[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8579-S8599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S8579]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1287. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 2015 15th Street in Gulfport, Mississippi, as the
``Judge Dan M. Russell, Jr. Federal Building and United States
Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1287
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JUDGE DAN M. RUSSELL, JR. FEDERAL
BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.
The Federal building and United States courthouse located
at 2015 15th Street in Gulfport, Mississippi, shall be known
and designated as the ``Judge Dan M. Russell, Jr. Federal
Building and United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the Federal building
and United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall
be deemed to be a reference to the Judge Dan M. Russell, Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse.
______
By Mr. SHELBY (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 1288. A bill to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
to modify provisions relating to the Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
reform the board structure of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The
legislation that I am introducing with my colleague from Alabama would
create a corporate structure to oversee TVA.
This legislation expands the board from the current three members to
14 members, requiring the President to appoint two members from each of
the seven states in which TVA operates. In addition to expanding the
board, our legislation creates the position of a Chief Executive
Officer who will be responsible for daily management and operation
decisions. Under this new structure, board members would serve on a
part-time basis, receiving a stipend for their services and the CEO
would become the only full-time, paid position.
It is no secret that TVA has suffered financial turmoil in the past
and is still trying to work its way out of substantial debt. In my
view, restructuring and reform are overdue. The goal of this
legislation is to provide the Authority with board members that have a
direct interest in the well-being of TVA and its rate payers and to
place at the helm a Chief Executive Officer to make the difficult
business decisions that will guide TVA through the impending challenges
of an evolving energy industry.
TVA is a multi-billion dollar entity. However, it continues to
operate under the same administrative structure it did when Congress
created the Authority in 1933. Senator Sessions and I believe that it
is time for that structure to change. It is time for the Tennessee
Valley Authority to step into the 21st Century and out of the
bureaucratic stronghold that has guided its decision making process for
so long. We believe that this new board structure will equip TVA to
meet the challenges of the future and better serve the people of
Alabama and the other States in which it operates.
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. 1288
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHANGE IN COMPOSITION, OPERATION, AND DUTIES OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
(16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.) is amended by striking section 2 and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP, OPERATION, AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS.
``(a) Membership.--
``(1) Appointment.--The Board of Directors of the
Corporation (referred to in this Act as the `Board') shall be
composed of 14 members appointed by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
``(2) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of 14
members, of whom--
``(A) 2 members shall be residents of Alabama;
``(B) 2 members shall be residents of Georgia;
``(C) 2 members shall be residents of Kentucky;
``(D) 2 members shall be residents of Mississippi;
``(E) 2 members shall be residents of North Carolina;
``(F) 2 members shall be residents of Tennessee; and
``(G) 2 members shall be residents of Virginia.
``(b) Qualifications.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to be appointed as a
member of the Board, an individual--
``(A) shall be a citizen of the United States;
``(B) shall not be an employee of the Corporation;
``(C) shall have no substantial direct financial interest
in--
``(i) any public-utility corporation engaged in the
business of distributing and selling power to the public; or
``(ii) any business that may be adversely affected by the
success of the Corporation as a producer of electric power;
and
``(D) shall profess a belief in the feasibility and wisdom
of this Act.
``(2) Party affiliation.--Not more than 8 of the 14 members
of the Board may be affiliated with a single political party.
``(c) Terms.--
``(1) In general.--A member of the Board shall serve a term
of 4 years except that in
[[Page S8580]]
first making appointments after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the President shall appoint--
``(A) 5 members to a term of 2 years;
``(B) 6 members to a term of 3 years; and
``(C) 3 members to a term of 4 years.
``(2) Vacancies.--A member appointed to fill a vacancy in
the Board occurring before the expiration of the term for
which the predecessor of the member was appointed shall be
appointed for the remainder of that term.
``(3) Reappointment.--
``(A) In general.--A member of the Board that was appointed
for a full term may be reappointed for 1 additional term.
``(B) Appointment to fill vacancy.--For the purpose of
subparagraph (A), a member appointed to serve the remainder
of the term of a vacating member for a period of more than 2
years shall be considered to have been appointed for a full
term.
``(d) Quorum.--
``(1) In general.--Eight members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
``(2) Minimum number of members.-- A vacancy in the Board
shall not impair the power of the Board to act, so long as
there are 8 members in office.
``(e) Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--A member of the Board shall be entitled
to receive--
``(A) a stipend of $30,000 per year; and
``(B) travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed
intermittently in Government service under section 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(2) Adjustments in stipends.--The amount of the stipend
under paragraph (1)(A) shall be adjusted by the same
percentage, at the same time and manner, and subject to the
same limitations as are applicable to adjustments under
section 5318 of title 5, United States Code.
``(f) Chief Executive Officer.--
``(1) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a person to serve as
chief executive officer of the Corporation.
``(2) Qualifications.--To serve as chief executive officer
of the Corporation, a person--
``(A) shall be a citizen of the United States;
``(B) shall have proven management experience in large,
complex organizations;
``(C) shall not be a current member of the Board or have
served as a member of the Board within 2 years before being
appointed chief executive officer; and
``(D) shall have no substantial direct financial interest
in--
``(i) any public-utility corporation engaged in the
business of distributing and selling power to the public; or
``(ii) any business that may be adversely affected by the
success of the Corporation as a producer of electric power;
and
``(3) Term.--
``(A) In general.--The chief executive officer shall serve
for a term of 4 years.
``(B) Reappointment.--The chief executive officer may be
reappointed for additional terms.
``(4) Compensation.--
``(A) In general.--The chief executive officer shall be
entitled to receive--
``(i) compensation at a rate that does not exceed the
annual rate of pay prescribed under Level III of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code; and
``(ii) reimbursement from the Corporation for travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, while
away from home or regular place of business of the chief
executive officer in the performance of the duties of the
chief executive officer.''.
(b) Current Board Members.--A member of the board of
directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority who was appointed
before the effective date of the amendment made by subsection
(a)--
(1) shall continue to serve as a member until the date of
expiration of the member's current term; and
(2) may not be reappointed.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act take effect, and the
additional members of the Board of the Tennessee Valley
Authority and Chief Executive Officer shall be appointed so
as to commence their terms on, the date that is 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1289. A bill to require the Secretary of the Navy to report
changes in budget and staffing that take place as a result of the
regionalization program of the Navy; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Navy
Regionalization Reporting Act, a bill that would benefit all Navy bases
and their surrounding communities by providing ample notification of
planned, through regular reports, and unplanned, through the
Congressional notifications, funding and employment level changes due
to the Navy's regionalization process.
Earlier this year, it was brought to my attention that both funding
and jobs at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, ME, could be impacted
by the Navy's reallocation of base operating functions as part of its
regionalization program. The Navy's stated goal for the regionalization
program is to consolidate functions by eliminating management and
support redundancies with the end result being increased efficiency and
decreased overhead costs for shore installations. As such, for the
Navy's program to be successful, funding, as well as jobs, must be
reduced in some areas.
While I applaud Navy's intentions to increase efficiency and save
taxpayer dollars, I can not support efforts that may lead to reduced
service levels for our men and women in uniform. I am also concerned
that the Navy has not been able to produce detailed projections on the
impact regionalization will have on the Federal employees.
To date, the Navy has been unable to answer questions regarding
future employment levels and has not established a method to track or
predict changes in budget and job allocations at its bases that take
place as a result of the regionalization program.
This legislation would require the Navy to establish a tracking and
planning program to make these changes more transparent. The Navy would
provide an initial baseline or historical report that includes the pre-
regionalization budgets and staffing levels at each base or station in
each Navy region by July 2002. Subsequently, the Navy would submit
semi-annual reports with projected and actual losses, gains, or
restructuring of budgets and staff for each base. Any deviation from
the reported budget or staff projections would then require
Congressional notification 30 days prior to implementation.
Finally, in an effort to prevent the degradation of operational
readiness and quality of life for our service members due to the
redistribution of base support functions, this legislation includes a
Sense of the Senate that the Navy should ensure the job and dollar
distribution within each region is equitable and does not become
concentrated at one location.
To assure the benefits of the Navy's program are equitably realized
at all bases and communities, I urge my colleagues to support the Navy
Regionalization Reporting Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY. (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Brownback):
S. 1290. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to preempt
State laws requiring a certificate of approval or other form of
approval prior to the construction or operation of certain airport
development projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1290
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 ``End Gridlock at Our Nation's
Critical Airports Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REQUIRING APPROVAL OF
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 401 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 40129. Preemption of State laws requiring approval of
airport development projects
``(a) In General.--No State, political subdivision of a
State, or political authority of at least 2 States may enact
or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the
force and effect of law that--
``(1) requires a certificate of approval or other form of
approval prior to the construction or operation of an airport
development project at a covered airport if the project meets
the standards established by the Secretary of Transportation
under section 47105(b)(3), whether or not the project is the
subject of a grant approved under chapter 471; or
``(2) prohibits, conditions, or otherwise regulates the
direct application for, or receipt or expenditure of, a grant
or other funds by the sponsor of a covered airport under
chapter 471 for an airport development project at a covered
airport if the project meets the standards referred to in
paragraph (1).
``(b) Covered Airport Defined.--In this section, the term
`covered airport' means an airport that each year has at
least .25 percent of the total annual boardings in the United
States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
[[Page S8581]]
``40129. Preemption of State laws requiring approval of airport
development projects.''.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1291. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State
residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien
college-bound students who are long term United States residents; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation
aimed at benefitting a very special group of persons--illegal alien
children who are long-term residents of the United States. This
legislation, known as the ``DREAM Act,'' would allow children who have
been brought to the United States through no volition of their own the
opportunity to fulfill their dreams, to secure a college degree and
legal status. The purpose of the DREAM Act is to ensure that we leave
no child behind, regardless of his or her legal status in the United
States or their parents' illegal status.
By law, undocumented alien children are entitled to a subsidized
education through high school. In fact, an estimated 50,000 to 70,000
such students graduate from high schools throughout the country each
year. Many of these students are thereafter interested in bettering
themselves and their families by securing higher education. Generally,
admittance to college is not a problem. However, the cost of attending
college and the lack of any mechanism by which undocumented aliens
students may obtain legal status in the United States prevents these
children from having a meaningful opportunity to obtain a college
degree. The DREAM Act would 1. aid undocumented alien children in their
financial efforts to attend college, and 2. provide adjustment of
status to undocumented alien children who secure a degree of higher
education.
Presently, the law penalizes States that grant a post-secondary
benefit, such as in-state tuition, to an undocumented student unless
the state also provides that same benefit to out-of-state students. I
believe that the decision of a State to grant any such benefit to an
undocumented individual residing in the same rests with the State
alone. Accordingly, I am opposed to that aforementioned provision of
law. The bill I introduce today, the DREAM Act, proposes to repeal that
section of the law.
Second, I propose that we offer undocumented alien children the
opportunity to earn permanent residency in the United States in
conjunction with earning either a 4 or 2-year college degree. Under the
DREAM Act, an alien who has continuously resided in the United States
for 5 years, is a person of good moral character, has not been
convicted of certain offenses, and has been admitted to a qualified
institute of higher education may adjust his or her status to that of
conditional permanent resident. Thereafter, the student has 6 or 4
years to graduate from a qualified 4 or 2-year institution,
respectively. Upon graduation and a demonstration that the student has
remained a person of good moral character, has maintained his or her
continuous physical presence in the United States, and has not become
removable based on criminal convictions or security grounds, the
conditions of the student's status are removed and that student becomes
a full-fledged permanent resident.
I recognize that there are significant differences between the DREAM
Act and other legislation that has been recently introduced. However, I
look forward to working with members of this body to ensure that the
American dream is extended to these children. I therefore strongly urge
my colleagues to support this bill and thereby provide hope and
opportunity to hundreds of thousands of deserving alien children
nationwide.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included
following my remarks.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1291
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 ``Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors Act'' or ``DREAM Act''.
SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY
FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.
Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208;
110 Stat 3009-672; 8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
SEC. 3. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF
CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENT STUDENTS.
(a) Special Rule for Children in Qualified Institutions of
Higher Education.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General may cancel
removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional
basis described in section 4, an alien who is inadmissible or
deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates
that--
(A) the alien has applied for relief under this subsection
not later than two years after the date of enactment of this
Act;
(B) the alien has not, at the time of application, attained
the age of 21;
(C) the alien, at the time of application, is attending an
institution of higher education in the United States (as
defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001));
(D) the alien was physically present in the United States
on the date of the enactment of this Act and has been
physically present in the United States for a continuous
period of not less than five years immediately preceding the
date of enactment of this Act;
(E) the alien has been a person of good moral character
during such period; and
(F) the alien is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)
or 212(a)(3) or deportable under section 237(a)(2) or
237(a)(4).
(2) Procedures.--The Attorney General shall provide a
procedure by regulation allowing eligible individuals to
apply affirmatively for the relief available under this
paragraph without being placed in removal proceedings.
(b) Termination of Continuous Period.--For purposes of this
section, any period of continuous residence or continuous
physical presence in the United States of an alien who
applies for cancellation of removal under this section shall
not terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear
under section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(c) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--An alien
shall be considered to have failed to maintain continuous
physical presence in the United States under subsection (a)
if the alien has departed from the United States for any
period in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the
aggregate exceeding 180 days.
(d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of
aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal or
adjustment of status under this section.
(e) Regulations.--
(1) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
publish proposed regulations implementing this section.
(2) Interim, final regulations.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney
General shall publish final regulations implementing this
section. Such regulations shall be effective immediately on
an interim basis, but are subject to change and revision
after public notice and opportunity for a period for public
comment.
SEC. 4. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN
LONG-TERM RESIDENT STUDENTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Conditional basis for status.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, an alien whose status has been
adjusted under section 3 to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence shall be considered, at the
time of obtaining the adjustment of status, to have obtained
such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions
of this section.
(2) Notice of requirements.--
(A) At time of obtaining permanent residence.--At the time
an alien obtains permanent resident status on a conditional
basis under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall provide
for notice to such alien respecting the provisions of this
section and the requirements of subsection (c)(1) to have the
conditional basis of such status removed.
(B) At time of required petition.--In addition, the
Attorney General shall attempt to provide notice to such an
alien, at or about the date of the alien's graduation from an
institution of higher education of the requirements of
subsection (c)(1).
(C) Effect of failure to provide notice.--The failure of
the Attorney General to provide a notice under this paragraph
shall not affect the enforcement of the provisions of this
section with respect to such an alien.
(b) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying
Education Improper.--
(1) In general.--In the case of an alien with permanent
resident status on a conditional basis under subsection (a),
if the Attorney General determines that the alien is no
longer a student in good standing at an accredited
institution of higher education,
[[Page S8582]]
the Attorney General shall so notify the alien and, subject
to paragraph (2), shall terminate the permanent resident
status of the alien as of the date of the determination.
(2) Hearing in removal proceeding.--Any alien whose
permanent resident status is terminated under paragraph (1)
may request a review of such determination in a proceeding to
remove the alien. In such proceeding, the burden of proof
shall be on the alien to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the condition described in paragraph (1) is
not met.
(c) Requirements of Timely Petition for Removal of
Condition.--
(1) In general.--In order for the conditional basis
established under subsection (a) for an alien to be removed
the alien must submit to the Attorney General, during the
period described in subsection (d)(2), a petition which
requests the removal of such conditional basis and which
states, under penalty of perjury, the facts and information
described in subsection (d)(1).
(2) Termination of permanent resident status for failure to
file petition.--
(A) In general.--In the case of an alien with permanent
resident status on a conditional basis under subsection (a),
if no petition is filed with respect to the alien in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1), the Attorney
General shall terminate the permanent resident status of the
alien as of the 90th day after the graduation of the alien
from an institution of higher education.
(B) Hearing in removal proceeding.--In any removal
proceeding with respect to an alien whose permanent resident
status is terminated under subparagraph (A), the burden of
proof shall be on the alien to establish compliance with the
condition of paragraph (1).
(3) Determination after petition and interview.--
(A) In general.--If a petition is filed in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall
make a determination, within 90 days, as to whether the facts
and information described in subsection (d)(1) and alleged in
the petition are true with respect to the alien's education.
(B) Removal of conditional basis if favorable
determination.--If the Attorney General determines that such
facts and information are true, the Attorney General shall so
notify the alien and shall remove the conditional basis of
the status of the alien effective as of the 90th day after
the alien's graduation from an institution of higher
education.
(C) Termination if adverse determination.--If the Attorney
General determines that such facts and information are not
true, the Attorney General shall so notify the alien and,
subject to subparagraph (D), shall terminate the permanent
resident status of an alien as of the date of the
determination.
(D) Hearing in removal proceeding.--Any alien whose
permanent resident status is terminated under subparagraph
(C) may request a review of such determination in a
proceeding to remove the alien. In such proceeding, the
burden of proof shall be on the Attorney General to
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the facts
and information described in subsection (d)(1) and alleged in
the petition are not true with respect to the alien's
education.
(d) Details of Petition.--
(1) Contents of petition.--Each petition under subsection
(c)(1)(A) shall contain the following facts and information:
(A) The alien graduated from an institution of higher
education, as evidenced by an official report from the
registrar--
(i) within six years, in the case of a four-year bachelor's
degree program; or
(ii) within four years, in the case of the degree program
of a two-year institution.
(B) The alien maintained good moral character.
(C) The alien has not been convicted of any offense
described in section 237(a)(2) or 237(a)(4).
(D) The alien has maintained continuous physical residence
in the United States.
(2) Period for filing petition.--The petition under
subsection (c)(1)(A) must be filed during the 90-day period
after the alien's graduation from a institution of higher
education.
(e) Treatment of Period for Purposes of Naturalization.--
For purposes of title III of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, in the case of an alien who is in the United States as a
lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis under this
section, the alien shall be considered to have been admitted
as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence and to
be in the United States as an alien lawfully admitted to the
United States for permanent residence.
(f) Treatment of Certain Waivers.--In the case of an alien
who has permanent residence status on a conditional basis
under this section, if, in order to obtain such status, the
alien obtained a waiver under subsection (h) or (i) of
section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of certain
grounds of inadmissibility, such waiver terminates upon the
termination of such permanent residence status under this
section.
(g) Institution of Higher Education Defined.--In this
section, the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given the term in section 101 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.1001).
SEC. 5. GAO REPORT.
Six years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a
report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the House of Representatives setting forth--
(1) the number of aliens who were eligible for cancellation
of removal and adjustment of status during the application
period described in section 3(a)(1)(A);
(2) the number of aliens who applied for adjustment of
status under section 3(a);
(3) the number of aliens who were granted adjustment of
status under section 3(a); and
(4) the number of aliens with respect to whom the
conditional basis of their status was removed under section
4.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, one of the great challenges we face
as a society is to find ways to ease the burdens of our modern, hectic
world on working families. When I talk to Missouri parents who work
outside the home, one of their top concerns, if not their top concern,
is finding high-quality, affordable child care.
Every generation of my own family has struggled with this issue. My
mother struggled with it. I struggled with it. My children struggle
with it now. It would be this grandmother's fondest wish that when my
grandchildren become parents themselves, finding affordable, quality
child care won't be a problem.
More and more, employers are finding that providing access to daycare
is important in attracting and retaining a quality workforce. Parents
who know their children are happy, safe, and enriched in their day care
setting are more productive, less distracted, and more satisfied
employees. In an effort to support employers' efforts to offer this
valuable service to their employees, I have co-sponsored S. 99, a bill
that provides tax credits to employers who provide child care
assistance to their employees.
Accessing affordable child care is an issue for federal employees,
too. As the largest employer in the country, the Federal Government
shall lead by example in supporting working families. For this reason,
today I am introducing the ``Child Care Affordability for Federal
Employees Act.
Senator Barbara Mikulski is an original co-sponsor of the bill, and I
would like to thank her for the strong leadership she has shown on this
issue. She has worked hard to make this initiative a permanent reality
for Federal employees in Maryland and across the United States.
This bill grants Federal agencies the flexibility to use a portion of
their funds to provide child care assistance for their lower income
employees. Federal agencies can choose to allow the assistance to apply
towards the costs of its own-site Federal facility or an individual
provider in the area that is licensed and safe.
Being able to afford child care is a problem for all employees, but
it is particularly difficult for low income employees. This bill will
assist low income Federal employees to afford the safe, quality child
care that is available on-site. If the agency so chooses, it could also
help low-income employees better afford safe, licensed child care that
is available in the community.
I hope this legislation will also help the Federal Government compete
with the private sector in attracting employees. In January, the GAO
placed the Federal Government's human capital crisis on its ``High-
Risk'' list of serious government problems. In three years, more than
half of the federal workforce will be eligible for regular or early
retirement. This bill is a strong, concrete action that Congress can
take to help the Federal Government compete with the private sector to
attract the skilled Federal workforce it needs.
For the past two years, this initiative has been included in the
annual Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. This has been a critical
first step. From its initial implementation, we now know that the
program works and that families in Missouri and across the country have
benefit from it. However, because the program was only temporary, some
Federal agencies elected not to participate. They were afraid to offer
the benefit for a year and then have to take it away from their
employees if it were not renewed. Other agencies have only implemented
the program at a small level for the same reason. Passing this
legislation and making the program permanent is essential to helping
this initiative reach its full potential and benefit the maximum number
of families.
We know that child care is not simply about children having a place
to go
[[Page S8583]]
where an adult is present. A child's environment has significant impact
on their well-being and development. This is particularly true for
children during the first three years of life. Recent brain studies
have shown that those early brain influences matter more than we ever
imagined. This bill seeks to ensure that more of our children spend
their days in safe, nurturing environments. As the writer Gabriella
Mistral has said: ``Many things can wait, the child cannot ... To him
we cannot say tomorrow, his name is today.''
______
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 1292. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for dry and wet cleaning equipment which uses
non-hazardous primary process solvents; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Small
Business Pollution Prevention and Opportunity Act. This legislation
would help address a matter of great concern to all Americans who care
about water quality and the environment.
Toxic and flammable solvents are used in ninety-five percent of the
35,000 small dry cleaning businesses in our country. Dry-cleaned
clothes are the primary source of toxins entering our homes,
endangering our health. These solvents often leak from storage tanks or
spill onto the ground, contaminating the property on which dry cleaning
businesses are located. This contamination has resulted in part in the
large number of brownfields sites across our country. These dry
cleaning solvents are regulated by numerous State and Federal agencies,
causing dry cleaners and neighboring businesses to be concerned about
the health of their workers and the dangers of property contamination.
An innovative scientist, Dr. Joseph M. DeSimone of North Carolina,
developed an environmentally-friendly alternative to these solvents. He
and his graduate students have developed a process to clean clothes
using liquid carbon dioxide and special detergents. This safer dry
cleaning method has been commercially available since February 1999,
with several machines in operation around the country that have
successfully cleaned half a million pounds of clothes in over 10,000
cleaning cycles at shops in various states across the Nation.
The Small Business Pollution Prevention and Opportunity Act would
provide new and existing dry cleaners a 20 percent tax credit as an
incentive to switch to an environmentally-friendly and energy efficient
technology. Dry cleaners in Enterprise Zones would receive a 40 percent
tax credit. The tax credit would also be extended to wet cleaning
fabric cleaners who use water-based systems to effectively clean 40
percent of ``dry clean only'' garments.
This new technology is becoming increasingly recognized as a safer,
cleaner alternative to traditional dry cleaning. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, has issued a case study declaring liquid carbon
dioxide as a viable alternative to dry cleaning. R&D Magazine named Dr.
DeSimone's technology one of the 100 most innovative technologies that
will change our everyday lives. For his innovation, Dr. DeSimone
received the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award in 1997. The
EPA as well as the National Science Foundation, NSF, has funded Dr.
DeSimone's research.
Now that environmentally beneficial technologies like liquid carbon
dioxide and wet cleaning are commercially available, it makes sense to
provide a modest incentive to encourage dry cleaners to utilize them.
The benefits to small business dry cleaners, consumers, employees, and
the environment would be enormous. This bill's approach provides
incentives, not additional regulations, for dry cleaners. The goal of
the bill is to protect and enhance the dry cleaning industry, not
reinvent or harm it.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
It is the right thing to do for 35,000 small businesses, millions of
dry cleaning consumers, and for our environment.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 1293. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives for the voluntary reduction, avoidance, and sequestration of
greenhouse gas emissions and to advance global climate science and
technology development and deployment; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Bond):
S. 1294. A bill to establish a new national policy designed to manage
the risk of potential climate change, ensure long-term energy security,
and to strengthen provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the
Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 with
respect to potential climate change; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me first thank my colleagues,
Senators Murkowski, Hagel, and Domenici, for their work on this very
important legislation. I enjoyed working with them and their staffs on
this analytically complex issue. The results of our patience and hard
work are two companion pieces of legislation that will provide the
underpinning for a path forward on the climate change issue that will
meet the nation's and global needs for economic progress, while
ensuring our nation's energy and national security. In addition, it
will provide a sound basis for productive engagement with our friends
and allies that share the same needs.
The first bill is the Climate Change Tax Amendments of 2001 which is
essentially the same as S. 1777 that I introduced in the 106th
Congress. This bill is an important element of the approach we should
take as a nation because current U.S. tax policy treats capital
formation--including investments that can increase energy efficiency
and reduce emissions--harshly compared with other industrialized
countries and our own recent past. Slower capital cost recovery means
that facilities deploying new advanced technology will not be put in
place as quickly, if at all.
Based on our current understanding of the science available on
climate change, I remain convinced that it is still premature for our
government to mandate stringent controls on carbon dioxide emissions
and pick winners and losers in technology. This bill assures that there
will be a true partnership between tax policy and technology innovation
in both research and deployment.
Although the science of climate change has progressed rather
dramatically over the last five years, many trenchant questions remain
about what is happening to our climate system. However, the climate
change issue is at a crossroads. We can and must make decisions on how
to proceed. The bills introduced today ensure a more focused and
coordinated effort to understand the outstanding and formidable
scientific issues associated with climate change. While pursuing
answers to those questions, the bills also create a comprehensive and
systematic program to achieve the goals of reducing, avoiding, or
sequesting greenhouse gas emissions. That program is manifest in both
the technological research and development effort authorized in the
Risk Management bill and a comprehensive and systematic approach that
aggressively encourages voluntary actions to reduce, avoid, or
sequester greenhouse gas emissions.
To bolster and strengthen the voluntary action program we have
proposed tax incentives in the companion Tax Amendment bill that should
also stimulate the creative ways to reduce, avoid, or sequester
greenhouse gas emissions without creating drag on future economic
growth. Although some special interest groups have criticized voluntary
programs as ineffective, my colleagues and I do not believe that past
efforts were as clearly designed and planned or aggressively promoted
as we have proposed in this legislation.
The companion bill is the Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001.
This bill has as its roots in S. 1776 and S. 882, two bills that were
introduced in the 106th Congress with the expressed intent to forge
consensus on this issue. The principal objectives of the current
legislation are to encourage the research, development, and deployment
of the technologies that can meet our needs and the needs of developing
nations. A key focus are the technologies that can help us reduce,
avoid or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases.
[[Page S8584]]
In addition the bill also encourages deployment of technologies that
can sequester greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This approach is
essential to assure that we can fully use all of our domestic resources
to their fullest. This must include coal and nuclear power.
An essential element in this legislation is the active engagement of
developing countries. Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of
our bilateral trading partners to use their resources and meet the
needs of their people. For too long the climate policy debate has been
fixated on assigning blame and inflicting pain. This is harmful and
counterproductive. Our best technology must be made available and our
research activities must focus on developing country needs as well as
our own.
Moreover, we believe that the President has chosen the right path
forward on this issue and we are committed to working with his Cabinet
level task force on finding effective, technologically based approaches
to attacking this important environmental and economic issue.
Although these bills are comprehensive, there are still more steps
Congress can and will take in the immediate future to ensure we are
doing all that is reasonably and responsibly possible. For example, a
key piece of this puzzle is better government-wide coordination of
scientific efforts to solve the remaining mysteries of climate change.
A strong and consistent recommendation from the National Academy of
Sciences has been for us to solve this problem.
Because that issue includes Federal agency ``turf battles,''
legislative committee jurisdictional constraints prevented us from
fully addressing that issue in these bills. However, we will have this,
and other key pieces (such as traffic congestion, agricultural, forest
management, and ocean sequestration) not currently getting sufficient
attention, ready to complete a comprehensive package on climate change
before the end of the 107th Congress.
But for now, the bills we introduce today are an important and
aggressive attempt to shape and implement policy on climate change. It
is a responsible effort to work with our friends and allies to:
1. Develop better policy mechanisms for assessing the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions; 2. accelerate development and deployment of
climate response technology; 3. facilities international deployment of
U.S. technology to mitigate climate change to the developing world; 4.
advance climate science to reduce uncertainties in key areas; and 5.
improve public access to government information on climate science.
All involved in this debate must stop politicizing science and help
us get to the point where the issue is confidently understood. The
American people have a right to know the whole truth on this issue. The
success of any future government response to climate change depends on
that more than anything else.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill texts along with section-by-
section analyses be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
S. 1293
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 ``Climate Change Tax
Amendments of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PERMANENT TAX CREDIT FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION,
AVOIDANCE, OR SEQUESTRATION.
(a) In General.--Section 41(h) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Exception for certain research.--Paragraph (1)(B)
shall not apply in the case of any qualified research
expenses if the research--
``(A) has as one of its purposes the reducing, avoiding, or
sequestering of greenhouse gas emissions, and
``(B) has been reported to the Department of Energy under
section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to amounts paid or incurred after the
date of enactment of this Act, except that such amendment
shall not take effect unless the Climate Change Risk
Management Act of 2001 is enacted into law.
SEC. 3. TAX CREDIT FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FACILITIES.
(a) Allowance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Facilities
Credit.--Section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to amount of credit) is amended by striking ``and''
at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding
at the end the following:
``(4) the greenhouse gas emissions facilities credit.''.
(b) Amount of Credit.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A
of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to rules for computing investment credit) is amended by
inserting after section 48 the following:
``SEC. 48A. CREDIT FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FACILITIES.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the
greenhouse gas emissions facilities credit for any taxable
year is the applicable percentage of the qualified investment
in a greenhouse gas emissions facility for such taxable year.
``(b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Facility.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the term `greenhouse gas emissions facility'
means a facility of the taxpayer--
``(1)(A) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of
which is completed by the taxpayer, or
``(B) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original use
of such facility commences with the taxpayer,
``(2) the operation of which--
``(A) replaces the operation of a facility of the taxpayer,
``(B) reduces, avoids, or sequesters greenhouse gas
emissions on a per unit of output basis as compared to such
emissions of the replaced facility, and
``(C) uses the same type of fuel (or combination of the
same type of fuel and biomass fuel) as was used in the
replaced facility,
``(3) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization
in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(4) which meets the performance and quality standards (if
any) which--
``(A) have been jointly prescribed by the Secretary and the
Secretary of Energy by regulations,
``(B) are consistent with regulations prescribed under
section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and
``(C) are in effect at the time of the acquisition of the
facility.
``(c) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the applicable percentage is one-half of the percentage
reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas
emissions described in subsection (b)(2) and reported and
certified under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992.
``(d) Qualified Investment.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the term `qualified investment' means, with respect to
any taxable year, the basis of a greenhouse gas emissions
facility placed in service by the taxpayer during such
taxable year, but only with respect to that portion of the
investment attributable to providing production capacity not
greater than the production capacity of the facility being
replaced.
``(e) Qualified Progress Expenditures.--
``(1) Increase in qualified investment.--In the case of a
taxpayer who has made an election under paragraph (5), the
amount of the qualified investment of such taxpayer for the
taxable year (determined under subsection (d) without regard
to this subsection) shall be increased by an amount equal to
the aggregate of each qualified progress expenditure for the
taxable year with respect to progress expenditure property.
``(2) Progress expenditure property defined.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term `progress expenditure property'
means any property being constructed by or for the taxpayer
and which it is reasonable to believe will qualify as a
greenhouse gas emissions facility which is being constructed
by or for the taxpayer when it is placed in service.
``(3) Qualified progress expenditures defined.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Self-constructed property.--In the case of any self-
constructed property, the term `qualified progress
expenditures' means the amount which, for purposes of this
subpart, is properly chargeable (during such taxable year) to
capital account with respect to such property.
``(B) Non-self-constructed property.--In the case of non-
self-constructed property, the term `qualified progress
expenditures' means the amount paid during the taxable year
to another person for the construction of such property.
``(4) Other definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Self-constructed property.--The term `self-
constructed property' means property for which it is
reasonable to believe that more than half of the construction
expenditures will be made directly by the taxpayer.
``(B) Non-self-constructed property.--The term `non-self-
constructed property' means property which is not self-
constructed property.
``(C) Construction, etc.--The term `construction' includes
reconstruction and erection, and the term `constructed'
includes reconstructed and erected.
``(D) Only construction of greenhouse gas emissions
facility to be taken into account.--Construction shall be
taken into account only if, for purposes of this subpart,
[[Page S8585]]
expenditures therefor are properly chargeable to capital
account with respect to the property.
``(5) Election.--An election under this subsection may be
made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by
regulations prescribe. Such an election shall apply to the
taxable year for which made and to all subsequent taxable
years. Such an election, once made, may not be revoked except
with the consent of the Secretary.''
(c) Recapture.--Section 50(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to other special rules) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(6) Special rules relating to greenhouse gas emissions
facility.--For purposes of applying this subsection in the
case of any credit allowable by reason of section 48A, the
following shall apply:
``(A) General rule.--In lieu of the amount of the increase
in tax under paragraph (1), the increase in tax shall be an
amount equal to the investment tax credit allowed under
section 38 for all prior taxable years with respect to a
greenhouse gas emissions facility (as defined by section
48A(b)) multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the
number of years remaining to fully depreciate under this
title the greenhouse gas emissions facility disposed of, and
whose denominator is the total number of years over which
such facility would otherwise have been subject to
depreciation. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
year of disposition of the greenhouse gas emissions facility
property shall be treated as a year of remaining
depreciation.
``(B) Property ceases to qualify for progress
expenditures.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraph (2)
shall apply in the case of qualified progress expenditures
for a greenhouse gas emissions facility under section 48A,
except that the amount of the increase in tax under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be substituted in
lieu of the amount described in such paragraph (2).
``(C) Application of paragraph.--This paragraph shall be
applied separately with respect to the credit allowed under
section 38 regarding a greenhouse gas emissions facility.''
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 49(a)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended 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) the portion of the basis of any greenhouse gas
emissions facility attributable to any qualified investment
(as defined by section 48A(d)).''
(2) Section 50(a)(4) of such Code is amended by striking
``and (2)'' and inserting ``, (2), and (6)''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 48 the
following:
``Sec. 48A. Credit for greenhouse gas emissions facilities.''
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, under rules similar to the rules
of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
(f) Study of Additional Incentives for Voluntary Reduction,
Avoidance, or Sequestration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of Energy shall jointly study possible additional
incentives for, and removal of barriers to, voluntary, non
recoupable expenditures for the reduction, avoidance, or
sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions. For purposes of
this subsection, an expenditure shall be considered voluntary
and non recoupable if the expenditure is not recoupable--
(A) from revenues generated from the investment, determined
under generally accepted accounting standards (or under the
applicable rate-of-return regulation, in the case of a
taxpayer subject to such regulation), or
(B) from any tax or other financial incentive program
established under Federal, State, or local law.
(2) Report.--Within 6 months of the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of
Energy shall jointly report to Congress on the results of the
study described in paragraph (1), along with any
recommendations for legislative action.
(g) Scope and Impact.--
(1) Policy.--In order to achieve the broadest response for
reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas
emissions and to ensure that the incentives established by or
pursuant to this Act do not advantage one segment of an
industry to the disadvantage of another, it is the sense of
Congress that such incentives should be available for
individuals, organizations, and entities, including both for-
profit and non-profit institutions.
(2) Level playing field study and report.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of Energy shall jointly study possible additional
measures that would provide non-profit entities (such as
municipal utilities and energy cooperatives) with economic
incentives for greenhouse gas emissions facilities comparable
to those incentives provided to taxpayers under the
amendments made to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by this
Act.
(B) Report.--Within 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of
Energy shall jointly report to Congress on the results of the
study described in subparagraph (A), along with any
recommendations for legislative action.
____
The Climate Change Tax Amendments of 2001--Section-by-Section Analysis
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide incentives for the voluntary reduction avoidance, and
sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions and to advance
global climate science and technology development.
Section 1 designates the short title as the ``Climate
Change Tax Amendments.''
Section 2 extends on a permanent basis the tax credit for
research and development in the case of R & D involving
climate change.
In order for a research expense to qualify for the credit,
it must; have as one of its purposes the reducing or
sequestering of greenhouse gases; and have been reported to
DOE under Sec. 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
This tax credit applies with respect to amounts incurred
after the Act becomes law, and only if the Climate Change
Risk Management Act of 2001 also becomes law.
Section 3 provides for investment tax credits for
greenhouse-gas-emission reduction facilities.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Facility Credit
The amount of the credit would be calculated based upon the
amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions reported and
certified under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act. The
credit would be equal to one-half of the applicable
percentage of the qualified investment in a ``reduced
greenhouse gas emissions facility.''
For example, if a taxpayer replaces a coal-fired generator
with a more efficient one that reduced greenhouse gas
emissions by 18 percent, compared to the retired unit, the
taxpayer would be entitled to a tax credit of 9 percent of
qualified investment in that ``reduced greenhouse gas
emissions facility''. Such facility is defined as a facility
of the taxpayer: the construction, reconstruction; or
erection of which is completed by the taxpayer; or the
facility may be acquired by the taxpayer if the original use
of the facility commences with the taxpayer; which replaces
an existing facility of the taxpayer; which reduces
greenhouse gas emissions (on a per unit of output basis) as
compared to the facility it replaces; which uses the same
type of fuel as the facility it replaces; the depreciation
(or amortization in lieu of depreciation) of which is
allowable; which meets performance and quality standards (if
any) jointly prescribed by the Secretaries of Treasury and
Energy; and are consistent with regulations prescribed
under Sec. 1605 (b) of the Energy Policy Act (relating to
voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emission
reductions).
Only that portion of the investment attributable to
providing production capacity not greater than the production
capacity of the facility being replaced qualifies for the
credit.
While unit efficiencies could be achieved if the credit
were allowed for replacing a unit with another that burned a
different fuel, such incentive for fuel shifting does not
directly stimulate efficiency technology development for each
fuel type. The objective is to improve efficiencies ``within
a fuel;'' not to encourage fuel shifting ``between fuels.''
Qualified Progress Expenditure Credit
With respect to qualified progress expenditures, the amount
of the qualified investment for the taxable year shall be
increased by the aggregate of each qualified progress
expenditure for the taxable year with respect to progress
expenditure property. Progress expenditure property is
defined as any property being constructed by or for the
taxpayer and which it is reasonable to believe will qualify
as a reduced greenhouse gas emission facility.
Election
A taxpayer may elect to take the tax credit in such a
manner (i.e. as an investment credit, or as qualified
progress expenditures) as the Secretary may be regulations
prescribe. The election will apply to the taxable year for
which it was made and to all subsequent taxable years. Such
an election, once made, may not be revoked except with the
consent of the Secretary.
Recapture Where Facility is Prematurely Disposed of
If the facility is disposed of before the end of the
facility's depreciation period (or ``useful life'' for tax
purposes) the taxpayer will be assessed an increase in tax
equal to the greenhouse gas emissions facility investment tax
credit allowed for all prior taxable years multiplied by a
fraction whose numerator is the number of years remaining to
fully depreciate the facility to be disposed of, and whose
denominator is the total number of years over which the
facility would otherwise have been subject to depreciation.
Similar rules apply in the case in which the taxpayer
elected credit for progress expenditures and the property
thereafter ceases to qualify for such credit.
Effective Date
Amendments made to the Internal Revenue Code apply to
property placed in service after the date of enactment of
this Act.
[[Page S8586]]
Study of Additional Incentives for Voluntary Reduction of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Transportation
are directed to study, and report upon to Congress along with
any recommendations for legislative action, possible
additional incentives for and removal of barriers to
voluntary non-recoupable expenditures on the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. An expenditure qualifies if it is
voluntary and not recoupable: from revenues generated from
the investment; determined under generally accepted
accounting standards; under the applicable rate-of-return
regulation (in the case of a taxpayer subject to such
regulations); from any tax or other financial incentive
program established under federal, State, or local law; and
pursuant to any credit-trading or other mechanism established
under any international agreement or protocol that is in
force.
Incentives for Non-profit Institutions
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Energy
are directed to jointly study possible additional measures
that would provide non-profit entities, such as municipal
utilities and energy co-operatives, with economic incentives
for greenhouse gas emission reductions comparable to the
incentives provided to taxpayers under the amendments made to
the Internal Revenue Code by this Act. Within six months of
the date of enactment, the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of Energy shall jointly report to Congress on the
results of the study along with any recommendations for
legislative action.
____
S. 1294
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Climate Change Risk
Management Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) human activities, namely energy production and use,
contribute to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, which may ultimately contribute to global
climate change beyond that resulting from natural
variability;
(2) although the science of global climate change has been
advanced in the past ten years, the timing and magnitude of
climate change-related impacts on the United States cannot
currently be predicted with any reasonable certainty;
(3) furthermore, a recent National Research Council review
of climate change science suggests that without an
understanding of the sources and degree of uncertainty
regarding climate change and its impacts, decision-makers
could fail to define the best ways to manage the risk of
climate change;
(4) despite this uncertainty, the potential impacts from
human-induced climate change pose a substantial risk that
should be managed in a responsible manner;
(5) given that the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions from
human activities result from energy production and use,
national and international energy policy decisions made now
and in the longer-term future will influence the extent and
timing of any climate change and resultant impacts from
climate change later this century;
(6) the characteristics of greenhouse gases and the
physical nature of the climate system require that
stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at
any future level must be a long-term effort undertaken on a
global basis;
(7) the characteristics of existing energy-related
infrastructure and capital suggest that effective greenhouse
gas management efforts will depend on the development of
long-term, cost-effective technologies and practices that can
be demonstrated and deployed commercially in the United
States and around the world;
(8) environmental progress, energy security, economic
prosperity, and satisfaction of basic human needs are
interrelated, particularly in developing countries;
(9) developing countries will constitute the major source
of greenhouse gas emissions in the 21st century and the minor
source of increases in such emissions;
(10) any program to address the risks of climate change
that does not fully include developing nations as integral
participants will be ineffective; and
(11) a new long-term, technology-based, cost-effective,
flexible, and global strategy to ensure long-term energy
security and manage the risk of climate change is needed, and
should be promoted by the United States in its domestic and
international activities in this regard.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Title XVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13381, et seq.) is amended by inserting before section 1601
the following:
``SEC. 1600 DEFINITIONS.
``(a) Agricultural Activity.--The term `agricultural
activity' means livestock production, cropland cultivation,
biogas and other waste material recovery and nutrient
management.
``(b) Climate System.--The term ``climate system' means the
totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and
geosphere and their interactions.
``(c) Climate Change.--The term `climate change' means a
change in the state of the climate system attributed directly
or indirectly to human activity which is in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time
periods.
``(d) Emissions.--The term `emissions' means the net
release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the
atmosphere over a specified area and period of time, after
taking into account any reductions due to greenhouse gas
sequestration.
``(e) Greehouse Gases.--The term `greenhouse gases' means
those gaseous and aerosol constituents of the atmosphere,
both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and re-emit
infrared radiation.
``(f) Sequestration.--The term `sequestration' means any
process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas
or its precursor from the atmosphere or from emissions
streams.
``(g) Forest Products.--The term `forest products' means
all products or goods manufactured from trees.
``(h) Forestry Activity.--
``(1) In general.--The term `forestry activity' means any
ownership or management action that has a discernible impact
on the use and productivity of forests.
``(2) Inclusions.--Forestry activities include, but are not
limited to, the establishment of trees on an area not
previously forested, the establishment of trees on an area
previously forested if a net carbon benefit can be
demonstrated, enhanced forest management (including thinning,
stand improvement, fire protection, weed control, nutrient
application, pest management, and other silvicultural
practices), forest protection or conservation if a net carbon
benefit can be demonstrated, and production or use of biomass
energy (including the use of wood, grass or other biomass in
lieu of fossil fuel).
``(3) Exclusions.--The term `forestry activity' does not
include a land use change associated with--
``(A) an act of war; or
``(B) an act of nature, including floods, storms,
earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes.''.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY.
``(a) In General.--Section 1601 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13381) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1601. NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY.
``(a) In General.--The President, in consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies and the Congress, shall develop
and implement a national strategy to manage the risks posed
by potential climate change.
``(b) Goal.--The strategy shall be consistent with the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, done
at New York on May 9, 1992, in a manner that--
``(1) does not result in serious harm to the U.S. economy;
``(2) adequately provides for the energy security of the
U.S.;
``(3) establishes and maintains U.S. leadership with
respect to climate change-related scientific research,
development and deployment of advanced energy technology; and
``(4) will result in a reduction in the ratio that the net
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions bears to the U.S. gross
domestic production.
``(c) Elements.--The strategy shall include short-term and
long-term strategies, programs and policies that--
``(1) enhance the scientific knowledge base for
understanding and evaluation of natural and human-induced
climate change, including the role of climate feedbacks and
all climate forcing agents;
``(2) improve scientific observation, modeling, analysis
and prediction of climate change and its impacts, and the
economic, social and environmental risks posed by such
impacts;
``(3) assess the economic, social, and environmental costs
and benefits of current and potential options to reduce,
avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
``(4) develop and implement market-directed policies that
reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions,
including--
``(i) cost-effective Federal, State, tribal, and local
policies, programs, standards and incentives;
``(ii) policies and incentives to speed development,
deployment and consumer adoption of advanced energy
technologies in the U.S. and throughout the world; and
``(iii) removal of regulatory barriers that impede the
development, deployment and consumer adoption of advanced
energy technologies into the U.S. and throughout the world;
and
``(iv) participation in international institutions, or the
support of international activities, that are established or
conducted to facilitate effective measures to implement the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
``(5) advance areas where bilateral or multilateral
cooperation and investment would lead to adoption of advanced
technologies for use within developing countries to reduce,
avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
``(6) identify activities and policies that provide for
adaptation to natural and human-induced climate change;
``(7) recommend specific legislative or administrative
activities giving preference to cost-effective and
technologically feasible measures that will--
``(A) result in a reduction in the ratio that the net U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions bears to the U.S. gross domestic
product;
``(B) avoid adverse short-term and long-term economic and
social impacts on the United States; and
``(C) foster such changes in institutional and technology
systems as are necessary to
[[Page S8587]]
mitigate or adapt to climate change and its impacts in the
short-term and the long-term;
``(8) designate federal, state, tribal or local agencies
responsible for carrying out recommended activities and
programs, and identify interagency entities or activities
that may be needed to coordinate actions carried out
consistent with this strategy.
``(d) Consultation.--This strategy shall be developed in a
manner that provides for meaningful participation by, and
consultation among, Federal, State, tribal, and local
government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
academia, scientific bodies, industry, the public, and other
interested parties.
``(e) Biannual Report.--No later than one year after the
date of enactment of this section, and at the end of each
second year thereafter, the President shall submit to
Congress a report that includes--
``(1) a description of the national climate change strategy
and its goals and Federal programs and activities intended to
carry out this strategy through mitigation, adaption, and
scientific research activities;
``(2) an evaluation of Federal programs and activities
implemented as part of this strategy against the goals and
implementation dates outlined in the strategy;
``(3) a description of changes to Federal programs or
activities implemented to carry out this strategy, in light
of new knowledge of climate change and its impacts and costs
or benefits, or technological capacity to improve mitigation
or adaption activities;
``(4) a description of all Federal spending on climate
change for the current fiscal year and each of the five years
previous, categorized by Federal agency and program function
(including scientific research, energy research and
development, regulation, education and other activities);
``(5) an estimate of the budgetary impact for the current
fiscal year and each of the five years previous of any
Federal tax credits, tax deductions or other incentives
claimed by taxpayers that are directly or indirectly
attributable to greenhouse gas emissions reduction
activities; and
``(6) an estimate of the amount, in metric tons, of
greenhouse gas emissions reduced, avoided or sequestered
directly or indirectly as a result of each spending program
or tax credit, deduction, or other incentive for the current
fiscal year and each of the five years previous.
``(f) Review by National Academies.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
publication of each biannual report as directed by this
section, the President shall commission the National
Academies to conduct a review of the national climate change
strategy and implementation plan required by this section.
``(2) Criteria.--The National Academies' review shall
evaluate the goals and recommendations contained in the
national climate change strategy report in light of--
``(A) new or improved scientific knowledge regarding
climate change and its impacts;
``(B) new understanding of human social and economic
responses to climate change, and responses of natural
ecosystems to climate change;
``(C) advancements in energy technologies that reduce,
avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases or otherwise mitigate
the risks of climate change;
``(D) new or revised understanding of economic costs and
benefits of mitigation or adaption activities; and
``(E) the existence of alternative policy options that
could achieve the strategy goals at lower economic,
environmental, or social cost.
``(3) Report.--The National Academies shall prepare and
submit to Congress and the President a report concerning the
results of such review, along with any recommendations as
appropriate. Such report shall also be made available to the
public.
``(4) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `National Academies' means the National Research
Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.''.
(b) Conformng Amendment.--Section 1103(b) of the Global
Climate Protection Act of 1987 (15 U.S.C. 2901) is amended by
inserting ``, the Department of Energy, and other Federal
agencies as appropriate'' after ``Environmental Protection
Agency''.
SEC. 5. CLIMATE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
DEMONSTRATION AND DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1604 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13384) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1604. CLIMATE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
DEMONSTRATION AND DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Board established under section 2302, shall
establish a long-term Climate Technology Research,
Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Program, in
accordance with sections 3001 and 3002.
``(b) Program Objectives.--The program shall conduct a
long-term research, development, demonstration and deployment
program to foster technologies and practices that--
``(1) reduce or avoid anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases;
``(2) remove and sequester greenhouse gases from emissions
streams; and
``(3) remove and sequester greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.
``(c) Program Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and
submit to the Congress a 10-year program plan to guide
activities under this section. Thereafter, the Secretary
shall biennially update and resubmit the program plan to the
Congress. In preparing the program plan, the Secretary
shall--
``(1) include quantitative technology performance and
carbon emissions reduction goals, schedule milestones,
technology approaches, Federal funding requirements, and non-
Federal cost sharing requirements;
``(2) consult with appropriate representatives of industry,
institutions of higher education, Department of Energy
national laboratories, and professional, scientific and
technical societies;
``(3) take into consideration how the Federal Government,
acting through the Secretary, can be effective in ensuring
the availability of such technologies when they are needed
and how the Federal Government can most effectively cooperate
with the private sector in the accomplishment of the goals
set forth in subsection (b); and
``(4) consider how activities funded under the program can
be complementary to, and not duplicative of, existing
research and development activities within the Department.
``(d) Solicitation--Not later than 1 year after the date of
submission of the 10-year program plan, the Secretary shall
solicit proposals for conducting activities consistent with
the 10-year program plan and select one or more proposals not
later than 180 days after such solicitations.
``(e) Proposals--Proposals may be submitted by applicants
or consortia from industry, institutions of higher education,
or Department of Energy national laboratories. At minimum,
each proposal shall also include the following;
``(1) a multi-year management plan that outlines how the
proposed research, development, demonstration and deployment
activities will be carried out;
``(2) quantitative technology goals and greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets that can be used to measure
performance against program objectives;
``(3) the total cost of the proposal for each year in which
funding is requested, and a breakdown of those costs by
category;
``(4) evidence that the applicant has in existence or has
access to--
``(i) the technical capability to enable it to make use of
existing research support and facilities in carrying out the
research objectives of the proposal;
``(ii) a multi-disciplinary research staff experienced in
technologies or practices able to sequester, avoid, or
capture greenhouse gas emissions;
``(iii) access to facilities and equipment to enable the
conduct of laboratory-scale testing or demonstration of
technologies or related processes undertaken through the
program; and
``(iv) commitment for matching funds and other resources
from non-Federal sources, including cash, equipment,
services, materials, appropriate technology transfer
activities, and other assets directly related to the cost of
the proposal;
``(5) evidence that the proposed activities are
supplemental to, and not duplicative of, existing research
and development activities carried out, funded, or otherwise
supported by the Department;
``(6) a description of the technology transfer mechanisms
and industry partnerships that the applicant will use to make
available research results to industry and to other
researchers;
``(7) a statement whether the unique capabilities of
Department of Energy national laboratories warrant
collaboration with those laboratories, and the extent of any
such collaboration proposed; and
``(8) demonstrated evidence of the ability of the applicant
to undertake and complete the proposed project, including the
successful introduction of the technology into commerce.
``(f) Selection of Proposals.--From the proposals
submitted, the Secretary shall select for funding one or more
proposals that will best accomplish the program objectives
outlined in this section.
``(g) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and
submit an annual report to Congress that--
``(1) demonstrates that the program objectives are
adequately focused, peer-reviewed for merit, and not
unnecessarily duplicative of the science and technology
research being conducted by other Federal agencies and
programs,
``(2) states whether the program as conducted in the prior
year addresses an adequate breadth and range of technologies
and solutions to address anthropogenic climate change; and
``(3) evaluates the quantitative progress of funded
proposals toward the program objectives outlined in this
section, and the technology and greenhouse gas emission
reduction, avoidance or sequestration goals as described in
their respective proposals.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subtitle
$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, to
remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 6 of the Federal
Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5905) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, and''; and
[[Page S8588]]
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) solutions to the effective management of greenhouse
gas emissions in the long term by the development of
technologies and practices designed to--
``(A) reduce or avoid anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases;
``(B) remove and sequester greenhouse gases from emissions
streams; and
``(C) remove and sequester greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)
through (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (4) of
subsection (a)''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (R), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (S), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(T) to pursue a long-term climate technology strategy
designed to demonstrate a variety of technologies by which
stabilization of greenhouse gases might be best achieved,
including accelerated research, development, demonstration
and deployment of--
``(i) renewable energy systems;
``(ii) advanced fossil energy technology;
``(iii) advanced nuclear power plant design;
``(iv) fuel cell technology for residential, industrial and
transportation applications;
``(v) carbon sequestration practices and technologies,
including agricultural and forestry practices that store and
sequester carbon;
``(vi) efficient electrical generation, transmission and
distribution technologies; and
``(vii) efficient end use energy technologies.''.
SEC. 6. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.
Section 1608 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13387) is amended by striking subsection (l) and inserting
the following:
``(l) International Energy Technology Deployment Program.--
``(1) Definitions--In this subsection:
``(A) International energy deployment project.--The term
`international energy deployment project' means a project to
construct an energy production facility outside the United
States--
``(i) the output of which will be consumed outside the
United States; and
``(ii) the deployment of which will result in a greenhouse
gas reduction per unit of energy produced when compared to
the technology that would otherwise be implemented of--
``(I) 10 percentage points or more, in the case of a unit
placed in service before January 1, 2010;
``(II) 20 percentage points or more, in the case of a unit
placed in service after December 31, 2009, and before January
1, 2020; or
``(III) 30 percentage points or more, in the case of a unit
placed in service after December 31, 2019, and before January
1, 2030.
``(C) Qualifying international energy deployment project.--
The term `qualifying international energy deployment project'
means an international energy deployment project that--
``(i) is submitted by a United States firm to the Secretary
in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary by
regulation;
``(ii) uses technology that has been successfully developed
or deployed in the United States, or in another country as a
result of a partnership with a company based in the United
States;
``(iii) meets the criteria of subsection (k);
``(iv) is approved by the Secretary, with notice of the
approval being published in the Federal Register; and
``(v) complies with such terms and conditions as the
Secretary establishes by regulation.
``(D) United States.--The term `United States', when used
in a geographical sense, means the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
``(2) Pilot program for financial assistance.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, by regulation,
provide for a pilot program for financial assistance for
qualifying international energy deployment projects.
``(B) Selection criteria.--After consultation with the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United
States Trade Representative, the Secretary shall select
projects for participation in the program based solely on the
criteria under this title and without regard to the country
in which the project is located.
``(C) Financial assistance.--
``(i) In general.--A United States firm that undertakes a
qualifying international energy deployment project that is
selected to participate in the pilot program shall be
eligible to receive a loan or a loan guarantee from the
Secretary.
``(ii) Rate of interest.--The rate of interest of any loan
made under clause (i) shall be equal to the rate for Treasury
obligations then issued for periods of comparable maturities.
``(iii) Amount.--The amount of a loan or a loan guarantee
under clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent of the total
cost of the qualified international energy deployment
project.
``(iv) Developed countries.--Loans or loan guarantees made
for projects to be located in a developed country, as listed
in Annex I of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, shall require at least a 50-percent
contribution toward the total cost of the loan or loan
guarantee by the host country.
``(v) Developing counties.--Loans or loan guarantees made
for projects to be located in a developing country (those
countries not listed in Annex I of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change) shall require at
least a 10-percent contribution toward the total cost of
the loan or loan guarantee by the host country.
``(vi) Capacity building research.--Proposals made for
projects to be located in a developing country may include a
research component intended to build technological capacity
within the host country. Such research must be related to the
technologies being deployed and must involve both an
institution in the host country and an industry, university
or national laboratory participant from the United States.
The host institution must contribute at least 50 percent of
funds provided for the capacity building research.
``(D) Coordination with other programs.--A qualifying
international energy deployment project funded under this
section shall not be eligible as a qualifying clean coal
technology under section 415 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7651n).
``(E) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the
President and the Congress a report on the results of the
pilot projects.
``(F) Recommendation.--Not later than 60 days after
receiving the report under subparagraph (E), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a recommendation concerning whether
the financial assistance program under this section should be
continued, expanded, reduced, or eliminated.
``(G) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, to
remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 7. NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REGISTRY.
Section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13385) is amended--
(1) by amending the second sentence of subsection (a) to
read as follows: ``The Secretary shall annually update and
analyze such inventory using available data, including,
beginning in calendar year 2001, information collected as a
result of voluntary reporting under subsection (b). The
inventory shall identify for calendar year 2001 and
thereafter the amount of emissions reductions attributed to
those reported under subsection (b)'';
(2) by amending subsection (b)(1) (B) and (C) to read as
follows--
``(B) annual reductions or avoidance of greenhouse gas
emissions and carbon sequestration achieved through any
measures, including agricultural activities, co-generation,
appliance efficiency, energy efficiency, forestry activities
that increase carbon sequestration stocks (including the use
of forest products), fuel switching, management of crop
lands, grazing lands, grasslands, drylands, manufacture or
use of vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
methane recovery, ocean seeding, use of renewable energy,
chlorofluorocarbon capture and replacement, and power plant
heat rate improvement; and
``(C) reductions in, or avoidance of, greenhouse gas
emissions achieved as a result of voluntary activities
domestically, or internationally, plant or facility closings,
and State or Federal requirements.''.
(3) by striking in the first sentence of subsection (b)(2)
the word ``entities'' and inserting ``persons or entities''
and in the second sentence of such subsection, by inserting
after ``Persons'' the words ``or entities'';
(4) by inserting in the second sentence of subsection
(b)(4) the words ``persons or'' before ``entity'';
(5) by adding after subsection (b)(4) the following new
paragraphs--
``(5) Recognition of voluntary greenhouse gas emissions
reduction, avoidance, or sequestration.--To encourage new and
increased voluntary efforts to reduce, avoid, or sequester
emissions of greenhouse gases, the Secretary shall develop
and establish a program of giving annual public recognition
to all reporting persons and entities demonstrating
voluntarily achieved greenhouse gases reduction, avoidance,
or sequestration, pursuant to the voluntary collections and
reporting guidelines issued under this section. Such
recognition shall be based on the information certified,
subject to section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, by
such persons or entities for accuracy as provided in
paragraph 2 of this subsection, and shall include such
information reported prior to the enactment of this
paragraph. At a minimum such recognition shall annually be
published in the Federal Register.
``(6) Review and revision of guidelines.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary of Energy,
acting through the Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration, shall conduct a review of guidelines
established under this section regarding the accuracy and
reliability of reports of greenhouse gas reductions and
related information.
``(B) Contents.--The review shall include the consideration
of the need for any amendments to such guidelines,
including--
``(i) a random or other verification process using the
authorities available to the Secretary under other provisions
of law;
[[Page S8589]]
``(ii) a range of reference cases for reporting of project-
based activities in sectors, including the measures specified
in subparagraph (1)(B) of this subsection, and the inclusion
of benchmark and default methodologies and best practices for
use as reference cases for eligible projects;
``(iii) issues, such as comparability, that are associated
with the option of reporting on an entity-wide basis or on an
activity or project basis; and
``(iv) safeguards to address the possibility of reporting,
inadvertently or otherwise, of some or all of the same
greenhouse gas emissions reductions by more than one
reporting entity or person and to make corrections where
necessary;
``(v) provisions that encourage entities or persons to
register their certified, by appropriate and credible means,
baseline emissions levels on an annual basis, taking into
consideration all of their reports made under this section
prior to the enactment of this paragraph;
``(vi) procedures and criteria for the review and
registration of ownership of all or part of any reported and
verified emissions reductions relative to a reported baseline
emissions level under this section; and
``(vii) accounting provisions needed to allow for changes
in registration of ownership of emissions reductions
resulting from a voluntary private transaction between
reporting entities or persons.
For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ``reductions''
means any and all activities taken by a reporting entity or
person that reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas
emissions, or sequester greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
``(C) Economic analysis.--The review should consider the
costs and benefits of any such amendments, the effect of such
amendments on participation in this program, including by
farmers and small businesses, and the need to avoid creating
undue economic advantages or disadvantages for persons or
entities in the private sector. The review should provide,
where appropriate, a range of reasonable options that are
consistent with the voluntary nature of this section and that
will help further the purposes of this section.
``(D) Public comment and submission of report.--The
findings of the review shall be made available in draft form
for public comment for at least 45 days, and a report
containing the findings of the review shall be submitted to
Congress and the President no later than one year after date
of enactment of this section.
``(E) Revision of guidelines.--If the Secretary, after
consultation with the Administrator, finds, based on the
study results, that changes to the program are likely to be
beneficial and cost effective in improving the accuracy and
reliability of reported greenhouse gas reductions and related
information, are consistent with the voluntary nature of this
section, and further the purposes of this section, the
Secretary shall propose and promulgate changes to program
guidelines based with such findings. In carrying out the
provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary shall consult
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration to encourage greater
participation by small business and farmers in addressing
greenhouse gas emission reductions and reporting such
reductions.
``(F) Periodic review and revision of guidelines.--The
Secretary shall thereafter review and revise these guidelines
at least once every 5 years, following the provisions for
economic analysis, public review, and revision set forth in
subsections (C) through (E) of this section.''.
(6) in subsection (c), by inserting ``the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Department of
Commerce, the Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration, and'' before ``the
Administrator''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Public Awareness Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall create and implement
a public awareness program to educate all persons in the
United States of--
``(A) the direct benefits of engaging in voluntary
greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures and having the
emissions reductions certified under this section and
available for use therein; and
``(B) the ease of use of the forms and procedures for
having emissions reductions certified under this section.
``(2) Agricultural and small business outreach.--The
Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall assist the Secretary in
creating and implementing a targeted public awareness program
to encourage voluntary participation by small businesses and
farmers.''.
SEC. 8. REVIEW OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--Title XVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(42 U.S.C. 13381 et seq.) is amended by adding the following
new section:
``SEC. 1610. REVIEW OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) Department of energy Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review annually all
federally funded research and development activities carried
out with respect to energy technology; and submit to a report
to Congress by October 15 of each year.
``(2) Assessment of technology readiness and barriers to
deployment.--As part of this review, the Secretary shall--
``(A) assess the status and readiness (including the
potential commercialization) of each energy technology and
any regulatory or market barriers to deployment;
``(B) consider--
``(i) the length of time it will take for deployment and
use of the energy technology and for the technology to have a
meaningful impact on emission reductions;
``(ii) the cost of deploying the energy technology; and
``(iii) the safety of the energy technology;
``(C) assess the available resource base for any energy
resources used by the energy technology, and the potential
for expanded sustainable use of the resource base; and
``(D) recommend to Congress any changes in law or
regulation deemed appropriate by the Secretary to hasten
deployment and use of the energy technology.
(b) Energy Technology Research and Development
Clearinghouse.--The Secretary shall establish an information
clearinghouse to facilitate the transfer and dissemination of
the results of federally funded research and development
activities being carried out on energy technology subject to
any restrictions or safeguards established for national
security or the protection of intellectual property rights
(including trade secrets and confidential business
information protected under section 552(b)(4) of title 5,
United States Code).''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776) is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 1609 the
following:
``Sec. 1610. Review of federally funded energy technology research and
development.''.
SEC. 9. OFFICE OF APPLIED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY AND GREENHOUSE
GAS-MANAGEMENT.
Section 1603 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13383) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1603. OFFICE OF APPLIED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established by this section
in the Department of Energy an Office of Applied Energy
Technology and Greenhouse Gas Management.
``(b) Function.--The Office shall--
``(1) establish appropriate quantitative performance and
deployment goals for energy technologies that reduce, avoid,
or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases, provided that
such goals are consistent with any national climate change
strategy;
``(2) manage domestic and international energy technology
demonstration and deployment programs for energy technologies
that reduce, avoid or sequester emissions of greenhouse
gases, including those authorized under this title; provided
that such programs supplement and do not replace existing
energy research and development activities within the
Department;
``(3) facilitate the development of domestic and
international cooperative research and development agreements
(as that term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a(d)(1))), or similar cooperative, cost-shared
partnerships with non-Federal organizations to accelerate the
rate of domestic and international demonstration and
deployment of energy technologies that reduce, avoid or
sequester emissions of greenhouse gases;
``(4) conduct necessary programs of monitoring,
experimentation, and analysis of the technological,
scientific, and economic viability of energy technologies
that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
and
``(5) coordinate issues, policies, and activities for the
Department regarding climate change and related energy
matters pursuant to this title, and coordinate the issuance
of such reports as may be required under this title.
``(c) Director.--The Secretary shall appoint a director of
the Office, who--
``(1) shall report to the Secretary;
``(2) shall be compensated at no less than level IV of the
Executive Schedule; and
``(3) at the request of the Committees of the Senate and
House of Representatives with appropriation and legislative
jurisdiction over programs and activities of the Department
of Energy, shall report to Congress on the activities of the
Office.
``(d) Duties.--The Director shall, in addition to
performing all functions necessary to carry out the functions
of the Office--
``(1) in the absence of the Secretary's representative for
interagency and multilateral policy discussions of global
climate change, including the activities of the Committee on
Earth and Environmental Sciences as established by the Global
Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2921 et seq.);
``(2) participate, in cooperation with other federal
agencies, in the development and monitoring of domestic and
international policies for their effects on any kind of
climate change globally and domestically and on the
generation, reduction, avoidance, and sequestration of
greenhouse gases;
``(3) develop and implement a balanced, scientific, non-
advocacy educational and informational public awareness
program on--
``(A) potential climate change, including any known adverse
and beneficial effects on the United States and the economy
of the United States and the world economy, taking into
consideration whether those effects
[[Page S8590]]
are known or expected to be temporary, long-term, or
permanent;
``(B) the role of national energy policy in the
determination of current and future emissions of greenhouse
gases, particularly measures that develop advanced energy
technologies, improve energy efficiency, or expand the use of
renewable energy or alternative fuels; and
``(C) the development of voluntary means and measures to
mitigate or minimize significant adverse effects of climate
change and, where appropriate, to adapt, to the greatest
extent practicable, to climate change;
``(4) provide, consistent with applicable provisions of
law, public access to all information on climate change,
effects of climate change, and adaptation to climate change;
and
``(5) in accordance with all law administered by the
Secretary and other applicable Federal law and contracts,
including patent and intellectual property laws, and in
furtherance of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change--
``(i) identify for, and transfer, deploy, diffuse, and
apply to, Parties to such Convention, including the United
States, any technologies, practices, or processes which
reduce, avoid, or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases if
such technologies, practices or processes have been developed
with funding from the Department of Energy or any of its
facilities or laboratories; and
``(ii) support reasonable efforts by the Parties to such
convention, including the United States, to identify and
remove legal, trade, financial, and other barriers to the use
and application of any technologies, practices, or processes
which reduce, avoid, or sequester emissions of greenhouse
gases.''.
SEC. 10. COORDINATION OF GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH.
(a) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term--
(1) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Earth and
Environmental Sciences established under Section 102 of the
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2933).
(2) ``Program'' means the United States Global Change
Research Program established under Section 103 of the Global
Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2933).
(b) Coordination of Climate Observation Activities.--At the
direction of the Committee, the Director of the Program shall
develop and implement activities within the Program that--
(1) coordinate system design and implementation and
operation of a multi-user, multi-purpose long-term climate
observing system for the measurement and monitoring of
relevant climatic variables;
(2) carry out basic research, development and deployment of
innovative scientific techniques and instruments (both in-
situ and space-based) for measurement and monitoring of
relevant climatic variables;
(3) coordinate Program activities to ensure the integrity
and continuity of data records; including--
(i) calibration and inter-comparison of multiple
instruments that measure the same climatic variable or set of
variables;
(ii) backup instruments to ensure data record continuity;
and
(iii) documentation of changes in instruments, observing
practices, observing locations, sampling rates, processing
algorithms and other changes;
(4) establish ongoing activities for the development,
implementation, operation and management of climate-specific
observational programs, with special emphasis on activities
that seek the most efficient and reliable means of observing
the climate system;
(5) coordinate activities of the Program that contribute to
the design, implementation, operation, and data management
activities of international climate system observation
networks; and
(6) establish and maintain a free and openly accessible
national data management system for the storage, maintenance,
and archival of climate observation data, with an emphasis on
facilitating access to, use of and interpretation of such
data by the scientific research community and the public.
(c) Coordination of Climate Modeling Activities.--At the
direction of the Committee, the Director of the Program shall
develop and implement activities within the Program that--
(1) establish and periodically revise a national climate
system modeling strategy designed to position the United
States as a world leader in all aspects of climate system
modeling;
(2) coordinate Program activities designed to carry out
such a national climate system modeling strategy;
(3) carry out basic research, development and deployment of
innovative computational techniques for climate system
modeling;
(4) develop the intellectual and computational capacity to
carry out climate system modeling activities to assess the
potential consequences of climate change on the United
States;
(5) carry out the continued development and inter-
comparison of United States climate models with special
emphasis on activities that--
(i) establish the ability of United States climate models
so successfully reproduce the historical climate
observational record;
(ii) incorporate new climate system processes or improve
spatial or temporal resolution of climate model simulations;
(iii) develop standardized tools and structures for climate
model output, evaluation and programming design;
(iv) improve the accuracy and completeness of supporting
data sets used to drive climate models; and
(v) reduce uncertainty in assessments of climate change and
its impacts on the United States;
(6) coordinate activities of the Program that contribute to
the design, implementation, operation, and data analysis
activities of international climate system modeling inter-
comparisons and assessments; and
(7) establish and maintain a free and openly accessible
national data management system for the storage, maintenance,
and archival of climate model code, auxiliary data, and
results, with an emphasis on facilitating access to, use of
and interpretation of such data by the scientific research
community and the public.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004, to remain available
until expended, and thereafter such sums as are necessary.
(e) Use of Existing Infrastructure.--In carrying out new
activities under subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the
Program shall, where possible, use and incorporate existing
Program activities and resources, such as Program Working
Groups.
____
Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001 Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1--Short Title
Section 2--Findings
Section 3--Definitions
Section 4--National Climate Change Strategy
Amends Section 1601 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
require the President, in consultation with Federal agencies
and the Congress, to develop a national strategy to manage
the risks posed by potential climate change. The goal of such
strategy would be to implement the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change in a manner that 1. does not cause serious
harm to the U.S. economy; 2. establishes and maintains U.S.
leadership in scientific research and technology development;
and 3. results in annual net reductions of U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions as measured against the U.S. gross domestic
production. Requires a biannual report to Congress on the
strategy and programs to implement the strategy, following
review and evaluation of the strategy by the National
Academies in light of new information on the science,
technology, or economics of climate change.
Section 5--Climate Technology Research, Development, and
Demonstration Program
Amends Section 1604 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
establish a new energy technology program within the
Department of Energy to further development and deployment of
technologies to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas
emissions. Authorizes $2 billion over ten years for
competitive multi-year grant awards that foster development
and deployment of existing and new energy efficient, fossil,
nuclear, renewable and sequestration technologies.
Section 6--International Energy Technology Deployment Program
Establishes a new international energy technology
deployment pilot program under Section 1608 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 to assist developing countries in meeting
development goals with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Authorizes $1 billion over ten years for loans or loan
guarantees to be made to firms or consortia that construct
energy production facilities outside the United States,
provided such facilities result in gains in energy efficiency
and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions relative to
existing technologies.
Section 7--National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Registry
Amends Section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
provide for development of national registry of greenhouse
gas emissions baselines and actions to voluntarily reduce
emissions. Modeled after several state initiatives already
under way, this section provides for the Secretary of Energy
to initiate a stakeholder-led process to develop new
guidelines for the existing voluntary emissions reduction
reporting system (``1605(b)'') that improve the accuracy and
reliability of voluntary reports made to this program,
establish consistent reporting procedures and independent
verification, and allow for registration of emissions
baselines and emissions reductions made against such
baselines. Includes provisions to encourage participation by
small businesses and farmers. Upon completion of review of
guidelines, provides for public comment and revision of
guidelines if cost-effective.
Section 8--Review of Federally Funded Energy Technology
Research and Development
Adds a new Section 1610 to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
provide for a regular review of federally funded energy
technology research and development, including the programs
authorized in this bill. The review will consider cost,
safety, resource availability, technology readiness,
including potential for commercial application, and barriers
to deployment in widespread use. Also establishes an ``Energy
Technology R&D Clearinghouse'' to disseminate to the private
sector and the public information on energy technology
research and development activities within the Department of
Energy, as well as technologies available for deployment
through public-private partnerships.
[[Page S8591]]
Section 9--Office of Applied Energy Technology and Greenhouse
Gas Management
Amends Section 1603 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
create a new office within the Department of Energy to manage
applied energy technology activities, public-private
partnerships, and activities to reduce, avoid, or sequester
greenhouse gases. In addition to administering the programs
authorized by this bill, the Office will supplement existing
activities of the Department by working to increase the rate
at which new energy technologies are applied, developed and
deployed for widespread use. The Office will also function to
coordinate domestic and international cooperative energy
research, development, demonstration and deployment
activities within the Department and participate in
interagency activities with respect to climate change
research and technology programs.
Section 10--Coordination of Global Change Research
Provides the Director of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP) with new authority for the purposes of
coordinating and strengthening scientific research with
respect to climate observation systems and climate modeling,
as suggested by recent National Academy reports on the state
of U.S. climate change research. Authorizes $50 million in
new funding for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004, and
such sums as are necessary thereafter. Requires that the
Program utilize where possible existing Working Groups and
other resources in laboratory activities.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators
Frank Murkowski and Larry Craig today I introducing legislation that
takes a comprehensive approach to domestic efforts on climate change.
This legislation provides a forward-looking, balanced approach to
address the challenge of climate change. There's a lot we can do, and
this legislation lays out a comprehensive approach that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions without damaging the U.S. economy. It provides
an incentive-based, market oriented framework that will produce
results. It focuses on developing advanced technologies to reduce,
sequester or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies are the
long term answer to this challenge. And it focuses our scientific
research in this area.
Specifically, the Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001 provides
for: a national climate change strategy; new funding to advance the
research, development and deployment of new technologies to reduce,
avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions $2 billion over 10 years;
the creation of a national registry of voluntary actions that have been
taken to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions; a pilot
program to assist in the exports of advanced technology to developing
countries, $1 billion over 10 years for a loan program; better
coordination of federal scientific research; an office in the
Department of Energy to coordinate the R&D efforts for new
technologies, that is accountable to the Secretary, the President and
the Congress.
This legislation is very consistent with the approach presented by
President Bush and builds on the efforts that Senators Murkowski,
Craig, and I--along with Senator Byrd and others--have pursued for some
time to advance our efforts in the area of climate change. I am pleased
that Senators Pete Domenici, Pat Roberts, and Christopher Bond are also
original cosponsors of this legislation.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
S. 1295. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to revise the
requirements for procurement of products of Federal Prison Industries
to meet needs for Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Craig Thomas in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition
in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it
is unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny citizens in the private
sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government.
I repeat: the bill that we are introducing today, if enacted, would
do nothing more than permit private sector companies to compete for
Federal contracts that are paid for with their tax dollars. It may seem
incredible that they are denied this opportunity today, but that is the
law, because if Federal Prison Industries says that it wants a
contract, it gets that contract, regardless whether a company in the
private sector may offer to provide the product better, cheaper, and
faster.
This bill would not limit the ability of Federal Prison Industries to
sell its products to Federal agencies. It would simply say that these
sales should be made on a competitive, rather than a sole-source basis.
FPI also has a significant advantage in any competition with the
private sector, since FPI pays inmates less than two dollars an hour,
far below the minimum wage and a small fraction of the wage paid to
most private sector workers in competing industries. And of course, the
taxpayers provide a direct subsidy to Federal Prison Industries
products by picking up the cost of feeding, clothing, and housing the
inmates who provide the labor. Given those advantages, there is no
reason why we should still require Federal agencies to purchase
products from FPI even when they are more expensive and of a lower
quality than competing commercial items. I can think of no reason why
private industry should be prohibited from competing for these Federal
agency contracts.
We have made several changes to this bill since it was introduced in
the 106th Congress. The three new sections are intended to address new
abuses by FPI that have arisen in the last few years: section 3 of the
bill would prohibit FPI from granting prison workers access to
classified information or information that is protected under the
Privacy Act; section 4 of the bill would clarify that private sector
businesses and their employees must be permitted to compete for federal
subcontracts as well as prime contracts; and section 5 of the bill
would clarify that the general prohibition on sales of prison-made
goods into private commerce is also intended to apply to sales of
services.
These changes should strengthen the bill and reinforce its underlying
intent.
Federal Prison Industries has repeatedly claimed that it provides a
quality product at a price that is competitive with current market
prices. Indeed, the Federal Prison Industries statute requires them to
do so. That statute states that FPI may provide to Federal agencies
products that ``meet their requirements'' at price that do not ``exceed
current market prices''.
Yet, FPI remains unwilling to compete with private sector businesses
and their employees, or even to permit Federal agencies to compare
their products and prices with those available in the private sector.
Indeed, FPI has tried to prohibit Federal agencies from conducting
market research, as they would ordinarily do, to determine whether the
price and quality or FPI products is comparable to what is available in
the commercial marketplace. Instead, Federal agencies are directed to
contact FPI, which acts as the sole arbiter of whether the product
meets the agency's requirements.
The reason for FPI's position is obvious: it is much easier to gain
market share by fiat than it is to compete for business. Under FPI's
current interpretation of the law, it need not offer the best product
at the best price; it is sufficient for it to offer an adequate product
at an adequate price, and insist upon its right to make the sale.
Indeed, FPI currently advertises that it offers Federal agencies ``ease
in purchasing'' through ``a procurement with no bidding necessary.''
The result of the FPI's status as a mandatory source is not unlike
the result of other sole-source contracting: the taxpayers frequently
pay too much and receive an inferior product for their money. When FPI
sets its prices, it does not even attempt to match the best price
available in the commercial sector; instead, it claims to have charged
a ``market price'' whenever it can show that at least some vendors in
the private sector charges as high a price. As GAO reported in August
1998, ``The only limit the law imposes on FPI's price is that it may
not exceed the upper end of the current market price range.''
The result is frustrating to private sector businesses and their
employees who are denied an opportunity to complete for Federal
business, as well as to the Federal agencies who are forced to buy FPI
products. One letter that I received from a frustrated vendor stated
with regard to UNICOR--the trade name used by Federal Prison
Industries:
[[Page S8592]]
If the Air Force would purchase a completed unit as
described in UNICOR's solicitation directly from a . . .
manufacturer we estimate the cost will be approximately
$6,500. UNICOR is going to purchase a kit for $9,259 and add
their assembly and administrative costs to the unit. If
UNICOR only adds $1,500 to the total cost of the unit, it
will cost the Air Force $10,759. This is 66 percent higher
than the current market price. If the Air Force purchases
8,000 units over the next five years it will cost the
taxpayers an additional $34,072,000 over what it would cost
if they dealt directly with a manufacturer.
A letter from a second frustrated vendor stated, also with regard to
UNICOR:
UNICOR bid on this item and simply because UNICOR did bid,
I was told that the award had to be given to UNICOR. UNICOR
won the bid at $45 per unit. My company bid $22 per unit. The
way I see it, the government just overspend my tax dollars to
the tune of $1,978. The total amount of my bid was less than
that. Do you seriously believe that this type or procurement
is cost-effective?
I lost business, and my tax dollars were misused because of
unfair procurement practices mandated by federal regulations.
This is a prime example, and I am certain not the only one,
of how the procurement system is being misused and small
businesses in this country are being excluded from
competition, with the full support of federal regulations and
the seeming approval of Congress. It is far past the time to
curtail this `company' known as Federal Prison Industries and
require them to be competitive for the benefit of all
taxpayers.
I am a strong supporter of the idea of putting federal inmates to
work. I understand that a strong prison work program not only reduces
inmate idleness and prison disruption, but can also help build a work
ethic, provide job skills, and enable prisoners to return to product
society upon their release.
However, I believe that a prison work program must be conducted in a
manner that is sensitive to the need not to unfairly eliminate the jobs
of hard-working citizens who have not committed crimes. FPI will be
able to achieve this result only if it diversifies its product lines
and avoids the temptation to build its workforce by continuing to
displace private sector jobs in its traditional lines of work. For this
reason, I have been working since 1990 to try to help Federal Prison
Industries to identify new markets that it can expand into without
displacing private sector jobs, with a particular emphasis on markets
for products that are currently imported.
Avoiding competition is the easy way out, but it isn't the right way
for FPI, it isn't the right way for the private sector workers whose
jobs FPI is taking, and it isn't the right way for the taxpayer, who
will continue to pay more and get less as a result of the mandatory
preference for FPI goods. We need to have jobs for prisoners, but can
no longer afford to allow FPI to designate whose jobs it will take, and
when it will take them. Competition will be better for FPI, better for
the taxpayer, and better for working men and women around the country.
The fight to allow private industry to compete against Federal Prison
Industries is far from over, but I am optimistic that it can be won in
this Congress.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin
in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit government
competition with the private sector. Senator Levin and I propose to
eliminate the mandatory contracting requirement that Federal agencies
are subject to when it comes to products made by the Federal Prison
Industries, FPI. Under law, all Federal agencies are required to
purchase products made by the FPI. Simply put, this bill will require
the FPI to compete with the private sector for Federal contracts.
Currently, the FPI employs approximately 22,000 Federal prisoners or
roughly 20 percent of all Federal prisoners. These prisoners are
responsible for producing a diverse range of products for the FPI,
ranging from office furniture to clothing. The remaining 80 percent of
Federal prisoners, who work, do so in and around Federal prisons.
While Senator Levin and I believe that it is important to keep
prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly
harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to
minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with
the FPI.
The FPI's mandatory source requirement not only undercuts private
business throughout America, but its mandatory source preference
oftentimes costs American tax payers more money. I believe American
taxpayers would be alarmed to learn of the preferential treatment that
the FPI enjoys when it comes to Federal contracts.
As I said before, Senator Levin and I support the goal of keeping
prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. However, if we allow
competition in Federal contracts, the FPI will be required to focus its
efforts in product areas that don't unfairly compete with the private
sector. Clearly, competitive bidding is a reasonable process that will
ensure taxpayer's dollars are being spent justly.
Of particular note, our bill allows contracting officers, within each
Federal agency, the ability to select the FPI for contracts if he/she
believes that the FPI can meet that particular agency's requirements
and the product is offered at a fair and reasonable price. Currently,
the FPI prohibits Federal agencies from conducting market research to
determine whether the price and quality of its products is comparable
to those available in the private sector. The above outlined provision
in our bill seeks to place the control of government procurement in the
hands of contracting officers, rather than in the hands of the FPI.
In addition to establishing a competitive procedure for the
procurement of products, we include a provision that allows the
Attorney General to grant a waiver to this process if a particular
contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration
of a particular prison.
I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts
our bill will save tax dollars. As Congress looks for additional cost
saving practices, the elimination of the FPI's mandatory source
preference will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost
savings, but also a streamlining of the FPI's products.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 1296. A bill to provide for the protection of the due process
rights of United States citizens (including United States
servicemembers) before foreign tribunals, including the International
Criminal Court, for the prosecution of war criminals, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Nuremberg Trial of the leading Nazi
war criminals following World War II was a landmark in the struggle to
deter and punish crimes of war and genocide, setting the stage for the
Geneva and Genocide Conventions. It was also largely an American
initiative. Justice Robert Jackson's team drove the process of drafting
the indictments, gathering the evidence and conducting this
extraordinary case.
My father, Thomas J. Dodd, served as Executive Trial Counsel at
Nuremberg, it was among his proudest accomplishments. But it was also
part of a common theme that ran through a lifetime of public service.
He believed that America had a special role to help make the rule of
law relevant in every corner of the globe. I believe that he would have
endorsed President Clinton's decision to sign the Rome Statute last
December on behalf of the United States. President Clinton did so
knowing full well that much work remains to be done before the United
States can become a party to the U.N. convention establishing an
International Criminal Court, ICC.
The Bush administration is currently reviewing its options with
respect to the Rome Statute and with respect to the ongoing preparatory
work that is necessary to make the court operational once sixty parties
have ratified. The so called American Service-
members' Protection Act of 2001 sponsored by Senators Helms and
Congressman DeLay in the Senate and House, respectively, if enacted
into law, will severely limit the Bush administration's options for
interacting with our friends and allies about issues directly related
to the ICC, as well as have a major impact on possible United States
participation in the ICC at some date in the future. Among other
things, their legislation would prevent the U.S. from helping to
prosecute war criminals before the ICC even on a case-by-case basis.
Elie Wiesel has written that this legislation would erase America's
Nuremberg legacy ``by
[[Page S8593]]
ensuring that the U.S. will never again join the community of nations
to hold accountable those who commit war crimes and genocide. A vote
for this legislation would signal U.S. acceptance of impunity for the
world's worst atrocities.''
That is why I am introducing ``The American Citizens Protection and
War Criminal Prosecution Act of 2001.'' The American Citizens
Protection Act, today in the Senate to both protect America's Nuremberg
legacy while at the same time safeguarding the rights of American
citizens brought before foreign tribunals. My friend and House
colleague, William Delahunt of Massachusetts is also introducing a
companion bill in the House today. Our bill calls for active U.S.
diplomatic efforts to ensure that the ICC functions properly, mandates
the assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over American citizens and bars the
surrender of U.S. citizens to the ICC once the United States has acted.
Unlike the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, however, The
American Citizens Protection Act allows the United States to help
prosecute war criminals and it does not effectively end U.S.
participation in U.N. peacekeeping or authorize going to war to obtain
the release of certain persons detained by the ICC.
I believe that the bill that has been introduced today in the House
and Senate strikes the right balance between protecting our citizens
and our men and women in the armed forces who may be traveling or
deployed abroad, and preserving United States leadership and advocacy
of universal adherence to principles of international justice and the
rule of law. I hope that the Bush administration will review carefully
provisions of this bill, because I believe taken together they address
the administration's concerns about the Rome Statute without doing
damage to our national interest or future foreign policy objectives. I
look forward to working with Administration officials and with my
colleagues on this important issue in the coming weeks.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Reed):
S. 1297. A bill to require comprehensive health insurance coverage
for childhood immunization; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to kick off National
Immunization Awareness Month by introducing legislation to expand
access to affordable childhood and adolescent immunizations. I am
pleased that my colleague, Senator Reed, joins me in this initiative.
Immunization against vaccine-preventable disease is perhaps the most
powerful health care and public health achievement of the 20th Century.
Remarkable advances in the science of vaccine development and
widespread immunization efforts have led to a substantial reduction in
the incidence of infectious disease. Today, vaccination coverage is at
record high levels. Smallpox has been eradicated; polio has been
eliminated from the Western Hemisphere; and measles, pertussis and Hib
invasive disease have been reduced to record lows.
The bill I introduce today builds on these successes. ``The
Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act of
2001,'' ensures that all health plans cover the recommended childhood
and adolescent immunizations. This improvement is simple, it is cost
effective, and it is long overdue.
More than 3.6 million children currently insured in the private
sector are not covered for the recommended immunizations. Millions more
have partial insurance for some of the recommended vaccines, but not
all. Even if private coverage is complete, cost-sharing may be a
significant barrier for many families.
A number of reputable studies confirm these statistics. The Institute
of Medicine found in its report of last year that ``While most private
health plans provide some form of immunization coverage, this coverage
varies by type of plan, as well as by vaccine. Enrollment in a private
plan does not guarantee that immunizations will be provided as a plan
benefit.'' Results from a 1999 William M. Mercer/Partnership for
Prevention survey of employer sponsored health plans found that about
one of five employer-sponsored plans does not cover childhood
immunizations, and out of four does not cover adolescent immunizations.
And researchers at the George Washington University recently collected
data on the immunization coverage policies of five health care
companies, four national and one regional, that suggest significant
variation by type of plan, as well as by vaccine.
The States have enacted some requirements to address these gaps in
coverage, albeit limited. Only about 28 states have laws requiring that
insurers cover childhood immunizations to some degree. Coverage
standards vary considerably from state to state. And, as we know,
employers that self-insure are generally exempt from state insurance
regulation under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Approximately 50 million private-insured individuals are covered by
self-insured plans.
These gaps are not insignificant. The private sector is a critical
partner in vaccine delivery. Almost half, 45 percent, of all vaccine is
delivered in the private sector. Certainly most health plans do provide
some immunization coverage, but there is a just no reason why every
child who has private insurance should not have access to such a basic,
essential benefit. This is not only a flaw in our health system, it is
simply illogical and irresponsible.
This is the 21st Century. We have long since learned how important
immunizations are to the health of children and adolescents and to
entire communities. At the beginning of the 20th century, infectious
diseases were widely prevalent in the United States and exacted an
enormous toll on the population. For example, in 1900, 21,064 smallpox
cases were reported, and 894 patients died. In 1920, 469,924 measles
cases were reported, and 7,575 patients died; 147,991 diphtheria cases
were reported, and 13,170 patients died. In 1922, 107,473 pertussis
cases were reported, and 5,099 patients died. Today these numbers are
unheard of, and overall U.S. vaccination coverage is at record high
levels.
But despite the dramatic declines in vaccine-preventable diseases,
such diseases persist, particularly in developing countries but also in
our own.
Just this past June, the Chicago Sun Times reported that a new study
found ``distressingly low'' vaccination rates in a South Side Chicago
neighborhood of Englewood. Twenty-six percent of children under the age
of three have not been vaccinated for measles in this community. In
1999, the measles preschool vaccination rate for all of Chicago was 86
percent, down from 90 percent in 1996. In many pockets of the city,
such as Englewood, rates are much lower than average. It was just a
little over a decade ago that such low vaccination rates led to an
epidemic of the highly contagious disease. In 1990 there were more than
4,200 cases of measles and 15 deaths in the Chicago area.
It is also important to keep in mind that an estimated 11,000
children are born each day in the United States. Every year,
approximately 170,000 of these babies are born into families with
private health insurance that does not cover immunizations. Each one of
these children needs up to 20 doses of vaccine by age two to be
protected against childhood diseases.
We must remain vigilant. Insuring universal age-appropriate vaccine
coverage requires a strong and consistent partnership among State,
local and Federal Governments, vaccine industry leaders, private and
public health insurers and policymakers. From the beginning,
immunization financing was explicitly structured to be a Federal/State/
private-sector partnership. In 1955, under President Eisenhower, the
Federal Government began Federal funding for immunization when he
signed the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Act. This support was
expanded in the 1960's under Kennedy when the Vaccination Assistance
Act created the National Immunization Program at CDC. Over the years,
Federal support for vaccine purchase and assistance to states for
immunization activities has grown.
Today, Federal and State grants, the State Children's Health
Insurance Program, the Vaccines for Children's Program and private-
sector health plans and providers together provide a comprehensive
approach to get our Nation's children immunized. This system
[[Page S8594]]
is the result of a concerted effort to fill in the gaps in coverage.
But the system must adapt to new science and new social conditions.
Shifting finance patterns require all partners to adapt to minimize
system instability. For example, last year, after the Institute of
Medicine reported that Federal funding has waned and that the public
system was becoming increasingly unstable, Congress increased the
appropriation for immunization infrastructure and vaccine purchase
grants.
The public system cannot do it alone. Maintaining high immunization
rates is a public health responsibility that must be shared by both the
public and private sector. Most Americans rely on a system of insurance
for their care. Most children today receive their immunization services
from private-sector providers.
The National Vaccine Advisory Committee, the Institute of Medicine
and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended that all health
plans should offer first-dollar coverage for recommended childhood
vaccines. The provisions of this bill have been supported by a broad
coalition of groups for many years, including Every Child by Two, the
Children's Defense Fund, the American Public Health Association and
Partnership for Prevention. Yet still today, many health plans and
insurers do not cover all immunizations fully as a covered benefit.
The Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act
implements these long-standing recommendations by requiring all health
plans--including groups, individual, and ERISA--cover all vaccines for
children and adolescents that are recommended by the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices. The Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices' recommendations are the standard of care. It is the
Committee's Congressionally-mandated job to provide advice and guidance
to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, on the most effective means to
prevent vaccine-preventable diseases.
The Act also directs that health plans cover immunizations without a
copayment or deductible. Out-of-pocket costs have been identified as a
barrier to proper immunization. In 2001, the cost of fully immunizing
one child is approximately $627, with almost half of that cost
resulting from the newly-recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
series. New vaccines and new combination vaccines currently under
development will significantly increase this cost in the future. The
U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services found that reducing
out-of-pocket costs can result in increases in vaccination coverage by
improving availability of vaccines and increasing demand for
vaccinations. More than a dozen studies have documented the
effectiveness of reducing out-of-pocket costs and the resulting
improvement in vaccination outcomes.
Another obvious barrier to appropriate immunization is the lack of
private coverage itself. Studies have shown that providers are more
likely to refer children with less private insurance coverage to other
sites for vaccination, and referral practices are known to have an
adverse effect on both the timing and the rate of immunization. Service
utilization studies within public health clinics indicate that some
low-income parents use public clinics because of the reduced cost, even
though they might prefer to receive immunizations from regular private
providers. This certainly places an unfair burden on parents who have
to take their children to different sites for care. It makes it even
harder for families to keep track of their children's complicated
immunization schedule. And it may result in missed opportunities to
immunize children who are lacking needed shots. Studies of the
implementation of the Vaccines for Children Program have indicated that
referrals to health departments decrease when free vaccines are
provided to private providers, suggesting that both parents and
providers take advantage of the free vaccines. The Comprehensive
Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act will help parents
avoid unnecessary referrals due to lack of coverage or financial
barriers and retain their child's medical home.
This practice of referral to public clinics also shifts the cost of
vaccinating children from the private sector to taxpayers. Through the
Federal Vaccines for Children Program, children with health insurance
that does not cover immunization may receive vaccines at a Federally
Qualified Health Center or a Rural Health Clinic. Vaccines at these
clinics are also supported by federal grants to states for vaccine
purchase through the Federal discretionary National Immunization
program. States also fund the purchase and distribution of vaccines.
When the private sector fails--the public sector picks up the tab.
For this reason, the Congressional Budget Office found that this
legislation will increase the budget surplus by $70 million dollars
over five years and $150 million dollars over 10 years. This savings is
somewhat offset by the reduction in Federal tax receipts, but still
saves $20 million over five years and costs less than $35 million over
10 years. There is no doubt that the States would see similar savings.
Many States contribute up to 30 percent of the public sector vaccine
purchase bill. This means that State funds, like Federal funds, are
picking up the tab for kids with private insurance. And the CBO found
that the new requirement would have a negligible effect on health
insurance premiums, increasing premium costs, if at all, by no more
than 0.1 percent.
Private providers should find comprehensive childhood vaccination
cost-effective as well. Immunizations are one of the rare health
services that have been proven to save money. The Measles-Mumps
Rubella, MMR, vaccine saves $10.30 in direct medical costs for every $1
dollar invested. The diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis DTP
vaccine saves $8.50 for every $1 dollar spent. The Haemophilus
influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine saves $1.40 per dollar. The Inactivated
Polio Vaccine, IPV, saves $3.03 for every $1 dollar investment. These
figure are all direct medical savings.
It is rare that we have policy decisions that are this easy to make.
The Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act will
help millions of working families afford the immunization they need to
protect their children. It represents a shared responsibility that we
all have to our communities. Like safe food and clean water, high
immunization rates safeguard all of us. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation and to act promptly to pass it on behalf of American
families.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Biden
and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1298. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide individuals with disabilities and older Americans with equal
access to community-based attendant services and supports, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, just a few days ago, the Nation
celebrated the 11th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
ADA. When we passed the ADA, we told Americans with disabilities that
the door to equal opportunity was finally open.
And the ADA has opened doors of opportunity, plenty of them.
Americans with disabilities now expect to be treated as full citizens,
with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. And they are
participating in American life like never before in our Nation's
history.
Indeed, eleven years after the passing of the ADA we have a lot to
celebrate.
But we also have a lot of work to do. We need to make sure our
Federal policies further the principle of independence for all that we
agreed on eleven ago. For example, a few years ago Congress recognized
that in order for people with disabilities to join the workforce, we
would need to remove the disincentives to work embedded in our Medicaid
and Social Security statutes. After passage of the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives bill, people with disabilities should no longer have to
choose between going to work and receiving necessary health care
services.
Today, Senator Specter and I introduce a bill that reflects another
policy I am sure we can all agree on. In order to go work or live in
their own homes, Americans with disabilities and older Americans need
access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under
current Federal Medicaid
[[Page S8595]]
policy, the deck is stacked against community living. The purpose of
our bill is to level the playing field and give eligible individuals
equal access to community-based services and supports.
The Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act does
three things. First, the bill amends Title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide a new Medicaid plan benefit that would give individuals
who are eligible for nursing home and ICF-MR services equal access to
community-based attendant services and supports.
Second, for a limited time, States would have the opportunity to
receive an enhanced match rate for community attendant services and
supports and for certain administrative activities to help them reform
their long term care systems.
Third, the bill provides State with financial assistance to support
``real choice systems change initiatives'' that include specific action
steps for the provision of community-based long term community services
and supports.
Finally, the bill establishes a demonstration project to evaluate
service coordination and cost sharing approaches with respect to the
provision of services and supports to daily eligible individuals with
disabilities under the age of 65.
States are already out ahead of us here in Washington on this issue.
Spending under the Medicaid home and community based waiver program has
grown tenfold in the past ten years. Every State offers certain
services under home and community based waivers. Almost 30 States are
now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid
programs. More than 2\1/2\ times more people are served in home and
community-based settings than in institutional settings.
The States have realized that community based care is both popular
and cost effective, and community-based attendant services and supports
are a key component of a successful program.
However, despite this marked progress, home and community based
services are unevenly distributed within and across States and only
reach a small percentage of eligible individuals.
The numbers speak volumes. Only about 27 percent of long term care
funds expended under Medicaid, and only about 9 percent of all funds
expended under the program, pay for services and supports in home and
community-based settings. That means that right low a large majority of
Medicaid long term care funding is not being used to further
independence. In fiscal year 2000, only 3 States spent 50 percent or
more of their long term care funds under the Medicaid program on home
and community-based care. And that means that individuals do not have
equal access to community based care.
Of course, numbers only tell a part of the story. This bill is about
real people in real communities. Take the example of a friend of mine
in Iowa. Dan Piper works at a hardware store. He has his own apartment
and just bought a VCR. He also has Down's syndrome and diabetes. For
years Dan has received services through a community waiver program.
But, last year, his community-based supports were threatened because he
wasn't sure he'd be able to find a provider to deliver the optional
waiver service. The result? He almost had to sacrifice his independence
just to get services. Today, Dan works and contributes to the economy
as both a wage earner and a consumer. But, tomorrow, he could be forced
into a nursing home, far from his roommate, his job and his family.
That's why our Federal policy must foster comprehensive and consistent
access to community-based services and supports in the most integrated
setting appropriate.
Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus that Americans
with disabilities should have the equal opportunity to contribute to
our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. That
means people should have access to certain types of services in the
community so that they don't have to sacrifice their full participation
in society simply because they need a catheter or help getting out of
the house in the morning or assistance with medication, or some other
basic service.
So, where do we begin? To start, States need time and money to reform
their long term care systems. Last year, Senator Specter and I worked
hard to fund the systems change grants included in Title II of MiCASSA
through the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. We included $70 million in
grant money to help States reform their long term care programs through
systems change initiatives and nursing home transition.
I am very pleased that Secretary Thompson has supported the
development and implementation of these grants and included them as
part of the President's New Freedom Initiative for people with
disabilities. As I understand it, all but two of the eligible States
and territories have submitted application to HCFA. This is a great
start. And it shows the need for a Federal commitment to this issue.
Senator Specter and I will work with the Administration and others to
ensure that another round of these grants will be available in FY 2002.
Over the past several months, we have also spent some time revising
the bill we introduced last Congress. The new version of MiCASSA allows
States to phase in the new Medicaid plan benefit over a period of 5
years and provides enhanced math dollars to encourage States to start
their reforms as soon as possible. As anyone in the private business
world well knows, in order to deliver a better service in a more
efficient manner there has to be a strong initial investment. Our bill
does just that. We also include a new program to help States pay for
people with severe disabilities who are more expensive to serve in the
community than the average eligible individual. And, we require a
demonstration project to look at cost-sharing between dually Medicaid
and Medicare recipients.
The rest of the bill looks a lot like last year. Community-based
services and supports help people do tasks that they would do
themselves, if they did not have a disability. Our bill would allow any
person eligible for nursing home services to use the money for
community attendant services and supports. Those services and supports
include help with things like eating, bathing, grooming, toileting, and
transferring in and out of a wheelchair.
Community-based services and supports are the lowest-cost and most
consumer friendly services in the long-term care spectrum. They can be
provided by a variety of people, including friends and neighbors of the
recipient. In many instances, with supervision, the consumer can direct
his or her own care and manage his or her own attendants. This cuts
down on expensive administrative overhead and the current practice of
relying on medical personnel such as nurses to coordinate a person's
care. States can save money and redirect medically-oriented care to
those who need it most.
Not only is home and community-based care what people want, it can
also be far less expensive. There is a wide variation in the cost of
supporting people with disabilities in the community because
individuals have different levels of need. But, for the average person,
the annual cost of home and community based services is less than one-
half the average cost of institutional care.
And, I would be remiss not to mention the importance of quality
services and supports. Wherever a person receives Medicaid services and
supports, health and safety should be guaranteed. We should build a
system that has strong quality controls. The bill includes the same
quality protections as last year, but also emphasizes the importance of
developing a strong and able workforce in the grants section.
As I said, States have made a great deal of progress in this area.
But there is much more to do. The enthusiastic response to the systems
change grants shows just how much States need help to reform their long
term care systems to implement the principles of independence,
community living, and economic opportunity. The Supreme Court found
that, to the extent Medicaid dollars are used to pay for a person's
long term care, that person has a right to receive those services in
the most integrated setting appropriate. We in Congress have a
responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead.
It's up to the Federal Government to provide national leadership and
adequate resources.
[[Page S8596]]
Community-based attendant services and supports allow people with
disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in
the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will do volunteer work,
some will get an education, some will participate in recreational and
other community activities. All will experience a better quality of
life, and a better chance to take part in the American dream.
I urge my colleagues and their staff to study our proposal over the
break. I hope there will be hearings and action on this bill in the
next year.
This bill will open the door to full participation by people with
disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream,
and I urge all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I thank the
cosponsors of this bill. Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter have been
leaders on disability issues for a long time. And I also thank Senator
Clinton and Senator Biden for joining me on this very important issue.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 1299. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish a
program to provide assistance to small communities for use in carrying
out projects and activities necessary to achieve or maintain compliance
with drinking water standards; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I stand before you today to introduce
a piece of legislation that will help move many States forward toward
compliance with the arsenic drinking water standards the EPA
Administrator intends to finalize in February. It has been said that
``a government must not waiver once it has chosen its course. It must
not look to the left or to the right, but instead must go forward.''
This is the situation we find ourselves in today, our government has
chosen a course and now we have no choice but to move forward.
My bill, the Community Drinking Water Assistance Act, authorizes $1.9
billion dollars to be made directly available to local communities and
Tribes through the EPA. EPA would award grants to communities and
Tribes needing assistance for projects, activities, technical
assistance, or for training and certifying system operators. The
criteria for awarding grants would be directly based on financial need
and per capita costs of complying with the drinking water standards.
A new arsenic standard was promulgated in the waning hours of the
Clinton Administration. While I do not fault the Bush administration
for what they inherited, I must admit that I was disappointed when
Administrator Whitman set a maximum standard without further scientific
basis. It seemed illogical for Ms. Whitman to announce that the
National Academy of Sciences would further review the health effects
associated with arsenic, while simultaneously placing herself in a box
that would set the maximum standard at 20 parts per billion. It would
have been more logical to have waited for the studies to be completed
before announcing what the standard would or would not be.
The course has been set and I would just like to take a moment to
highlight what this course will mean for New Mexicans. First and
foremost, Arsenic is naturally occurring in New Mexico. In fact, New
Mexico has some of the highest levels of arsenic in the Nation, yet has
a lower than average incidence of the diseases associated with arsenic.
Nonetheless, for all systems in New Mexico to be in compliance with a
standard of 20 parts per billion, we are looking at a minimum price tag
of $127 million. What this means to small community water users is more
staggering. The average cost to water users, in small systems serving
less than 1,000 people, is $57.46, and this is for a standard of 20
parts per billion! The numbers are even more staggering for a 10 part
per billion standard.
The New Mexico Environment Department estimates that if the standard
is set at 10 parts per billion, approximately 25 percent of New
Mexico's water systems will be affected. The price tag for compliance
could fall between $400 million and $500 million in initial capital
expenditures. Annual operating costs will easily fall anywhere between
$16 and $21 million. Additionally, large water system users will see an
average monthly water bill increase between $38 and $42 and small
system users will see an average water bill increase of $91.
The costs of complying with either of these standards could well put
small rural systems out of business, which is the exact opposite of
what we should be trying to accomplish, providing a safe and reliable
supply of drinking water to rural America. Many New Mexicans cannot
afford a minimum $57.46 rate increase in their monthly water bill.
We live in a society that is dedicated to the removal of risk.
Generally, when we get unintended consequences associated with risk
averse decisions, the government stands ready with band-aids in every
size. We still do not have a sound scientific basis suggesting what the
actual arsenic standard should be. Therefore, to be ``on the safe
side'' and remove risk, the government has chosen to set an arbitrary
standard that will increase costs to water users, particularly in the
West, by extreme proportions. Therefore, I do not assume that it is
unfair to also ask that the government put itself in a position to
offer financial assistance to these communities so that they can make
the necessary repairs in their water systems to comply with this law.
This is the only way to move forward on the course that has been set.
Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield? I would be honored to be an
original cosponsor of that legislation.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton and Senator
Reid be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. See all this great bipartisanship.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1299
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 ``Community Drinking Water
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) drinking water standards proposed and in effect as of
the date of enactment of this Act will place a large
financial burden on many public water systems, especially
those public water systems in rural communities serving small
populations;
(2) the limited scientific, technical, and professional
resources available in small communities complicate the
implementation of regulatory requirements;
(3) small communities often cannot afford to meet water
quality standards because of the expenses associated with
upgrading public water systems and training personnel to
operate and maintain the public water systems;
(4) small communities do not have a tax base for dealing
with the costs of upgrading their public water systems;
(5) small communities face high per capita costs in
improving drinking water quality;
(6) small communities would greatly benefit from a grant
program designed to provide funding for water quality
projects;
(7) as of the date of enactment of this Act, there is no
Federal program in effect that adequately meets the needs of
small, primarily rural communities with respect to public
water systems; and
(8) since new, more protective arsenic drinking water
standards proposed by the Clinton and Bush administrations,
respectively, are expected to be implemented in 2006, the
grant program established by the amendment made by this Act
should be implemented in a manner that ensures that the
implementation of those new standards is not delayed.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--Section 1401(14) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(14)) is amended in
the second sentence by striking ``1452,'' and inserting
``1452 and part G,''.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``PART G--ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
``SEC. 1471. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Eligible activity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible activity' means a
project or activity concerning a small public water system
that is carried out
[[Page S8597]]
by an eligible entity to comply with drinking water
standards.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible activity' includes--
``(i) obtaining technical assistance; and
``(ii) training and certifying operators of small public
water systems.
``(C) Exclusion.--The term `eligible activity' does not
include any project or activity to increase the population
served by a small public water system, except to the extent
that the Administrator determines such a project or activity
to be necessary to--
``(i) achieve compliance with a national primary drinking
water regulation; and
``(ii) provide a water supply to a population that, as of
the date of enactment of this part, is not served by a safe
public water system.
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
small public water system that--
``(A) is located in a State or an area governed by an
Indian Tribe; and
``(B)(i) if located in a State, serves a community that,
under affordability criteria established by the State under
section 1452(d)(3), is determined by the State to be--
``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
``(II) a community that may become a disadvantaged
community as a result of carrying out an eligible activity;
or
``(ii) if located in an area governed by an Indian Tribe,
serves a community that is determined by the Administrator,
under affordability criteria published by the Administrator
under section 1452(d)(3) and in consultation with the
Secretary, to be--
``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
``(II) a community that the Administrator expects to become
a disadvantaged community as a result of carrying out an
eligible activity.
``(3) Program.--The term `Program' means the small public
water assistance program established under section 1472(a).
``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of
the Indian Health Service.
``(5) Small public water system.--The term `small public
water system' means a public water system (including a
community water system and a noncommunity water system) that
serves--
``(A) a community having a population of not more than
200,000; or
``(B) the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
``SEC. 1472. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this part, the Administrator shall establish a
program to provide grants to eligible entities for use in
carrying out projects and activities to comply with drinking
water standards.
``(2) Priority.--The Administrator shall award grants under
the Program to eligible entities based on--
``(A) first, the financial need of the community for the
grant assistance, as determined by the Administrator; and
``(B) second, with respect to the community in which the
eligible entity is located, the per capita cost of complying
with drinking water standards, as determined by the
Administrator.
``(b) Application Process.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity that seeks to receive
a grant under the Program shall submit to the Administrator,
on such form as the Administrator shall prescribe (not to
exceed 3 pages in length), an application to receive the
grant.
``(2) Components.--The application shall include--
``(A) a description of the eligible activities for which
the grant is needed;
``(B) a description of the efforts made by the eligible
entity, as of the date of submission of the application, to
comply with drinking water standards; and
``(C) any other information required to be included by the
Administrator.
``(3) Review and approval of applications.--
``(A) In general.--On receipt of an application under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall forward the
application to the Council.
``(B) Approval or disapproval.--Not later than 90 days
after receiving the recommendations of the Council under
subsection (e) concerning an application, after taking into
consideration the recommendations, the Administrator shall--
``(i) approve the application and award a grant to the
applicant; or
``(ii) disapprove the application.
``(C) Resubmission.--If the Administrator disapproves an
application under subparagraph (B)(ii), the Administrator
shall--
``(i) inform the applicant in writing of the disapproval
(including the reasons for the disapproval); and
``(ii) provide to the applicant a deadline by which the
applicant may revise and resubmit the application.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Federal share of the cost of carrying out an eligible
activity using funds from a grant provided under the Program
shall not exceed 90 percent.
``(2) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the requirement
to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out an
eligible activity using funds from a grant provided under the
Program if the Administrator determines that an eligible
entity is unable to pay, or would experience significant
financial hardship if required to pay, the non-Federal share.
(d) Enforcement and Implementation of Standards.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Administrator shall not enforce any standard for drinking
water under this Act (including a regulation promulgated
under this Act) against an eligible entity during the period
beginning on the date on which the eligible entity submits an
application for a grant under the Program and ending, as
applicable, on----
(A) the deadline specified in subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii), if
the application is disapproved and not resubmitted; or
(B) the date that is 3 years after the date on which the
eligible entity receives a grant under this part, if the
application is approved.
(2) Arsenic standards.--No standard for arsenic in drinking
water promulgated under this Act (including a standard in any
regulation promulgated before the date of enactment of this
part) shall be implemented or enforced by the Administrator
in any State until the earlier of January 1, 2006 or such
date as the Administrator certifies to Congress that----
(A) the Program has been implemented in the state; and
(B) the State has made substantial progress, as determined
by the Administrator in consultation with the Governor of the
State, in complying with drinking water standards under this
Act.
(e) Role of Council.--The Council shall----
(1) review applications for grants from eligible entities
received by the Administrator under subsection (b); and
(2) for each application, recommend to the Administrator
whether the application should be approved or disapproved.
SEC. 1473. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $1,900,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001
through 2006.''
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 1301. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
improve the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals for children; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill I call
the ``Better Medicine for Children Act.''
This legislation deals with a problem that pediatricians have been
confronted with for years, while doctors have a huge variety and choice
of medicines to prescribe for different medical conditions, they don't
always have enough specific information on how well these drugs work in
children.
The Food and Drug Administration tells us that for about 70 to 80
percent of all drugs on the market, we do not have sufficient pediatric
information. The FDA has identified more than 400 drugs which are used
in children for whom we need more data.
Without pediatric testing for a specific drug, we may now know the
proper dose to give to children of different ages or sizes. Without
testing, we may not know if the drug is as effective as it is in
adults, or even if it works in children at all. Almost all health care
practitioners have faced difficult issues because of this scarcity of
pediatric drug information.
I want to share a story I have been told that points out exactly how
important this pediatric information can be. This real story involves
an 18-month-old little boy who was in an intensive care unit following
some serious surgery. He was under sedation from a drug known as
propofol. At that time, we did not have much specific information on
how this drug affected children, but some doctors prescribed the drug
for children anyway because they honestly thought it was the best
option. For this infant, it clearly was not, because of an adverse
reaction to the drug, that baby developed acidosis and had a heart
rhythm disturbance, causing a truly life-threatening incident.
Fortunately, this little boy did recover. But this was by no means a
sure thing.
Back in 1997, Congress decided to deal with this problem. We passed a
law that gave pharmaceutical companies a strong incentive to do more
pediatric testing so we can get this crucial information. If the
company agreed to perform needed pediatric studies on a drug, and did
the study exactly as requested by the Food and Drug Administration, the
company would get a six-month extension on that drug's patent.
The results have been amazing. Hundreds of pediatric drug studies are
underway and are producing huge amounts of new drug information for
kids.
One example of new information is the drug propofol, the very drug I
mentioned earlier that caused a serious
[[Page S8598]]
problem for the 18-month-old boy in the ICU. What they found in
extensive pediatric studies done on propofol as a result of the new
incentive is that the drug is more dangerous than other alternatives
that could be used to sedate pediatric ICU patients.
So because of this testing, propofol would not be used in the same
situation today. And that little boy wouldn't have had a life-
threatening incident.
So if this incentive exists, and all of this new pediatric testing is
being done, what's the problem?
Well, there are actually at least three problems. My legislation will
deal with each of them.
First, the incentives expire at the end of this year. My ``Better
Medicine for Children Act'' will extend this important and successful
program for five more years.
Second, because the incentive used to encourage pediatric testing is
an extended patent life, there's actually no incentive to do pediatric
studies in drugs whose patent or patents have already expired. My
legislation will authorize $200 million in funding so that tests can be
performed on these off-patent drugs. The need here is great, of the
400-plus drugs the FDA has singled out for further pediatric study,
more than one-third are off-patent.
With regard to these first two pieces of my bill, I should note my
debt to legislation introduced by Senators Dodd and DeWine, from which
I have based some of my bill. Senators Dodd and DeWine were the
original authors of this critical legislation back in 1997. They had a
good idea and a good bill then, and they have a good idea and good
legislation now. In fact, as a cosponsor of their bill I am pleased to
report that the Dodd-DeWine bill was approved earlier today by the
Senate HELP Committee.
But my legislation goes beyond other approaches and has a new and
unique provision which is not in the Dodd-DeWine bill, and which
addresses a third critical problem. This problem is that the new wave
of pediatric testing has actually given us relatively little
information about how pharmaceuticals affect the youngest children,
particularly neonates. This is true because neonates aren't usually
included in initial pediatric drug studies for medical or ethical
reasons.
You would think that as we are talking about legislation to help
``children'' or ``kids,'' that would be helping all children. This
certainly should be our expectation, but it is not the case.
Unfortunately, the huge success this legislation has had in a broad
sense masks the fact that the law doesn't help neonates, those babies
less than one month old, and other younger children nearly as much.
An excerpt from testimony the American Academy of Pediatrics provided
in a HELP Committee hearing last March puts it simply: ``. . . this
population'', and here they are talking about neonates, ``has not
benefitted significantly from the pediatric studies provision . . .''
Why is this the case? At times, I believe the FDA actually may not
have asked for enough information in neonates or younger age groups--in
other words, the agency may have just gotten lazy. That problem should
be correctable, and in fact it is addressed by the Dodd-DeWine bill.
The Dodd-DeWine legislation tries to make sure the FDA always asks for
studies in neonates when it is appropriate to do so.
But as important as that step is, I don't believe it is enough.
Because there are other reasons, beyond simply FDA not asking, why
neonates cannot, at times, be included in initial pediatric studies.
There may be scientific reasons why the FDA may not always be able to
ask for neonate studies. For example, as part of a drug test you may
need to take regular blood samples from a test subject.
But a neonate only has so much blood, and at some point, too many
blood tests could actually create a health problem. However, at some
time in the future, the technology may well be developed enough to
enable us to do this testing with smaller amounts of blood.
At other times, the FDA may not request studies that include the
youngest children because of ethical concerns. If we are lacking
information that gives us some clue how a neonate might react to a
particular drug, perhaps drug information in a nearby age-group, for
example, it may actually be dangerous to test a drug in young children.
In a report released January that evaluated the entire pediatric
incentive provision, the FDA uses the example of neurotropic drugs as
ones we may not want to test in the youngest children without more
information. But once this other information is developed, these
studies may be possible.
The end result of all this is that we simply do not perform drug
tests in the youngest kids as much. And because of that, we simply
don't get as much useful information for younger children that can be
put on a drug's label.
The drug I discussed earlier today, propofol, is a great example. I
spoke about an 18-month-old little boy who, several years ago, had a
serious problem when given the drug propofol. Today, a similar 18-
month-old boy would not be given propofol under the same circumstances
because of what we have learned from the pediatric studies performed in
the interim. But propofol is a example of a drug that has now been
tested in some children, about which we have learned some very
important things, but has not yet been fully tested in the youngest
children. Propofol is nonetheless used in younger children, even in
neonates, but it has only been labeled far enough to include 2-month-
olds.
Now, will these companies go back and actually do the studies in the
younger kids? Almost certainly not.
Under current law, you only get one incentive period, one bite at the
apple. That's it. If the last few decades have taught us anything, it
is that pediatric studies just do not get done unless there is an
economic incentive. Yet with the pediatric incentive already used for
these drugs, the younger kids are out of luck.
What makes it worse for these younger kids is that there is almost no
commercial incentive to study drugs in these age-groups. The raw size
of this young population is so small, obviously even smaller than the
population of children as a whole, that there is hardly ever sufficient
market incentive for a drug company to perform the studies needed to
help the youngest children.
Again, the FDA reports says it well: ``Once pediatric exclusivity is
granted for studies in older pediatric age groups, section 505A does
not provide an adequate incentive to conduct later studies in the
younger age groups . . . This has left some age groups, especially
neonates, unstudied, even where the need for the drug in those age
groups is great.''
Children this young are almost certainly facing less-than-optimal
health care outcomes--and perhaps even health risks--because they are
still being prescribed propofol and similar drugs that haven't been
tested in their age group. Of course, we may never know for sure what's
happening with some of these drugs. Because, unless we find a way to
produce a study in this age group, we will never know for sure how this
drug works for the youngest children.
My legislation contains a provision that--in limited circumstances--
would provide drug companies with a second patent extension to serve as
an incentive to study drugs in the youngest groups of children. I
believe this could serve as the incentive to make sure these younger
children share fully in the positive results of this legislation.
However, understanding the various concerns about possible abuse of a
second incentive, increased prices, and high profits, my second
incentive is carefully limited.
First, the patent extension that serves as the incentive to perform
studies in neonates and other young children is three months rather
than six. While neonates and infants are extremely important age
groups, it is an inescapable fact that there simply aren't as many of
these young children running around as there are kids in general. Given
this, and the legitimate concerns about marginally raising drug prices
by keeping generic drugs off the market longer, I believe that limiting
the neonatal incentive to three months is reasonable.
Second, unlike the existing pediatric incentives, my proposed second
incentive period would not be available to drugs going through the FDA
approval
[[Page S8599]]
process. If a drug company is doing pediatric studies prior to a drug's
approval, it should be able to plan a sequential set of studies as part
of the first set of pediatric tests.
Finally, the possibility of a second incentive period is restricted
to drugs that fit one of two categories. First, drugs which cannot
initially be studied in neonates or other young children because it is
necessary to pursue sequential studies for scientific, medical, or
ethical reasons. Second, drugs for which new uses have been discovered
and for which drug studies in young children were not originally
expected to be useful could qualify for a second incentive period.
Given these limits, my expectation is that the majority of drugs
would not qualify for a second patent extension if my legislation were
to pass. A significant enough amount to make a difference in young
children's lives, yes. Enough to produce a tidal wave of additional
patent extensions, no.
The FDA, from their January report, actually recommended that
Congress consider the general idea I am talking about: ``When there is
a need to proceed in a sequential manner for the development of
pediatric information, FDA should have the option of issuing a second
Written Request for the conduct of studies in the relevant younger age
group(s). For this option to be meaningful, the second Written Request,
after receiving the studies to an initial Written Request and pediatric
exclusivity awarded, would be linked with a meaningful incentive to
sponsors.''
Before 1997, we had a serious lack of information for children
generally, so we provided an incentive to study drugs in children. We
now have a lack of information for the youngest children, why not
approve a second patent extension period to provide a new incentive for
this age group? To me, this simply makes sense.
Separately, my bill also contains some provisions to improve the
government, institutional, and human infrastructure needed to support
pediatric drug testing. This includes a Dodd-DeWine provision to create
a new Office of Pediatric Therapeutics within the Food and Drug
Administration to monitor and facilitate the new pediatric drug
testing. Furthermore, my bill will direct the National Institutes of
Health to use programs that support young pediatric researchers to
ensure there is an adequate supply of pediatric pharmacology experts to
support the revolution in pediatric drug research.
Finally, this bill modifies some specific language in the Dodd-DeWine
legislation to ensure that the $200 million fund designed to study
drugs that have lost all patent life, and thus are not helped by the
patent extension incentives--truly focuses on the highest-priority
drugs.
Even with limited information, we have good medicine for children
right now. But with more studies and information, we can, and must,
produce better medicine for children.
____________________