies can be counted toward the local share.
Section 10: Selection of qualified projects
This section provides that the Secretary of the Interior,
in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
prioritize the qualified projects for funding in an annual
program of projects, according to the following criteria: (1)
project justification, including the extent to which the
project conserves resources, prevents or mitigates adverse
impact, and enhances the environment; (2) project location to
ensure geographic diversity and both rural and urban
projects; (3) project size for a balanced distribution; (4)
historical and cultural significance; (5) safety; (6) the
extent to which the project would enhance livable
communities, reduce pollution and congestion, and improve the
mobility of people in the most efficient manner; and (7) any
other considerations the Secretary deems appropriate,
including visitation levels, the use of innovative financing
or joint development strategies, and coordination with
gateway communities.
Section 11: Undertaking projects in advance
This provision applies current transit law to this section,
allowing projects to advance prior to receiving Federal
funding, but allowing the advance activities to be counted
toward the local share as long as certain conditions are met.
Section 12: Full funding agreement; project management plan
This section provides that large projects require a project
management plan, and shall be carried out through a full
funding agreement to the extent the Secretary considers
appropriate.
Section 13: Relationship to Other Laws
This provision applies certain transit laws to projects
funded under this section, and permits the Secretary to apply
any other terms or conditions he or she deems appropriate.
Section 14: Innovative financing
This section provides that a project assisted under this
Act can also use funding from a State Infrastructure Bank or
other innovative financing mechanism that is available to
fund other eligible transit projects.
Section 15: Asset management
This provision permits the Secretary of Transportation to
transfer control over a transit asset acquired with Federal
funds under this section to a qualified government

[[Page S7113]]

participant in accordance with certain Federal property
management rules.
Section 16. Coordination of research and deployment of new
technologies
This provision allows the Secretary, in cooperation with
the Secretary of the Interior, to enter into grants or other
agreements for research and deployment of new technologies to
meet the special needs of eligible areas under this Act.
Section 17: Report
This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to
submit a report on projects funded under this section to the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, to be
included in the Department's annual project report.
Section 18: Authorization
$65,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for the
Secretary to carry out this program for each of the fiscal
years 2002 through 2007.
Section 19: Conforming amendments
Confirming amendments to the transit title, including an
amendment to allow 0.5% per year of the funds made available
under this section to be used for project management
oversight.
Section 20: Technical amendments
Technical corrections to the transit title in TEA-21.
____

American Public

Transportation Association,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2001.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: Thank you for sharing with us a copy
of the ``Transit in Parks (TRIP) Act'' which would amend the
federal transit law at chapter 53, title 49 U.S.C.
The Act would authorize federal assistance to certain
federal agencies and state and local entities to finance mass
transportation projects generally for the purpose of
addressing transportation congestion and mobility issues at
national parks and other eligible areas. In addition, the
legislation would encourage enhanced cooperation between the
Departments of Transportation and Interior regarding joint
efforts of those federal agencies to encourage the use of
public transportation at national parks.
I am pleased to support your efforts to improve mobility in
our national parks. Public transportation clearly has much to
offer citizens who visit these national treasures, where
congestion and pollution are significant--and growing--
problems. Moreover, this legislation should broaden the base
of support for public transportation, a key principle APTA
has been advocating for many years. In that regard, we will
review your bill with APTA's legislative leadership.
I applaud you for writing the legislation, and look forward
to continuing to work with you and your staff. Let us know
what we can do to help your initiative!
Sincerely yours,
William W. Millar,
President.
____

National Parks

Conservation Association,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA) and its over 400,000 members,
I want to thank you for proposing the Transit in Parks Act
that will enhance transit options for access to and within
our national parks. NPCA applauds your leadership and
foresight in recognizing the critical role that mass transit
can play in protecting our parks and improving the visitor
experience.
Visitation to America's national parks has skyrocketed
during the past two decades, from 190 million visitors in
1975 to approximately 286 million visitors last year.
Increased public interest in these special places has placed
substantial burdens on the very resources that draw people to
the parks. As more and more individuals crowd into our
national parks--typically by automobile--fragile habitat,
endangered plants and animals, unique cultural treasures, and
spectacular natural resources and vistas are being damaged
from air and water pollution, noise intrusion, and
inappropriate use.
As outlined in your legislation, the establishment of a
program within the Department of Transportation dedicated to
enhancing transit options in and adjacent to the national
parks will have a powerful, positive effect on the future
ecological and cultural integrity of the parks. Your
initiative will boost the role of alternative transportation
solutions for national parks, particularly those most heavily
impacted by visitation such as Yellowstone-Grand Teton,
Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Acadia, and the Great Smoky Mountains
national parks. For instance, development of transportation
centers and auto parking lots outside the parks, complemented
by the use of buses, vans, or rail systems, and/or bicycle
and pedestrian pathways would provide much more efficient
means of handling the crush of visitation. The benefit of
such systems has already been demonstrated in a number of
parks such as Zion and Cape Cod.
Equally important, the legislation will provide an
excellent opportunity for the National Park Service (NPS) to
enter into public/private partnerships with states,
localities, and the private sector, providing a wider range
of transportation options than exists today. These
partnerships could leverage funds that NPS currently has
great difficulty accessing.
NPCA wholeheartedly endorses your bill as a creative new
mechanism to fulfill the primary mission of the National Park
System: ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
We look forward to working with you to move this
legislation to enactment
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Kiernan,
President.
____

Friends of the Earth,

June 27, 2001.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of Friends of the Earth, I
want to thank you for proposing the Transit in Parks Act.
This important bill will enhance transit options for access
to and within our national parks. Your leadership in this
matter is greatly appreciated.
Americans are visiting our national parks at an
unprecedented rate, with visitation growing from 190 million
visitors in 1975 to approximately 286 million visitors last
year. With increased visitation comes an increased burden on
the parks. As more and more individuals take their cars into
our national parks, fragile habitat, endangered plants and
animals, unique cultural treasures, and spectacular natural
resources and vistas are being damaged from air and water
pollution, noise intrusion, and inappropriate use.
Your innovative legislation would establish a program
within the Department of Transportation dedicated to
enhancing transit options in and adjacent to the national
parks. This is of vital importance for the future of our
national parks. Your initiative will boost the role of
alternative transportation solutions for national parks,
particularly those most heavily impacted by visitation. For
instance, development of transportation centers and auto
parking lots outside the parks, complemented by the use of
buses, vans, or rail systems, and/or bicycle and pedestrian
pathways would provide much more efficient means of handling
the crush of visitation. The benefit of such systems has
already been demonstrated in a number of parks such as Zion
and Cape Cod.
We look forward to working with you to move this
legislation to enactment.
Sincerely,
David Hirsch,
Transportation Policy Coordinator.
____

Environmental Defense,

Washington, DC, May 22, 2001.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing on behalf of the
Environmental Defense Fund and our 300,000 members to express
support for your bill, the Transit in Parks Act, which will
provide dedicated funding for transit projects in our
national parks. Too many of our parks suffer from the
consequences of poor transportation systems; traffic
congestion, air and water pollution, and disturbance of
natural ecosystems.
Increased funding for attractive and effective transit
services to and within our national parks is essential to
mitigating these growing problems. A good working transit
system in a number of our national parks will make the park
experience not only more enjoyable for the many families that
travel there, it will help improve environmental conditions.
Air pollutants that exacerbate respiratory health problems,
damage vegetation, and contribute to haze which too often
obliterates the views at our parks, will be abated by
decreasing the number of cars and congestion levels in the
parks. Improved transit related to our parks is key to
diversifying transportation choices and access for the
benefit of all who might visit our national park system. It
is also vital to assuring equal access for all citizens to
our parks, including those without cars.
We appreciate your leadership on this issue and your
dedication to the health of our national parks and expanded
choices in our transportation systems. We look forward to
working with you to move your legislation forward.
Sincerely,
Michael Replogle,
Transportation Director.
____

Community Transportation

Association,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Community Transportation
Association continues to support your efforts to provide
alternative transportation strategies in our national parks
and other public lands. Our association's 3,400 members
provide public and community transportation services in many
of the smaller communities that border these

[[Page S7114]]

national parks, monuments, and recreational areas, and our
association has members actively involved in providing
transportation services at several national parks.
All of us know the danger that congestion and increases in
traffic pose for the future of these sites and locations.
Your continued sponsorship of the Transit in Parks Act is an
important step in helping ensure that America's natural
beauty and historic treasures remain a continuous part of our
nation's future. We have members throughout the country whose
experiences support the principle that public transit
investments in and near national parks and public lands can
improve mobility, support the economic vitality of these
parks' ``gateway communities,'' and make dramatic
improvements in the experiences of park visitors, employees,
and community residents alike.
As an illustration of this point, enclosed is an article
recently published in our Community Transportation magazine
that discusses public transportation as part of the solution
to traffic congestion and mobility issues in Acadia, Yosemite
and Zion National Parks. These success stories could be
replicated in many other communities under your Transit in
Parks proposal.
We appreciate your dedicated efforts and initiative in this
regard, and look forward to helping you advance this
important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Dale J. Marsico,
Executive Director.

____________________