[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10458-S10463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1522. A bill to support community-based group homes for young
mothers and their children; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Lieberman and Domenici in introducing the Second Chance Homes Promotion
Act. This legislation would provide needed resources to expand and
improve the availability of community-based, adult-supervised group
homes for unmarried teenage mothers and their babies.
Although rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States have dropped
in recent years, they remain higher than most industrialized nations.
Today, four in 10 young women become pregnant at least once before
entering adulthood. Teenage parents are less likely to graduate from
school and more likely to end up on public assistance than other
adolescents. Also, children born to teenage mothers tend to fare more
poorly in school, are less likely to receive needed health care
services, and are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. ``Second
Chance Homes'' help improve this situation by providing teen parents
with a safe, nurturing environment where they can receive guidance in
parenting, child development, budgeting, health and nutrition.
The welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 requires that minor
teens live with an adult in order to receive welfare benefits. During
debate on this legislation, I worked with Senator Lieberman and others
to allow second chance homes to qualify as an alternative residence for
teenage parents who may be at risk for abuse, neglect or other serious
problems in their home. Since this time, we have learned that teenagers
who were provided the opportunity to live in second chance homes are
more likely to continue their education or receive job training, less
likely to have a second teenage pregnancy, and more likely to find
gainful employment that allows them to leave the welfare rolls. I
strongly believe these are promising results.
Unfortunately, not all teenage parents who might benefit from second
chance homes have access to these residences. Today, there are
approximately 100 second chance homes nationwide, located in only six
States. This legislation would provide resources for improving the
homes that already exist and creating additional homes where none
exist, particularly in tribal and rural communities where there may be
fewer options for teenage parents and their babies to receive the
assistance they need. Finally, this legislation would provide resources
that can be used to conduct further evaluations on the quality and
effectiveness of second chance homes. It is my hope others will join us
in supporting this important effort.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Conrad
and Domenici to introduce the Second Chance Homes Promotion Act of
2001. This legislation will promote the expansion of Second Chance
Homes for parenting teenagers and provide needed resources for this
innovative and accomplished program.
The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy and births
in the Western industrialized world. This costs the country at least $7
billion annually. Four in 10 young women become pregnant at least once
before they reach the age of 20, nearly one million a year. Teen
mothers are less likely to complete high school, and more likely to end
up on welfare. The children of teenage mothers have lower birth
weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at
greater risk of abuse and neglect. But we know we can do something
about this. Second Chance Homes are an essential tool to improve the
life chances of these teenagers.
In the 1996 welfare reform legislation, I worked to develop the
concept of Second Chance Homes as an alternative for minor teen parents
required by that law to live at home or under adult supervision.
Welfare reform required states to provide or assist teen mothers in
locating a second chance home, maternity home, or other supportive
living arrangement if they cannot live at home because of abuse,
neglect or other reasons.
Since 1996, these homes have produced notable and promising results:
fewer second pregnancies, slightly higher adoption rates, less child
abuse, better maternal and child health, dramatically increased school
completion rates, higher employment rates, reduced welfare dependency.
Clearly these are successes we want to replicate.
Currently only six States have networks of Second Chance Homes. This
bill will provide resources to expand the number of Second Chance Homes
across the country to continue these encouraging trends and assist
these young mothers to the brightest future they can have.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation
with Senators Lieberman and Conrad that will help to address a very
serious problem facing our Nation. The rise of teenage pregnancy has
many implications for American society in terms of educational and
employment opportunities, economic self-sufficiency, children's health,
and child abuse and crime prevention. For example, many teenage mothers
find that their educational and vocational opportunities are severely
limited. In fact, only one-third of teenage mothers complete high
school and receive their diploma. Furthermore, teenage pregnancy has
been linked with increases in child abuse and criminal activity. But,
perhaps most disturbing is the fact that daughters of teenage mothers
are 22 percent more likely to become teenage mothers themselves, thus
creating a self-perpetuating cycle from generation to generation.
It is clear that these problems will only continue unless we address
the issue of teenage pregnancy. This is an especially critical issue,
because the United States has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in
the western industrialized world. I believe that this legislation will
help to address these concerns. One of the ideas endorsed by Congress
in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 was the concept of second chance homes. Second chance homes are
an option for many teenage mothers who are required by the 1996 act to
live at home or under adult supervision. These homes provide both
living arrangements and educational opportunities for young mothers.
Second chance homes have been remarkably successful in decreasing
both second pregnancies and child abuse and in improving the
educational and vocational opportunities of teenage mothers. For
example, New Mexico's second chances homes have produced many success
stories with several residents earning a registered nurse degree. It is
truly inspiring to think that many
[[Page S10459]]
teenagers who had the odds stacked against them have been given a
second chance and have become vital members of the health care
profession.
Despite the successes of second chance homes, many teenage mothers do
not have access to such a home. Although New Mexico has over a hundred
second chance homes, many States are not so fortunate. Furthermore,
according to a 1999 study, eighteen States do not have a policy for
helping mothers find such a shelter. This is the genesis behind our
legislation. We hope to increase the availability of second chance
homes and allow a greater number of teenage mothers to take advantage
of the many opportunities that they provide. This bill will create a
competitive grant program within the Department of Health and Human
Services that will award five-year grants to State, local, and tribal
governments and to non-profit organizations to create or expand a
second-chance home. I am hopeful that this significant federal
investment will allow a greater number of teenage mothers to graduate
from high school, and even college or vocational training, and will
increase the health and safety of their children.
Second chance homes have a remarkable record in alleviating many of
the problems associated with teenage pregnancy. From education to
maternal and infant health, they have played a crucial role in the
success of welfare reform. I thank Senators Lieberman and Conrad for
their work on this important legislation, and I look forward to all
teenage mothers having a true second chance.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1523. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination
provisions; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination
provisions of the Social Security Act, provisions of current law that
reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers and other
government pensioners.
Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower
than those in the private sector to begin with, find that they are
penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement
benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more
difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.
The legislation that I introduce today addresses two provisions in
the current Social Security Act that create this problem: The Windfall
Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset provision.
The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also
receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.
Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to
90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, plus
32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 15 percent of earnings
above $3,381. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to
receive 40 percent of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a
penalty of $280.50 per month.
To my mind it is simply unfair, especially at a time when we need to
be doing all we can to attract qualified people government service, and
this bill will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same
90 percent to which non-government pension recipients are entitled.
The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social
Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the
spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the
effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social
Security.
It is beyond my understanding why we would want to discourage people
from pursuing careers in public service, such as teaching, by
essentially saying that if you do become a teacher your family will
suffer by not being able to receive the full retirement benefits they
would otherwise be entitled to.
There is a teaching crisis in California right now, as there is in
many States. Yet current Social Security benefit rules penalize private
sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers,
or public school teachers who work second jobs during the summer months
to help make ends meet. They lose legitimately earned Social Security
benefits. And in certain cases, their wives and husbands will lose
spousal benefits, too.
That is simply not fair and not right. California faces a teaching
crisis, and we need to do everything we can to attract and keep good,
qualified people as public school teachers, not make an already
difficult job more difficult.
The same can be said for other public employees, like police and fire
fighters.
This legislation addresses this inequity in the Social Security Act,
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gregg, and
Mr. Warner):
S. 1525. A bill to extend the moratorium on the imposition of taxes
on the Internet for an additional 5 years; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Defense of
Internet Tax Freedom Act, with my friends and colleagues from
California, Montana, New Hampshire, and Virginia, to extend the
moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory
taxes for five-years. As you know, the original provisions of the
Internet Tax Freedom Act are set to expire this October 21, less than
two weeks from now.
As many in this chamber know, I have made extending the moratorium on
taxes that discriminate against the Internet one of my top priorities
since coming to the Senate. I cannot ever envision a time when it will
be okay for any government to tax freedom on the Internet by taxing
access to the Internet. I cannot ever conceive of any instance or event
that will precipitate justification for multiple or discriminatory
taxes on the Internet by any government, large or small, national or
local.
For this reason, I have maintained constant and steady support for
the permanent extension of the Internet moratorium on Internet access,
multiple and discriminatory taxes. I never thought I would be willing
to vote for, much less sponsor, legislation that endorsed a limited
extension, but the events of September 11, 2001 have forced all of us
in this Congress, and indeed throughout the country, to think and act
according to the most immediate interests of our Nation.
Now, more than ever, the people of this country need security, not
only with regard to safety, but also with regard to their financial
future. Any additional tax burdens on the Internet now, will mean
additional costs that many Americans cannot afford, forcing the poorest
in our society to reduce or even forgo their use of the Internet as a
tool for education and exploration.
Consider the fact that by taxing Internet access, States and
localities are actually contributing to an already growing economic
``digital divide.'' For every dollar added to the cost of Internet
access, we can expect to see lost utilization of the Internet by
thousands of poor and impoverished families nationwide.
Furthermore, the more expensive you make Internet access, the less
likely people are to buy advanced services, including broadband
delivered high-speed Internet access, multimedia expansion cards, and
Internet protocol enabling software. Given the current state of the
technology market as a whole, a decrease in consumption resulting from
Internet access taxes could destroy what glimmer of hope remains for
many telecommunications and technology manufacturers.
The effects of these closures have already been felt throughout our
country. Congress should be working to keep businesses open and
Americans employed, and that is why we must pass a reasonable extension
of the moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory
taxes.
If you consider for a moment that the Internet has only been around
in its contemporary form since 1995 or 1996, then you realize that this
technology and the impact it has made and will continue to make on our
economy is both very promising and very unsure. To date we have very
little reliable data as to the real impact the
[[Page S10460]]
Internet is making on the daily lives of Americans.
We have little to no information as to how and why consumers on the
web decide to spend their hard earned money. We have no real evidence
that consumers would decide to spend money or purchase products they
buy on the web today if these products were only available in
traditional brick-n-mortar settings.
The studies we have seen thus far all contradict one another. In one
study dealing with the effects of Internet purchasing on State
revenues, I found a quote from the President of the National Conference
of State Legislatures comparing State budgets in recent years to the
engine of a luxury car. Yet, I have heard from this and other
organizations that the Internet is destroying State tax revenue
streams.
I don't know who or what to believe. All I know is that many in this
Senate need time to understand this issue. There are many members in
this body who do not fully recognize that the moratorium is completely
unrelated to sales taxes or the collection thereof. Given that fact, I
cannot see why extending the moratorium for a mere few months or years
would be beneficial in terms of educating the general public and the
Members of this body.
In a matter of months or a few years, the technology sector will only
just be at the point of full recovery from the current downturn in our
economy. We will need several years beyond that point of full recovery
to complete the comprehensive, neutral studies of the Internet and e-
commerce that Members of Congress will need in order to make these
important decisions, decisions that may directly challenge the
conventional wisdom of our Founding Fathers and our own historical
experience.
Given these requirements, five years seems to be the minimum amount
of time Congress, the private sector, and other interested
organizations will need in order to make well-informed, proactive
decisions regarding other issues not related to the Internet
moratorium.
In the meantime, we can guarantee a level of stability for the
Internet over the next five years that will allow our Nation to
continue to close the digital divide and encourage new and enhanced
uses of the web for consumers.
I call on my colleagues to join me and my fellow cosponsors in
cosponsoring the Defense of Internet Tax Freedom Act, in supporting a
five year extension of the Internet moratorium on access multiple and
discriminatory taxes.
Let's give the Internet the future it deserves and show America that
the answer is not more taxes but rather better, more efficient
government for the people and by the people.
Mrs. BOXER. Today, I am joining Senators Allen, Burns, and Gregg in
supporting an extension of the Internet tax moratorium for another 5
years.
I supported the moratorium when it was initially instituted in order
to encourage the growth of the then newly emerging Internet industry.
In the 1990s, the industry enjoyed a growth spurt that helped move the
whole economy forward. But recently, Internet companies have fallen on
hard times.
Because Internet commerce and technology firms are not now fairing
well, I support a five year extension of the tax moratorium. I believe
that renewed investment in the Internet is crucial to the welfare of
the entire economy and we need to support its growth as much now as we
did in 1998. Through a clean extension of the tax moratorium, Congress
can promote an environment for Internet growth that avoids the
uncertainty, inefficiencies, and barriers to entry that new taxes would
create.
The technology sector was in a recession before the September 11,
2001 attacks. In the first half of 2001, more than 300,000 technology
sector jobs were eliminated and companies declared bankruptcy because
of reduced consumer and business spending on technology products. One
example, Webvan, an Internet grocery delivery company, closed shop in
July. In the process, 2,000 employees lost their jobs in the company's
seven markets--San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego,
Seattle, Chicago, and Portland.
With the additional decline in consumer confidence resulting from the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the industry has fallen even
deeper into recession. The results have been devastating for many
firms. For example, since the attacks, Cisco laid off 8,500 workers,
Excite@home has laid off 500 workers, and MicroStrategy has laid off
200 workers. By extending the Internet tax moratorium for five years,
we send the message to the industry and its workers that we will not
turn a deaf ear to this crisis.
The economy rose during the last eight years on the new jobs,
efficiencies, and demand for products that the Internet and Internet-
related companies created. Restoring economic growth will depend
largely on our ability to spark renewed investment and growth in this
vital industry. Firms that sell products over the Internet are key
consumers of computers, software, and hardware. Their growth would
encourage additional interest in connecting to the Internet and help
produce new consumer demand for more technology products.
We should assist, not burden our technology firms at this time.
Another five years could give the Internet time to work out its current
growing pains. As technology innovations encourage additional growth
and renewed interest in the Internet, our economy as a whole will
benefit. A stronger Internet will mean more jobs, more companies, and a
broader tax base. That is a net gain for everyone.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1527. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to extend and
improve the environmental quality incentive program; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a
bill that would amend and extend the Environmental Quality Improvement
Program, EQIP, to make it more user friendly, and to make it more
effective in it's on-the-ground implementation.
EQIP is a voluntary, Federal cost share program administered by the
United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, NRCS, and Farm Service Agency, FSA. The program
was created to assist farmers and ranchers in implementing conservation
management programs on private lands, lands that not only serve as the
backbone of our Nation's food supplies but which also provide important
habitat for America's wildlife, including many endangered species. It
does this by providing technical, financial, and educational assistance
to farmers and ranchers as they make capital improvements in irrigation
and other water systems, address a wide variety of conservation
problems, provide flood plain protection, support grazing lands
conservation, and facilitate wildlife habitat protection programs.
When everything works right, EQIP provides a tremendous benefit to
producers and the environment. One example of this can be found in an
EQIP-funded project underway in central Wyoming. This project, known
locally as the Sand Mesa project, is allowing a group of Wyoming
farmers to increase irrigation efficiency while also reducing pumping
costs. They are doing this by replacing an aging canal system with a
gravity-flow pipeline.
Under the old system, the open air canals lost a lot of water to
seepage and evaporation. The water savings from the new pipeline has
turned out to be critically important in years, like this one, where
drought is so prevalent in the West. The 14 miles of pipeline replaced
11 miles of open canal and committed 5,000 acre feet of water for
existing wetlands. In the first year alone the new system saved at
least 22,000 acre feet of water. This translates into that much more
water being available in Bull Lake and Wind River for other uses. The
gravity-flow pressure is also adequate to eventually run all 36
irrigation pivots on the new system, which will result in an even
greater water savings.
Why did this project work out so well? It wasn't because Washington,
DC bureaucrats stepped in and told the community the best things to do
with their money.
Sand Mesa is a combined effort that unites the knowledge of local
farmers with local technical experts who together are able to turn
Wyoming's desert into fertile farmland. Together, the farmers and the
technicians are designing a conservation and financial
[[Page S10461]]
plan that will allow them to make the most out of their limited
environmental and financial resources.
The inclusion of local expertise in establishing program priorities
is one of EQIP's strongest assets. Local working groups are made up of
individuals who represent a wide range of interests. The groups are
made up of farmers, ranchers, representatives from conservation
districts, agricultural organizations, environmental groups, Native
Americans, and other local, state and federal agencies.
Along with the State Advisory Committees, local work groups have made
a conscientious effort to make sure limited EQIP dollars are put to
their best use. They have not always been successful. The only existing
authority these groups have is in identifying priority areas that may,
if Washington, DC bureaucrats decide, receive funding. The result of
this allocation structure is that funds are not always equitably
distributed.
In 1999 a group of my constituents in Powell, WY approached me with
serious concerns about the way EQIP regulations took authority away
from local experts. EQIP was created as a part of the 1996 Farm Bill.
In establishing EQIP, the Farm Bill terminated four previously existing
cost share, conservation programs and replaced them with the new
program. The terminated programs had relied heavily on local input to
manage all aspects of implementation. Because of this history producers
had come to expect local expertise to play a bigger role in the new
program. EQIP regulations, however, consolidated the decision making
process at the Federal level and left out local input.
My consitutents were concerned that an unusually large percentage of
new EQIP dollars were being directed to applicants who did not
necessarily require federal assistance to complete conservation
improvements, while smaller, family-owned producers, who could
sincerely benefit from the program, were being overlooked. Their fears
were that funding decisions were determined more by politics and grant
writing ability than by the greatest need or ability to maximize
environmental benefit per dollar expended.
In response to their concerns, I wrote a letter to former Secretary
of Agriculture Dan Glickman and asked for his help in correcting these
inequities. He forwarded my request to the Wyoming NRCS offices where
NRCS Wyoming State Director Ed Burton organized a team that reviewed
the EQIP allocation process. This team identified a number of
legislative and administrative actions which, if they are followed,
would ensure the program's most effective implementation.
This bill is the result of their efforts. The bill addresses four
areas that the Wyoming review team noted would require specific
legislative fixes. First, the bill increases allocation flexibility by
defining the phrase ``maximize environmental benefits per dollar
expended'' in a way that gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability
to consult with local working groups in deciding what are the best ways
to guarantee that limited EQIP funds can be directed to those ranchers
and farmers who can provide the most effective use of the program's
cost share program. The bill would simplify and streamline the current
process to make the program less time consuming to field office staff,
and less frustrating to producers.
The bill also would allow farmers and ranchers the flexibility to use
EQIP funds when they are needed most. Too often weather conditions or
other unrelated reasons make it impossible for eligible applicants to
conform to Federal fiscal calendars. By allowing funds to be available
until expended, this bill would keep program dollars available on a
real-world schedule and would allow producers to receive cost share
dollars at current costs and not at the rate in effect when the
contract was written.
The third change this bill would make is to adjust the program to
allow contracts from three to ten years. Current EQIP requirements
allow five to ten year contracts only. EQIP payments are limited
generally to $10,000 per person annually, and $50,000 over the 5 to 10
year life of the contract. This is often much more than is required by
farmers and could place an undue hardship on producers who do not have
the ability or the desire to enter into long-term contracts. Three to
ten year contracts, based on the producer's conservation plan, would
allow greater flexibility to implement resource management systems.
Finally, the bill would allow producers who are ready to begin work
in the first year of the contract to immediately receive contract
payments. Many producers who apply for EQIP are ready to install
practices as soon as the contract is approved. Under current law, if
practices are installed in the same year the contract is written, the
producer must wait until the next fiscal year for their first payment.
This delay can cause undue financial hardship, especially in an
industry where cash flow is severely limited.
I am proud of the efforts of the people in my State to make this
program better and more efficient. I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill and to support our farmers in their work to feed the world.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 1528. a bill to improve the safety and security of rail
transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rail Safety and
Security Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator
Gordon Smith, the ranking Republican of the Commerce Committee's
Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee.
This legislation would authorize funding to improve rail passenger
safety and security, while assuring accountability and oversight of all
associated expenditures. It would also amend current law and allow for
rail police officers to enforce laws on the properties of other
railroads and would establish criminal sanctions for attacks against
our Nation's rail system. And, it would also require a comprehensive
assessment of the security risks surrounding rail transportation in
order for the Congress to then take appropriate action based on the
conclusions of the assessment. I believe this legislation is a much
needed step in protecting our rail transportation system against
security threats and vulnerabilities.
During the past four weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan
manner to address the nation's most pressing needs in the wake of the
September 11 terrorist attacks. We have worked with the administration
to provide necessary emergency funding to aid in the aftermath of the
attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
Part of that effort has focused on the survival of the aviation
industry, and rightly so. Our Nation, our citizens, and our economy
cannot afford further deterioration of this critical segment of the
transportation industry. It is equally important that we approve
aviation security legislation and send it to the President.
Transportation systems are the target of 40 percent of terrorist
attacks worldwide. That is why it is necessary for the government to
play a key role in assessing potential security threats in our Nation's
transportation system. We must ensure that we have taken every
precaution to safeguard critical infrastructure and that procedures are
in place to protect people and property in the event of actual
terrorist attacks. In that effort, the Senate Commerce Committee has
been conducting a series of hearings to gain the information we need to
help us evaluate potential security risks and determine how best to
respond to those potential risks.
In addition to aviation security legislation, the Commerce Committee
has approved legislation to address security at our Nation's ports. I
am hopeful the full Senate will have the opportunity to consider that
bill in the near future.
Given the hundreds of thousands of miles of rail track, highways, and
pipelines, hundreds of ports and terminals throughout the U.S., and the
ease of access to public transportation, it is impossible to fully
secure our transportation system against all deliberate acts of
destruction. Efforts to reduce vulnerability, however, are essential
and each industry has a responsibility to assess and respond to
identified problems. Federal, State, and local governments also play an
important role in this effort.
[[Page S10462]]
The legislation I am introducing today is designed to address the
safety and security of our Nation's rail transportation network, both
passenger and freight. Unlike other passenger rail funding proposals
that have been suggested, this legislation would only fund legitimate
safety and security initiatives. It would also assure the highest
degree of accountability of all expenditures. I note my proposal would
not provide a handout directly to Amtrak to fund long-planned capacity
projects that it has been unable to accomplish. Therefore, some will
likely object to my approach from the outset. But, I hope members
interested in addressing legitimate rail safety and security concerns
will join me in supporting this alternative approach.
Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Rail and
Maritime security. We learned from that hearing that certain actions
that can be taken immediately to address security vulnerabilities.
Therefore, this legislation is designed to address the needs we
currently know exist and, at the same time, provide for an assessment
of rail security that would enable us to act on matters identified
through a more comprehensive review than has yet occurred.
First, the bill would authorize funding for security upgrades for
rail transportation provided by Amtrak. However, the funding would be
made available to Amtrak only after the Secretary establishes
appropriate funding procedure safeguards and after approving a system
wide security plan submitted by Amtrak.
Second, the bill would authorize funding for the Tunnel Life Safety
projects in New York, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The DOT
Inspector General has confirmed the need to bring existing systems up
to par with modern safety standards, including the replacement of
narrow, winding spiral staircases, the installation of modern
ventilation fans, and the rehabilitation of benchwalls. The IG further
has expressed concerns that an extended schedule of repairs as would
occur without federal assistance places the public at prolonged and
unnecessary risk.
Based on the findings of the DOT-IG, this legislation includes
provisions to fully fund these projects in order to reduce the risk to
public safety. It would fund these projects, however, only after the
Secretary approves engineering and financial plans submitted by Amtrak
and conditions the release of funding by entering into proper funding
procedures. In other words, the funding will not just be handed to
Amtrak with no questions asked. It ensures proper federal oversight of
the federal assistance.
Furthermore, the legislation would direct the DOT Inspector General
to review the obligation and expenditure of funds provided under this
legislation to ensure that the funds are used solely for the purposes
intended by Congress.
Third, the bill would permit rail police officers to enforce laws on
the properties of other railroads. Current law only permits officers to
enforce laws on the properties of the rail carrier that employs the
police officer. This provision would allow for flexibility and the
sharing of enforcement resources among all rail carriers as may be
necessary to address safety and security threats directed at a
particular carrier.
Fourth, this legislation includes provisions to address potential
security threats to our nation's rail transportation system. While the
vulnerabilities of air travel may be most prevalent in our memory, our
rail system has been and continues to be vulnerable to security
threats. Five years ago, Arizonans and citizens throughout the country
were saddened to learn of an Amtrak derailment near Hyder, AZ, which
claimed the life of one individual and injured seventy-eight others.
Shortly after the accident, the sadness turned to shock as we learned
that the derailment may have been caused by someone who intentionally
sabotaged the track. The Arizona accident is not unique. There have
been other examples of acts against railroads.
Following that occurrence, the Senate passed legislation requested by
the previous Administration addressing some of these vulnerabilities.
Unfortunately, we failed to reach an agreement with the House during
conference deliberations on the multi-year highway funding legislation.
Therefore, I am including those provisions as part of this bill today.
Now, more than ever, these provisions are essential.
The legislation would establish criminal sanctions for violent
attacks against railroads, railroad employees and railroad passengers
similar to sanctions currently afforded for attacks against airlines,
vessels on the high seas, motor carriers, and pipelines. I strongly
believe the rail industry and its employees and customers deserve the
same protections afforded the other methods.
Finally, the legislation would direct the Secretary to assess the
security risks associated with rail transportation and to develop
recommendations for target hardening those areas identified as posing
significant risk to public safety. As I previously mentioned, there has
not yet been a comprehensive analysis of the security risks of the rail
industry. This provision would direct that such an assessment be
carried out and at the conclusion of the assessment, it would provide
us with the information Congress needs in order to make future
decisions on how to further address rail security matters.
I believe this legislation is a credible proposal that could do a
great deal to improve the safety and security of our rail network. I
stand ready to work with my colleagues, the Administration, industry,
and public safety advocates in an effort to address the safety and
security of our nation's rail system.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 1529. A bill to direct the Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security to establish the National Energy Infrastructure Security
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we consider the issue of national
security in the weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, one
sector in particular that deserves our undivided attention is the
security of our national energy infrastructure. The vulnerability of
our country's energy infrastructure became more clear last week when an
individual was able to cause about 150,000 gallons of oil to spill from
the 800 mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline with a bullet from a high powered
rifle.
I believe the events of September 11 have proven that Congress has a
responsibility to make sure our Nation's energy infrastructure is
adequately protected from both hostile and natural attacks.
We are now engaged in an operation to combat terrorism which will
take considerable time and resources. Some of the emergency measures
put in place at energy facilities throughout the country in response to
the September 11 attacks can only be maintained for so long. For
example, off the coast of my State of Louisiana the Nation's largest
port for offloading crude oil was being patrolled by a military vessel.
While a kind of safety zone around such areas makes sense, should we
expend our military's resources in order to do so? Merely using our
present available resources to operate at such high levels of alert for
the duration of what all indications are will be a long term effort
does not seem realistic. There is a need for a substantial commitment
to the protection of our country's energy infrastructure both in scope
and duration.
Although 90 percent of the infrastructure in this country is
privately owned and operated and industry does have an obligation to
provide security, there is sufficient evidence to suggest the Federal
Government should make a more significant contribution. First, our
country is now experiencing an economic downturn. It is imperative for
our government to continue to focus its attention on measures to
increase and shore up production while keeping our domestic supply of
energy steady.
Second, energy infrastructure is by nature not contained within the
borders of one State or region. For example, three of the country's top
ten gasoline consuming States are in the Midwest. The Midwest imports
25 percent of its total demand from the Gulf Coast. While the Gulf
Coast refining centers handle half of the total barrels processed in
the U.S. today, there are only two pipeline systems in place to move
the product from the South to
[[Page S10463]]
the Midwest. This is a tremendous amount of pressure on Gulf Coast
refineries to meet demand in the Midwest. What happens if one or both
of these systems are disrupted? In addition, the only offshore oil
terminal in the United States, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, LOOP,
is estimated to take in 13 percent of the United States' imported oil
and refining capacity and is connected by five pipelines to over 30
percent of the United States refining capacity. Imagine the impact its
disruption from natural or hostile threats would have on the Nation's
refining capacity.
So, whether we are talking about pipelines, transmission lines,
electric generators, refineries, nuclear power plants, ports, rigs or
platforms, the Federal Government has a clear and compelling interest
in providing the necessary resources to ensure that our energy
infrastructure is sufficiently protected. Since the disruption of a
particular facility or transmission line has economic consequences and
could pose a significant threat to the safety of the surrounding
population, as well as the effect on our economy, environment, state
and local authorities must also play a role. This would require a
partnership among the federal, state and local governments and
industry.
Today, I am introducing legislation, the National Energy
Infrastructure Security Program Establishment Act, which would:
Establish a multi-year national energy infrastructure program overseen
by the newly appointed Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security, to provide funding annually to all 50 States in order to make
sure that all appropriate measures from the monitoring and detection of
potential threats to mitigation, response and recovery are in place
against hostile and natural threats; create two funds, one for the
protection of energy infrastructure located in the coastal zones of oil
and gas producing States, the other for the energy infrastructure of
all fifty States excluding those areas in the oil and gas producing
States that would be provided for in the first fund; provide funding
based on a formula related to the amount of energy infrastructure a
State has as well as to the contribution of the State's infrastructure
to the rest of the country; the Governor of each State would consult
with Federal, State and local law enforcement, public safety,
officials, industry and other relevant persons or agencies to put
together a security plan to submit to the Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security as well as the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy
and Interior detailing what measures were necessary provide adequate
protection of that particular State's infrastructure; and in order to
pay for this program we would use a percentage of offshore revenues
from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
If we are truly serious about protecting our country's energy
infrastructure from present and future threats, it is necessary for us
to provide a commitment of significant Federal resources as soon as
possible.
____________________