[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.

                          ____________________