[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 103 (Monday, July 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8065-S8068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 1219. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include
swine and bovine waste nutrients as a renewable energy resource for the
renewable electricity production credit, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for years I have worked to decrease our
reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify
domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote
renewable domestic production that burns clean energy. For this reason,
I will be introducing the Providing Opportunities With Effluent
Renewables, or POWER Act today which cultivates another homegrown
resource: swine and bovine waste nutrients.
Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a production tax
credit for electricity produced from renewable sources. Currently, the
production tax credit is available for wind, closed-loop biomass, and
poultry waste. The
[[Page S8066]]
POWER Act will modify Section 45 to include swine and bovine waste
nutrient as a renewable energy source.
The benefits of swine and bovine waste nutrient as a renewable
resource are enormous. Right now, there are at least 20 dairy and hog
farms in the United States that use an anaerobic digester or similar
systems to convert manure into electricity. These facilities include
swine and/or dairy operations in California, Wisconsin, New York,
Connecticut, Vermont, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado,
Minnesota, and my home State of Iowa.
By using animal waste as an energy source, a livestock producer can
reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas
suppliers. In fact, a dairy operation in Minnesota that uses this
technology generates enough electricity to run the entire dairy
operation, saving close to $700 a week in electricity costs. This dairy
farm also sells the excess power to their electrical provider,
furnishing enough electricity to power 78 homes each month, year round.
The benefits of using an anaerobic digester do not end at electricity
production. Using this technology can reduce and sometimes nearly
eliminate offensive odors from the animal waste. In addition, the
process of anaerobic digestion results in a higher quality fertilizer.
The dairy farm I referenced earlier estimates that the fertilizing
value of the animal waste is increased by 50 percent. Additional
environmental benefits include mitigating animal waste's contribution
to air, surface, and groundwater pollution.
With all the problems that this type of opportunity remedies, I'm
sure there will be a number of folks wondering why we haven't tried
this before. The reason is, even if we had provided swine and bovine
producers with tax incentives to produce renewable energy, they
probably wouldn't have had access to the capital necessary for
infrastructure development.
In fact, there was a segment on National Public Radio last week
addressing the topic of anaerobic digester energy production. A
professor from Cal State University who is an expert on anaerobic
digesters was interviewed. The professor explained that the main reason
farmers have not pursued this type of opportunity is cost.
For that reason, in addition to the tax credit opportunity I'm
providing under section 45, I'm also going to guarantee within the
POWER Act that funds be made available under the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program for the development of anaerobic digesters.
Currently, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides
funding for technical, educational, and financial assistance to farmers
and ranchers for soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on
their land. A component of the program allows for improvements to farm
manure management systems. The POWER Act will guarantee that payments,
up to two years worth of funding which currently amount to $100,000,
would be made available to producers for ``cost sharing'' opportunities
related to anaerobic digester implementation.
Using swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy source can
cultivate profitability while improving environmental quality.
Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to
remain competitive and environmentally sustainable in today's livestock
market.
In addition, more widespread use of this technology will create jobs
related to the design, operation, and manufacture of energy recovery
systems. The development of renewable energy opportunities will help us
diminish our foreign energy dependence while promoting ``green energy''
production. This tax/farmbill proposal is real ``win-win'' situation
for America and for our livestock producers.
Using swine and bovine waste nutrient is a perfect example of how the
agriculture and energy industries can come together to develop an
environmentally friendly renewable resource. My legislation will foster
increased investment and development in waste to energy technology
thereby improving farmer profitability, environmental quality, and
energy productivity and reliability.
Why should we promote swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy
source? Consider the recent electricity shortage in California, the
sky-high prices at the pump throughout last year and the soaring cost
of home heating fuel and natural gas this winter. We have an obligation
to consumers across the country to accelerate the nation's production
of homegrown, clean-burning, renewable sources of energy.
The POWER Act is good for agriculture, good for the environment, good
for energy consumers, and promotes a good, make that great, renewable
resource that will reduce our energy dependence on foreign fuels. It is
my hope that all of my colleagues join with me to advance this
important piece of legislation.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Specter, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1220. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a grant program for the rehabilitation, preservation or
improvement of railroad track; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Smith of Oregon
and I have introduced the Railroad Track Modernization Act. As chairman
and ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, the needs of the Nation's small railroads have been brought
to our attention by railroad experts during hearings concerning the
state of the railroad industry. Our colleagues Senators Schumer,
Durbin, and Specter join us in introducing this legislation.
Short line railroads have saved tens of thousands of miles of light
density rail line from abandonment. In 1980, there were 220 short line
railroads in the U.S. Today there are over 500 short line railroads,
due in part to the mergers and streamlining of Class I operations which
encouraged the larger companies to sell off their little-used or
abandoned branch lines. Short line and regional railroads are an
important and growing component of the railroad industry. Today they
operate and maintain 20 percent of the American railroad industry's
route mileage and account for 9 percent of the rail industry's freight
revenue and 11 percent of railroad employment.
These line railroads employ approximately 25,000 individuals, serve
thousands of local and rural shippers and are often the only connection
these shippers have to the national rail network. To survive, this
infrastructure needs to be upgraded in order to move the heavier cars
that are currently being moved by the Class I railroads. The revenues
of the smaller railroads are not sufficient to get the job done.
Since 1982, the short lines and regional have maintained the track in
rural areas where rail service would have been abandoned by the Class I
railroad. Because of their relatively low traffic levels, the Class I
railroads could not afford to invest in this infrastructure and, as a
result, allowed these lines to slowly deteriorate. With a lower cost
structure and more flexible service, short line companies that both the
track have been able to keep them going. However, the revenue is still
not high enough to make up for past years of neglect.
Today, two factors have combined to bring this situation to a head.
First, the advent of the heavier 286,000-pound cars that are becoming
the standard of the Class I industry puts a greater premium on speed
and precisely scheduled operations, the short line railroads must meet
these higher standards or be cut off from the national system.
This legislation does not create a long term program to fix this
problem, but instead it creates a one time fix for this problem. While
these small railroads have enough traffic to operate profitably on an
ongoing basis, they do not earn enough to make the large capital
investment required by the advent of the 286,000-pound cars or the need
to significantly increase speed. This legislation would authorize a
program which could provide grants to the nation's smaller railroads to
help them make the improvements needed to stay in business and continue
to serve small shippers.
This legislation is of vital importance to the economy of Louisiana
and the Nation. Louisiana is home to ten
[[Page S8067]]
small freight railroads that maintain rail service on over 500 miles of
track. Without these small railroads, dozens of Louisiana communities
and hundreds of employees would be cut off from our national rail
network.
In addition, small railroads are vital to the safety of our highways.
Every loaded rail car keeps as many as four trucks off to our nation's
roads. At a time when we face record congestion and unprecedented
delays we can ill afford the influx of trucks caused by the failure of
the small freight railroad system. Millions of additional trucks per
year is not only bad for our interstate highways, but also for the
state rural roads in Louisiana. These roads will bear the brunt of
damage caused by the trucks, while dramatically increasing our highway
costs.
The Timber Rock Railroad, TIBR, serves Beauregard Parrish and handles
15,000 carloads of freight per year, of which lumber and coal are the
major commodities. Without the existence of TIBR, many major employers
in western Louisiana such as Boise Cascade, Louisiana Pacific and
Energy Gulf States would be without any rail service at all. The New
Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway runs for 24 miles from Gouldsboro Yard
in New Orleans through Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemine Parishes to
Myrtle Grove. New Orleans and Gulf Coast, NOGC, serves shippers such as
Chevron Chemical's Oak Point Plant, Harvest States' Myrtle Grove Grain
Export Terminal, and TOSCO Petroleum's refinery at Alliance. Rail is
the safest mode of transportation for hazardous materials, and by
transporting hazardous materials by rail NOGC keeps hundreds of
truckloads of dangerous cargoes off of Highway 23 and the streets of
New Orleans. The Louisiana & Delta Railroad, L&D, is headquartered in
New Iberia, LA and operates 114 miles of track carrying 12,000 carloads
of carbon black, sugar, molasses, pipe, rice and paper products. The
railroad serves dozens of customers in Lafayette, St. Martin,
Vermilion, Iberia, St. Mary, Assumption, and Lafourche Parishes. In
order to upgrade the infrastructure of Louisiana's short lines and
those around the nation who provide the same kind of local service as
the TIER, NOGC, and L&D, the Railroad Track Modernization Act should be
passed.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation. I
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1220
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 ``Railroad Track Modernization
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK.
(a) Amendment.--Chapter 223 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 223--CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK
``Sec.
``22301. Capital grants for railroad track.
``Sec. 22301. Capital grants for railroad track
``(a) Establishment of Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish a program of capital grants for the rehabilitation,
preservation, or improvement of railroad track (including
roadbed, bridges, and related track structures) of class II
and class III railroads. Such grants shall be for
rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track used primarily
for freight transportation to a standard ensuring that the
track can be operated safely and efficiently, including
grants for rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track to
handle 286,000 pound rail cars. Grants may be provided under
this chapter--
``(A) directly to the class II or class III railroad; or
``(B) with the concurrence of the class II or class III
railroad, to a State or local government.
``(2) State cooperation.--Class II and class III railroad
applicants for a grant under this chapter are encouraged to
utilize the expertise and assistance of State transportation
agencies in applying for and administering such grants. State
transportation agencies are encouraged to provide such
expertise and assistance to such railroads.
``(3) Interim regulations.--Not later than December 31,
2001, the Secretary shall issue temporary regulations to
implement the program under this section. Subchapter II of
chapter 5 of title 5 does not apply to a temporary regulation
issued under this paragraph or to an amendment to such a
temporary regulation.
``(4) Final regulations.--Not later than October 1, 2002,
the Secretary shall issue final regulations to implement the
program under this section.
``(b) Maximum Federal Share.--The maximum Federal share for
carrying out a project under this section shall be 80 percent
of the project cost. The non-Federal share may be provided by
any non-Federal source in cash, equipment, or supplies. Other
in-kind contributions may be approved by the Secretary on a
case by case basis consistent with this chapter.
``(c) Project Eligibility.--For a project to be eligible
for assistance under this section the track must have been
operated or owned by a class II or class III railroad as of
the date of the enactment of the Railroad Track Modernization
Act of 2001.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Grants provided under this section
shall be used to implement track capital projects as soon as
possible. In no event shall grant funds be contractually
obligated for a project later than the end of the third
Federal fiscal year following the year in which the grant was
awarded. Any funds not so obligated by the end of such fiscal
year shall be returned to the Secretary for reallocation.
``(e) Additional Purpose.--In addition to making grants for
projects as provided in subsection (a), the Secretary may
also make grants to supplement direct loans or loan
guarantees made under title V of the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(d)), for
projects described in the last sentence of section 502(d) of
such title. Grants made under this subsection may be used, in
whole or in part, for paying credit risk premiums, lowering
rates of interest, or providing for a holiday on principal
payments.
``(f) Employee Protection.--The Secretary shall require as
a condition of any grant made under this section that the
recipient railroad provide a fair arrangement at least as
protective of the interests of employees who are affected by
the project to be funded with the grant as the terms imposed
under section 11326(a), as in effect on the date of the
enactment of the Railroad Track Modernization Act of 2001.
``(g) Labor Standards.--
``(1) Prevailing wages.--The Secretary shall ensure that
laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and
subcontractors in construction work financed by a grant made
under this section will be paid wages not less than those
prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as
determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Act of March
3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et
seq.). The Secretary shall make a grant under this section
only after being assured that required labor standards will
be maintained on the construction work.
``(2) Wage rates.--Wage rates in a collective bargaining
agreement negotiated under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.
151 et seq.) are deemed for purposes of this subsection to
comply with the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-
Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.).
``(h) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
projects carried out with grant assistance under this section
to determine the public interest benefits associated with the
light density railroad networks in the States and their
contribution to a multimodal transportation system. Not later
than March 31, 2003, the Secretary shall report to Congress
any recommendations the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding the eligibility of light density rail networks for
Federal infrastructure financing.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $350,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2004 for carrying out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 223
in the table of chapters of subtitle V of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``223. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK.......................22301''.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1221. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish
an additional basis for establishing the inability of veterans to
defray expenses of necessary medical care, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition at this time
to comment briefly on legislation that I have introduced today to
address an injustice now contained in statutory formulas which define
which veterans will, and will not, be allowed priority access to free
Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care services. To simplify,
VA currently provides access to health care under the following
priority scheme: veterans who have suffered service-connected
disabilities have first opportunity to enroll for VA care; then,
veterans who are former prisoners of war, those who are
catastrophically disabled, and those who have no where else to turn for
health care because of financial constraints may enroll for VA care;
and, finally, veterans who simply choose to seek VA care even though
they can afford care elsewhere, and, in testimony to the quality of
care VA provides, many do, are invited to enroll. Currently, VA
[[Page S8068]]
welcomes all veterans to enroll for care, and VA generally turns away
no veteran who seeks hospital or clinical care. But lower priority
patients are required to make copayments for the care and the
medications they receive from VA.
As I have noted, poor veterans, technically, those who are classified
as being ``unable to defray the expenses of necessary care,'' have
priority over veterans who have nonservice-connected illnesses or
disabilities. In order to determine who is, in fact, ``unable to
defray,'' VA uses a single, national ``means test.'' In effect, a
veteran without dependents who has an annual income of less than
$23,688 has priority access to VA care at no charge; a veteran with a
higher annual income who does not otherwise qualify for priority status
is required to make a copayment to receive the same care. In addition,
that patient is placed in the pool of ``discretionary'' patients who
face the risk of disenrollment should VA budget shortfalls ever require
limiting enrollment.
A single, national ``means test'' applies irrespective of cost-of-
living variations among geographic localities. In many other Federal
pay and benefits systems, by contrast, geographic cost-of-living
variations are taken into consideration. For example, the housing
allowance paid to active duty service members is based on the average
housing costs in the area they are assigned; salary and wage payments
to Federal employees, while utilizing national pay scales, also contain
locality adjustments; and, benefits afforded to low income families by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, are based on
median family income in the area in which the applicant resides. VA's
``means test'' should also take such local cost-of-living variations
into account. Today, I introduce legislation which would require VA to
do so.
My legislation would adjust VA's current ``means test'' to allow
veterans who live in high-cost areas, such as Philadelphia, to qualify
for priority status in VA hospitals even if their incomes are slightly
higher than VA's single, national threshold amount. My bill would
provide for an additional formula to measure a veteran's ``unable to
defray'' status, the ``Low Income index'' established by HUD under the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937. That index defines ``low income'' by
reference to the median family income in the Metropolitan Statistical
Area in which the applicant lives. Clearly, a formula which takes into
account local variations in income, and, thus, the local cost of
living, more fairly measures a veteran's actual ability to assist in
defraying the cost of his or her medical care. I note, however, that
the current VA formula would also be retained lest veteran-patients who
live in relatively low cost areas lose priority status they might
currently have under that formula. It is not my intention to shrink the
pool of priority patients; it is my intention to expand it by allowing
more low income persons, particularly the urban poor, to qualify.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in improving VA's medical care
priority ``means test'' so that it more accurately accomplishes its
true purpose of measuring whether a veteran can, or cannot, be expected
to assist in defraying the cost of his or her necessary medical care.
Such a test, clearly, must take into account variations in the cost-of-
living in the locality in which the veteran resides.
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. 1221
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL BASIS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INABILITY TO
DEFRAY EXPENSES OF NECESSARY CARE.
(a) Additional Basis.--Section 1722(a) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) the veteran (including any applicable part of the
veteran's family) is eligible for treatment as a low-income
family under section 3 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a) for the area in which the veteran
resides.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2002, and shall apply with
respect to years beginning after December 31, 2001.
____________________