[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1600-S1614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 1990. A bill to establish a public education awareness program 
relating to emergency contraception; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam 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. 1990

       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 ``Emergency Contraception 
     Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, or one half of all 
     pregnancies, in the United States are unintended, and half of 
     all of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion;
       (2) the Food and Drug Administration has declared emergency 
     contraception to be safe and effective in preventing 
     unintended pregnancy, reducing the risk by as much as 89 
     percent;
       (3) the most commonly used forms of emergency contraception 
     are regimens of ordinary birth control pills taken within 72 
     hours of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure;
       (4) emergency contraception, also known as post-coital 
     contraception, is a responsible means of preventing pregnancy 
     that works like other hormonal contraception to delay 
     ovulation, prevent fertilization or prevent implantation;
       (5) emergency contraception does not cause abortion and 
     will not affect an established pregnancy;
       (6) it is estimated that the use of emergency contraception 
     could cut the number of unintended pregnancies in half, 
     thereby reducing the need for abortion;
       (7) emergency contraceptive use is the United States 
     remains low, and 9 in 10 women of reproductive age remain 
     unaware of the method;
       (8) although the American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists recommends that doctors routinely offer women 
     of reproductive age a prescription for emergency 
     contraceptive pills during their annual visit, only 1 in 5 
     ob/gyns routinely discuss emergency contraception with their 
     patients, suggesting the need for greater provider and 
     patient education;
       (9) in light of their safety and efficacy, both the 
     American Medical Association and the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists have endorsed more widespread 
     availability of emergency contraceptive pills, and have 
     recommended that dedicated emergency contraceptive products 
     be available without a prescription;
       (10) Healthy People 2010, published by the Office of the 
     Surgeon General, establishes a 10-year national public health 
     goal of increasing the proportion of health care providers 
     who provide emergency contraception to their patients; and
       (11) public awareness campaigns targeting women and health 
     care providers will help remove many of the barriers to 
     emergency contraception and will help bring this important 
     means of pregnancy prevention to American women.

     SEC. 3. EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Emergency contraception.--The term ``emergency 
     contraception'' means a drug or device (as the terms are 
     defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) that is--
       (A) used after sexual relations; and
       (B) prevents pregnancy, by preventing ovulation, 
     fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a 
     uterus.
       (2) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means an individual who is licensed or certified 
     under State law to provide health care services and who is 
     operating within the scope of such license.
       (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the same meaning 
     given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Emergency Contraception Public Education Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall 
     develop and disseminate to the public information on 
     emergency contraception.
       (2) Dissemination.--The Secretary may disseminate 
     information under paragraph (1) directly or through 
     arrangements with nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, 
     institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, clinics and the media.
       (3) Information.--The information disseminated under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, a description of 
     emergency contraception, and an explanation of the use, 
     safety, efficacy, and availability of such contraception.
       (c) Emergency Contraception Information Program for Health 
     Care Providers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration and in consultation with major medical and 
     public health organizations, shall develop and disseminate to 
     health care providers information on emergency contraception.
       (2) Information.--The information disseminated under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum--
       (A) information describing the use, safety, efficacy and 
     availability of emergency contraception;
       (B) a recommendation regarding the use of such 
     contraception in appropriate cases; and
       (C) information explaining how to obtain copies of the 
     information developed under subsection (b), for distribution 
     to the patients of the providers.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Carper, 
        Mr. Cleland, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1991. To establish a national rail passenger transportation 
system, reauthorize Amtrak, improve security and service on Amtrak, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Defense Rail Act on behalf of myself and some 19 co-sponsors. This 
legislation will establish a strong and efficient national passenger 
rail system. For far too long, we have neglected investing in our 
Nation's passenger rail system. We have taken an active responsibility 
in developing the infrastructure of all other modes of transportation, 
whether it has been federally funding the development of the interstate 
highway system, subsidizing airport construction, or taking the 
responsibility for dredging harbors and channels or building locks and 
dams. Now it is time to build a world class passenger railroad system 
in the United States. We know it can be done. Japan and France provide 
two models of successful passenger railroad service. The time to move 
ahead is now. We cannot wait for highways and airports to become so 
clogged that they cannot operate any longer. Rail systems are not built 
in a day. We need to engage in long-term planning to address future 
passenger transportation growth and show forethought in crafting 
transportation solutions--not wait for an impending crisis. My 
legislation provides the vision to begin to do this.
  The atrocious events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath which 
followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when 
transportation choices are limited and our mobility is diminished. In 
the aftermath of the horrific attack on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon, we were forced to adjust to a transportation system that was 
without access to aviation. That should make us all evaluate the 
problems inherent in a policy that results in overall dependence on any 
one particular mode of transportation. We need to have a more balanced 
system of transportation for passengers in this country. Our economy 
depends on it; our travelers deserve it; and our roads and airports

[[Page S1601]]

could operate more efficiently in a balanced system.
  After the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all flights 
following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, travelers 
flocked to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help 
with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American 
citizens moving during a time of national emergency.
  The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that passenger 
rail is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a 
national emergency or security crisis. Amtrak provided a critical 
transportation link, carrying 35,000 passengers along the Northeast 
corridor every day, and hundreds of extra carloads of mail for the U.S. 
Postal Office in the days following the terrorist attacks.
  Transportation security--an essential part of our national security--
requires a balanced and competitive system of transportation 
alternatives. In September, we found that our dependence on the 
aviation system almost crippled us. We cannot afford to rely on any 
single mode of transportation; we need to ensure that we have a 
balanced system that includes a sound passenger rail system. We also 
know that passenger railroads use less fuel per passenger mile than 
highway vehicles and commercial airlines. During these times of oil-
consciousness, a larger presence of passenger rail in our 
transportation system would reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign 
oil.
  Passenger railroads, the interstate highway system, and our national 
aviation network have all taken different paths to their current roles 
in our national transportation system. The tales of their development 
stand in quite a stark contrast from each other.
  The interstate highway system has received significant attention and 
federal funding since the construction of the Lincoln Highway in 1913 
and the Rural Post Roads Act of 1916, and later during World War II 
with the Federal Highway Act of 1944. It was not until 1956, however, 
that the Government began heavily promoting highway transportation with 
the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The act established 
a Highway Trust Fund based upon Federal user taxes, in order to finance 
up to 90 percent of State construction costs of the $25 billion plan to 
pay for new roads, and the construction of the Eisenhower National 
Interstate and Defense Highway System.
  Similar policies and Federal attention for aviation resulted in a 
strengthened infrastructure, and follows much the same story of the 
highways system.
  Passenger rail service was once a vital instrument in the 
transportation needs of our Nation. For instance, during World War II, 
not only did the railroads transport 90 percent of all defense freight, 
but also 97 percent of all defense personnel on their way to theaters 
of action. By the end of the war, railroads accounted for three-
quarters of the common carrier share of intercity traffic, with 
airplanes and buses sharing the remaining quarter of traffic. However, 
with national focus turned to aviation and highways, by the late 1960s 
most rail companies were petitioning the Government to discontinue 
passenger services because of losses.
  Amtrak was created as a Federal corporation in order to relieve the 
railroad industry of these unprofitable passenger operations, and in 
the interest of maintaining a national passenger rail network. But in 
retrospect, Amtrak was set up not to thrive and expand passenger rail 
service, but really to just maintain the status quo of 30 years ago. 
That attitude persists even today. Since 1971, Amtrak has received only 
$25 billion in public subsidies; during that period, the United States 
invested $750 billion on highways and aviation.
  So one problem becomes all too clear--that U.S. passenger rail 
infrastructure has no stable funding source in contrast to highways, 
aviation, and transit. In fact, per capita spending on passenger rail 
is much lower than many other countries: the U.S. ranks behind Britain, 
France, Japan, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, 
Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Norway, Czech Republic, 
Finland, Slovakia, Portugal, Poland, South Africa, Greece, and Estonia. 
Imagine that of the 23 industrialized nations with rail service, we are 
at the bottom. Including these countries, no passenger rail service in 
the world has built and operated a passenger rail system at a profit. 
All have required Government support for construction and maintenance, 
or operating support, or both. That same principle holds true for 
highways and aviation, which have required substantial Federal spending 
since their beginning and continue to receive generous Federal 
subsidies today.
  Those who want passenger rail to operate without Federal assistance--
ultimately forcing more travelers onto cars, buses and airplanes--argue 
that we should not ``subsidize'' passenger rail. But we subsidize the 
building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We subsidize the 
building of airports and pay for all of the equipment and people needed 
to run our air traffic control system. We consider those subsidies to 
be worthwhile investments in our economy and our quality of life. We 
must make the same investment to create a world-class passenger rail 
system in order to see the same kinds of benefits.
  While that argument should stand on its own, here's something the 
highway and airline crowd can take to the bank: moving more short-haul 
travelers to rail service reduces congestion on our already overcrowded 
highways and eases congestion at airports. It also provides real 
competition to airlines on short-haul trips.
  Over the past 30 years, the lack of investment and attention to the 
needs of passenger rail infrastructure has resulted in a weak passenger 
rail network, and has caused a strain on the capacity of other modes of 
transportation in many areas of the country. The Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997, and preceding statutes, resulted in 
creating conflicting missions for Amtrak: serve a public function by 
operating unprofitable long-distance routes, but also attempt to 
operate at a profit. To add insult to injury, Amtrak has been forced to 
delay capital improvement projects having important long-term benefits 
in order to attempt to meet the mandate of the 1997 Act. Congress 
passed this misguided law in 1997, requiring Amtrak to operate without 
government support by the end of fiscal year 2002. But there is no 
truly national passenger train service in the world that makes a 
profit. Requiring Amtrak to make a profit has forced the railroad to 
forgo long-term capital investments in favor of short-term, bond 
payment shell games. Instead of investing in modern trains and 
infrastructure upgrades, Amtrak was forced to mortgage Penn Station 
just to pay the electric bill.
  From this, it is evident that we need to reevaluate our Nation's rail 
passenger policy, and clearly define a role for Amtrak. A strong 
Federal role was required to establish the interstate highway system 
and the Federal aviation network. And now Federal investment in 
passenger rail infrastructure is critical; once again, Federal 
leadership is required to address the needs of a reliable, safe, secure 
passenger rail network.
  This legislation provides a blueprint for the future of passenger 
rail in the United States. The bill will help develop high-speed rail 
corridors, which are the building blocks for a national passenger rail 
system. This will allow regional transportation solutions to play a 
part in the national system. It will also aid in the development of 
short distance corridors between larger urban centers, as well as 
provide funding to preserve longer distance routes for those 
communities that do not have the population densities to merit air 
service--sometimes the train is their only alternative to driving. 
Finally, it will provide Amtrak with the tools and funding it needs to 
operate efficiently.
  This legislation authorizes $1.255 billion in emergency spending for 
Amtrak's security and life safety needs. Similar language was included 
in the Rail Security Act, S. 1550, which was favorably reported by the 
committee on October 17, 2001. In that legislation, we authorized funds 
to be spent on immediate rail security needs, such as hiring more 
police officers across the entire Amtrak system and modernizing the 
safety infrastructure of old tunnels.
  This bill will give the Federal Government the script for the role it 
needs

[[Page S1602]]

to play in establishing a national rail passenger system. It would not 
require any State contribution, and would give preference to projects 
having right-of-way dedicated to passenger rail, involving high-speed 
passenger service of 125 mph, although operations of 90 mph speeds or 
more would be eligible for funding, and those connecting to other modes 
of passenger transportation, including airports.
  The bill authorizes $1.5 billion annually for corridor development. 
These funds are needed for infrastructure acquisition, highway-rail 
grade crossing improvement/elimination, acquisition of rolling stock 
and track and signal equipment. Development of a national passenger 
rail system carries a high cost, and the Federal Government must take 
the lead role in funding it.
  This bill will also fund $35 billion in loan guarantees. This money 
will dramatically expand the current Railroad Rehabilitation & 
Infrastructure Financing loan and loan guarantee program. But we also 
must restructure that program. Since it was created in 1998 as part of 
TEA-21 bill, the program has processed only a few loans due to 
unreasonable constraints imposed by OMB. Our bill eliminates the 
artificial limits on loan amounts, impossible collateral requirements, 
and unworkable loan cohort structures.
  This bill identifies existing high-speed corridors in 29 States and 
the District of Columbia for priority consideration. Many of these 
corridors are in areas where people are now driving cars or taking 
airplanes on trips of 300 miles or less. In these areas, like the East 
Coast, travelers could take a high-speed train instead and arrive at 
about the same time. But right now they don't have that rail option, 
and they won't until we build it.
  The passenger railroad system that has worked well in the Northeast 
can work in other highly-congested areas of the country: the South, the 
Midwest, California and the Northwest. Thirty years ago, those areas 
did not have the population to support high-speed intercity rail. But 
today those areas are growing by leaps and bounds. As the highways in 
those areas clog up and the planes run 3 hours late, their Governors--
many of them Republicans--are asking us for help to build high speed 
rail.
  A short-term benefit of this legislation will be stimulation of the 
economy by providing jobs in developing new corridors. This bill 
ensures that fair labor standards for all projects receiving funds 
under it, including payment of prevailing wages and allowance of 
collective bargaining over wage rates.
  Another immediate benefit will be the closing/improvement of highway-
rail grade crossings in high-speed rail corridors. Under this bill, 
funds are set aside specifically for these important safety 
improvements.
  This legislation will provide the necessary funds of $1.31 billion 
for Amtrak to repair and upgrade the track it owns and operates in the 
Northeast corridor. This corridor is a prime example of the benefits we 
can attain when there are transportation choices for travelers. The 
Northeast corridor has become an invaluable asset to our national 
transportation system, and it should not be left in disrepair. This 
bill authorizes funds to enable Amtrak to eliminate its capital backlog 
of projects, maintain ongoing projects to capital infrastructure, and 
improve capacity to accommodate projected growth in traffic. It also 
allows Amtrak to reinvest revenues from operations in the Northeast 
corridor back into the backlog of capital infrastructure projects.
  In a nutshell, this is our long term plan to make passenger rail a 
part of our balanced transportation system. But in the short run, we 
must make sure Amtrak's financial foundation is strong at a time when 
we are relying on them more than ever. Amtrak's ridership has increased 
consistently, and they now carry over 22 million passengers per year. 
This legislation will give Amtrak the tools and funding they need to 
create a modern, efficient passenger railroad. The bill reauthorizes 
Amtrak for 5 years, and fully funds their capital needs and the 
operating losses with respect to long-distance service.
  This legislation repeals the unrealistic operating self-sufficiency 
requirements. It also authorizes funding for compliance with 
environmental standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  This legislation will further aid Amtrak to operate more efficiently. 
It will require Amtrak to reinvest revenues from non-passenger 
operations into growth projects outside the Northeast corridor. It will 
require revenue from the Northeast corridor to be reinvested into 
capital projects on the Northeast corridor. Finally, it will require an 
annual independent audit of Amtrak, to be reviewed by the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General.
  I am pleased my colleagues have joined with me in sponsoring this 
bill. By developing passenger rail as part of a balanced transportation 
system, this legislation will lead to the creation of jobs in the short 
run to stimulate our economy. In the long run, high-speed rail 
corridors will become a key foundation for our national rail passenger 
transportation system, which is critical to the strong backbone of a 
prosperous economy.
  Like the interstate highway system, the benefits of passenger rail 
and Amtrak could be immeasurable, so we have much at stake. While I 
have outlined an ambitious blueprint, I keep in mind that 50 years ago, 
the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was ``pie in the 
sky.'' Now our successful Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and 
Defense Highways and national aviation network are used by many, so 
much that in many places they are congested and strained to capacity. 
We should not wait until our current transportation problems reach 
epidemic proportions; our economy cannot afford it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and an outline 
of the finances of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1991

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49; TABLE OF 
                   CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Defense Rail Act''.
       (b) Amendment of Title 49.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or a repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of title 49; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

                 Title I--RAIL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Sec. 101. Amtrak security assistance.
Sec. 102. Study of foreign rail transport security programs.
Sec. 103. Passenger, baggage, and cargo screening.
Sec. 104. Rail security.
Sec. 105. Rail transportation security risk assessment.

   TITLE II--INTERSTATE RAILROAD PASSENGER HIGH-SPEED TRANSPORTATION 
                                 SYSTEM

Sec. 201. Interstate railroad passenger high-speed transportation 
              policy.
Sec. 202. High-speed rail corridor planning.
Sec. 203. Implemenation assistance.
Sec. 204. Designated high-speed rail corridors.
Sec. 205. Labor standards.
Sec. 206. Railway-highway crossings in high-speed rail corridors.
Sec. 207. Authorization of appropriations.

           TITLE III--NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Sec. 301. National railroad passenger transportation system defined.
Sec. 302. Extension of authorization.
Sec. 303. Additional Amtrak authorizations.
Sec. 304. Northeast Corridor authorizations.
Sec. 305. Long distance trains.
Sec. 306. Short distance trains; State-supported routes.
Sec. 307. Re-establishment of Northeast Corridor Safety Committee.
Sec. 308. On-time performance.
Sec. 309. Amtrak board of directors.
Sec. 310. Independent audit of Amtrak operations; review by DOT IG.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Rehabilitation, improvement, and security financing.
Sec. 402. Rail passenger cooperative research program.
Sec. 403. Conforming amendments to title 49 reflecting ICC Termination 
              Act.
Sec. 404. Applicability of reversion to Alaska Railroad right-of-way 
              property.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:

[[Page S1603]]

       (1) Financial investment in passenger rail infrastructure 
     is critical, and Federal leadership is required to address 
     the needs of a reliable safe, secure passenger rail network, 
     just as has been used in establishing the interstate highway 
     system and the Federal aviation network.
       (2) Lack of investment and attention to the needs of 
     passenger rail infrastructure has resulted in a weak 
     passenger rail network, and has caused a strain on the 
     capacity of other modes of transportation in many areas of 
     the country. According to the Department of Transportation, 
     in 1999 the cost of wasted time and extra fuel consumption 
     due to delays on congested roads was estimated at $78 
     billion.
       (3) Passenger rail is an integral part of the United States 
     transportation system, and, as can be evidenced in the 
     Northeast Corridor, relieves the pressures of congestion on 
     highways and at airports, and creates a more balanced system 
     of transportation alternatives.
       (4) Passenger rail service has been a vital instrument in 
     the transportation needs of our Nation. For instance, during 
     World War II, the privately owned, operated, and constructed 
     railroad industry transported 90 percent of all defense 
     freight, and 97 percent of all defense personnel transported 
     to points of embarkation for theaters of action. By the end 
     of the war, railroads accounted for three quarters of the 
     share of the common carrier share of intercity traffic, with 
     airplanes and buses sharing the remaining quarter of traffic.
       (5) Significant attention and Federal funding were required 
     to construct the Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense 
     Highways. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 established a 
     Highway Trust Fund based upon Federal user taxes in order to 
     finance up to 90 percent of the costs of the $25 billion 
     dollar highway construction plan.
       (6) Federal policies with respect to investment in aviation 
     resulted in a strengthened aviation industry and the rapid 
     development of air passenger service, and by the late 1960's 
     most rail companies were petitioning the Government to 
     discontinue passenger services because of losses.
       (7) Amtrak was established in 1971 by the Rail Passenger 
     Service Act of 1970 to provide passenger rail services in the 
     United States as a public service; at the time of Amtrak's 
     formation, freight railroads were losing money on 
     unprofitable passenger rail operations. Since 1971 Amtrak has 
     received only $25 billion in public subsidies; during that 
     period, the United States invested $750 billion on highways 
     and aviation.
       (8) The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, and 
     preceding statutes, resulted in creating conflicting missions 
     for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation of both 
     serving a public function by operating unprofitable long-
     distance routes while also attempting to operate at a profit. 
     This policy has also restricted Amtrak's profit potential on 
     the Northeast Corridor by limiting the capital expenditures 
     to help defray other costs.
       (9) Due to a lack of capital investment, the Northeast 
     Corridor has accumulated a backlog of repair needs, including 
     life safety and security needs. Investment in the capital 
     needs of the Northeast Corridor would result in capacity 
     improvements which would result in greater utilization of the 
     existing infrastructure.
       (10) The Department of Transportation Inspector General's 
     2001 Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Performance and 
     Requirements (Report #CR-2002-075) found that Amtrak's lack 
     of available capital has impeded its efforts to achieve 
     financial goals.
       (11) In order to attempt to meet the mandate of the Amtrak 
     Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Amtrak has been forced 
     to delay capital improvement projects and other projects 
     which would produce long-term benefits.
       (12) The Department of Transportation Inspector General's 
     2001 Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Performance and 
     Requirements (Report #CR-2002-075) found that Amtrak's most 
     profitable operations are on the Northeast Corridor, where 
     Federal investment in passenger rail infrastructure has been 
     significantly higher than anywhere else in the country.
       (13) Federal investments in capital projects to support 
     passenger rail in areas other than the Northeast Corridor 
     would result in improved service and increase profitability.
       (14) The need for a balanced interstate and international 
     transportation system that provides a viable alternative to 
     travel by private automobile or commercial aircraft is 
     particularly evident after the events of September 11, 2001.
       (15) As a matter of national security, a strong passenger 
     rail network would provide travelers an alternative to 
     highway and air travel, which could lead to reduced United 
     States reliance on foreign oil imports.
       (16) In fiscal year 2001, the United States spent less than 
     1 percent of all transportation modal spending on intercity 
     passenger rail, and since 1998, Amtrak has received only 
     $4.59 billion of the $8.42 billion it has been authorized to 
     receive by Congress.
       (17) Passenger rail in the United States has no stable 
     funding source, in contrast to highways, aviation, and 
     transit.
       (18) Per capita spending on passenger rail is much higher 
     in other countries than the United States and, in fact, the 
     United States ranks behind other countries including Canada, 
     Japan, France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Austria, 
     Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, 
     Norway, the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, Portugal, 
     Poland, South Africa, Greece, and Estonia.
       (19) The United States needs to engage in long-term 
     planning to foster and address future passenger 
     transportation growth and show forethought regarding 
     transportation solutions rather than be forced to act due to 
     an impending crisis.
       (20) It is in the national interest to preserve passenger 
     rail service in the United States and to maintain the 
     solvency of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
       (21) Long-term planning and support for passenger rail will 
     help offset the emerging problems created by transportation 
     congestion, and contribute to a cleaner and more 
     environmentally-friendly transportation system.
       (22) A comprehensive re-evaluation of our nation's rail 
     passenger policy is required and a clearly defined role for 
     Amtrak and a connected rail passenger network must be 
     established.
       (23) The Federal government must take the primary 
     responsibility for developing national railroad passenger 
     transportation infrastructure, and help ensure that it 
     functions as an efficient network. Privatization of the rail 
     passenger industry in Great Britain has been disastrous and 
     passenger service has suffered overall.
       (24) The Nation should be afforded the opportunity to 
     receive safe, efficient, and cost-effective rail passenger 
     services, taking into account all benefits to the Nation as a 
     whole.

                 TITLE I--RAIL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

     SEC. 101. AMTRAK SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Infrastructure Security.--The following amounts are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the use of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003:
       (1) $26,000,000 for tunnel, bridge, electric traction, and 
     tower security, including closed circuit television cameras, 
     vehicle barriers, lighting, and fencing, of which $19,725,000 
     shall be obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 
     $6,275,000 shall be obligated or expended outside the 
     Northeast Corridor.
       (2) $137,370,000 for interlocking security needs, including 
     closed circuit television cameras, lighting, fencing and 
     vehicle barriers, of which 50 percent shall be obligated or 
     expended on the Northeast Corridor and 50 percent shall be 
     obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (3) $12,525,000 for equipment facility security, including 
     closed circuit television cameras, lighting, and vehicle 
     barriers, of which $4,175,000 shall be obligated or expended 
     on the Northeast Corridor and $8,350,000 shall be obligated 
     or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (4) $22,140,000 for yard and terminal security, including 
     closed circuit television cameras, lighting, fencing and 
     vehicle barriers, of which $9,225,000 shall be obligated or 
     expended on the Northeast Corridor and $12,915,000 shall be 
     obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (5) $2,940,000 for mail and express facilities security, 
     including closed circuit television cameras, lighting, 
     fencing, and vehicle barriers, of which $1,470,000 shall be 
     obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 
     $1,470,000 shall be obligated or expended outside the 
     Northeast Corridor.
       (6) $20,125,000 for station security, including closed 
     circuit television cameras, x-ray machines, lighting, fencing 
     and vehicle barriers, of which $7,000,000 shall be obligated 
     or expended on the Northeast Corridor and $13,125,000 shall 
     be obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (7) $538,000 for employee identification systems, including 
     improved technology for badges issued to employees and 
     visitors controlled through a centralized database.
       (8) $75,000 for bomb-resistant trash containers, of which 
     50 percent shall be obligated or expended on the Northeast 
     Corridor and 50 percent shall be obligated or expended 
     outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (9) $5,800,000 for a passenger information retrieval system 
     to capture security information, create watchlists, and an 
     online history of passengers, of which 50 percent shall be 
     obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 50 
     percent shall be obligated or expended outside the Northeast 
     Corridor.
       (10) $6,200,000 for an incident tracking system to create 
     and maintain an electronic database of data on criminal and 
     operational incidents, of which 50 percent shall be obligated 
     or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 50 percent shall be 
     obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (11) $4,300,000 for upgrades to ticket kiosks for photo 
     imaging for identification purposes, of which 50 percent 
     shall be obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 
     50 percent shall be obligated or expended outside the 
     Northeast Corridor.
       (12) $16,750,000 for an incident command system to serve as 
     a second command center and a disaster recovery command site, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be obligated or expended on the 
     Northeast Corridor and $11,750,000 shall be obligated or 
     expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (13) $5,000,000 for train locator and tracking systems to 
     provide GPS coordinates for all locomotives, of which 50 
     percent shall be obligated or expended on the Northeast 
     Corridor and 50 percent shall be obligated or expended 
     outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (14) $120,000 for a notification system for integration of 
     GPS information into the central computer systems, of which 
     50 percent

[[Page S1604]]

     shall be obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 
     50 percent shall be obligated or expended outside the 
     Northeast Corridor.
       (15) $1,245,000 for mail and express shipment software to 
     identify each shipment positively before it is transported by 
     rail, of which $405,000 shall be obligated or expended on the 
     Northeast Corridor and $840,000 shall be obligated or 
     expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (16) $1,211,000 for mail and express tracking deployment to 
     identify the status of each rail shipment.
       (b) Security Operations.--The following amounts are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the use of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003:
       (1) $354,000 for hiring 4 police officers, each of whom is 
     to be dedicated to a specific region of the United States, to 
     provide intelligence-gathering and analysis, conduct crime-
     mapping assessments throughout the entire system, work with 
     law enforcement to prevent terrorist acts and reduce Amtrak's 
     vulnerability, of which 50 percent shall be obligated or 
     expended on the Northeast Corridor and 50 percent shall be 
     obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (2) $10,411,000 for the hiring of 150 patrol officers and 
     48 specialized personnel, of whom 101 would be deployed on 
     the Northeast Corridor and 97 outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (3) $11,292,000 for the hiring of 250 security officers, of 
     whom 147 would be deployed on the Northeast Corridor and 103 
     outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (4) $1,828,000 for the hiring of 20 canine bomb teams, of 
     which 14 are to be deployed outside the Northeast Corridor 
     and 10 are to be deployed to mail and express facilities.
       (5) $30,761,000 for 90 infrastructure security inspectors 
     to inspect the rights-of-way, bridges, buildings, tunnels, 
     communications and signaling equipment, fencing, gates, 
     barriers, lighting, catenary system, and other security 
     features, of which $21,000,000 is to be obligated or expended 
     on the Northeast Corridor and $10,000,000 is to be obligated 
     or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (6) $2,990,000 to expand aviation capabilities for security 
     coverage and patrol capabilities, including equipment, staff, 
     and facilities, of which $997,000 is to be obligated or 
     expended on the Northeast Corridor and $1,993,000 is to be 
     obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (7) $1,095,000 for the leasing of 150 vehicles and 10 
     bicycles to support patrol capabilities, of which $569,000 is 
     to be obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and 
     $526,000 is to be obligated or expended outside the Northeast 
     Corridor.
       (8) $669,000 for 6 management level positions with 
     responsibility for direction, control, implementation, and 
     monitoring of security systems, including the deployment of 
     the 250 security officers throughout the Amtrak system, of 
     which $446,000 is to be obligated or expended on the 
     Northeast Corridor and $223,000 is to be obligated or 
     expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (9) $980,000 for applicant background investigations, of 
     which 50 percent shall be obligated or expended on the 
     Northeast Corridor and 50 percent shall be obligated or 
     expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (10) $457,000 for rapid response teams to respond to and 
     prepare for on-site consequence management, all of which 
     shall be obligated or expended outside the Northeast 
     Corridor.
       (c) Equipment Security.--
       (1) In general.--The following amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003:
       (A) $1,755,000 to provide two-way communication devices for 
     all Amtrak conductors.
       (B) $3,000,000 for 2 mobile emergency command and 
     communication units and rapid response teams, 1 to be located 
     in the Midwest and 1 on the West Coast.
       (C) $651,000 for 200 to 400 radioactive material detectors 
     to be deployed system-wide, of which $231,000 is to be 
     obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and $420,000 
     is to be obligated or expended outside the Northeast 
     Corridor.
       (D) $4,000,000 for hand-held bomb detectors for use by 
     police to inspect baggage and packages.
       (E) $1,400,000 to screen express packages before being 
     placed on trains.
       (F) $1,305,000 for secure locking devices on mail and 
     express cars that have satellite-monitoring capability.
       (G) $10,234,000 for video recording systems on road 
     locomotives, of which $4,859,000 is to be obligated or 
     expended on the Northeast Corridor and $5,375,000 is to be 
     obligated or expended outside the Northeast Corridor.
       (H) $6,712,000 to acquire and install satellite-based 
     technology to shut down any locomotive that is not under the 
     control of its crew.
       (I) $4,320,000 to install 10 new communications stations to 
     enable radio communications in remote locations and 12 
     satellite receivers.
       (J) $4,000,000 for 4 self-propelled high-speed rail cars 
     designated for selective patrol and enforcement functions, 
     including critical incident response, dignitary protection, 
     and roving rail security inspections.
       (2) Allocation.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), 
     (C), and (G) of paragraph (1), 50 percent of any amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be obligated or 
     expended on the Northeast Corridor and 50 percent of such 
     amounts shall be obligated or expended outside the Northeast 
     Corridor.
       (d) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall remain available until 
     expended.
       (e) Prohibition on Use of Equipment for Employment-Related 
     Purposes.--An employer may not use closed circuit television 
     cameras purchased with amounts authorized by this section for 
     employee disciplinary or monitoring purposes unrelated to 
     transportation security.

     SEC. 102. STUDY OF FOREIGN RAIL TRANSPORT SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Requirement for Study.--Not later than June 1, 2003, 
     the Comptroller General shall carry out a study of the rail 
     passenger transportation security programs that are carried 
     out for rail transportation systems in Japan, member nations 
     of the European Union, and other foreign countries.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to identify 
     effective rail transportation security measures that are in 
     use in foreign rail transportation systems, including 
     innovative measures and screening procedures determined 
     effective.
       (c) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     on the results of the study to Congress. The report shall 
     include the Comptroller General's assessment regarding 
     whether it is feasible to implement within the United States 
     any of the same or similar security measures that are 
     determined effective under the study.

     SEC. 103. PASSENGER, BAGGAGE, AND CARGO SCREENING.

       (a) Requirement for Study and Report.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) study the cost and feasibility of requiring security 
     screening for all passengers, baggage, and mail, express, and 
     other cargo on Amtrak trains; and
       (2) report the results of the study, together with any 
     recommendations that the Secretary may have for implementing 
     a rail security screening program to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives one year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Pilot Program.--As part of the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall conduct a pilot program of random 
     security screening of passengers and baggage at 5 of the 10 
     busiest passenger rail stations served by Amtrak (measured by 
     the average number of boardings of Amtrak passenger trains) 
     and at up to five additional rail stations served by Amtrak 
     that are selected by the Secretary. In selecting the 
     additional train stations the Secretary shall attempt to 
     achieve a distribution of participating stations in terms of 
     geographic location and size.

     SEC. 104. RAIL SECURITY.

       (a) Secretary of Transportation.--Section 20103(a) is 
     amended by striking ``safety'' and inserting ``safety, 
     including the security of railroad operations,''.
       (b) Rail Police Officers.--Section 28101 is amended by 
     striking ``the rail carrier'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``any rail carrier''.
       (c) Review of Rail Regulations.--Within 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Federal Railroad 
     Administration's Rail Safety Advisory Committee, shall review 
     existing rail regulations of the Department of Transportation 
     for the purpose of identifying areas in which those 
     regulations need to be revised to improve rail safety and 
     security.

     SEC. 105. RAIL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Assessment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     assess the security risks associated with rail transportation 
     and develop prioritized recommendations for--
       (A) improving the security of rail tunnels, rail bridges, 
     rail switching areas, and other areas identified by the 
     Secretary as posing significant rail-related risks to public 
     safety and the movement of interstate commerce, taking into 
     account the impact that any proposed security measure might 
     have on the provision of rail service;
       (B) the deployment of chemical and biological weapon 
     detection equipment;
       (C) dealing with the immediate and long-term economic 
     impact of measures that may be required to address those 
     risks; and
       (D) training employees in terrorism response activities.
       (2) Existing private and public sector efforts.--The 
     assessment shall include a review of any actions already 
     taken to address identified security issues by both public 
     and private entities.
       (3) Railroad crossing delays.--The Secretary shall include 
     in the assessment an analysis of the risks to public safety 
     and to the security of rail transportation that are 
     associated with long delays in the movement of trains that 
     have stopped on railroad grade crossings of highways, 
     streets, and other roads for motor vehicle traffic, 
     especially in major metropolitan areas. The Secretary shall 
     include in the recommendations developed under paragraph (1) 
     recommended actions for preventing such delays and reducing 
     the risks identified in the analysis.
       (b) Consultation; Use of Existing Resources.--In carrying 
     out the assessment required by subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) consult with rail management, rail labor, and public 
     safety officials (including officials responsible for 
     responding to emergencies); and

[[Page S1605]]

       (2) utilize, to the maximum extent feasible, the resources 
     and assistance of--
       (A) the Federal Railroad Administration's Rail Safety 
     Advisory Committee; and
       (B) the Transportation Research Board of the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) Contents.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure a report, without compromising national 
     security, containing--
       (A) the assessment and prioritized recommendations required 
     by subsection (a); and
       (B) any proposals the Secretary deems appropriate for 
     providing Federal financial, technological, or research and 
     development assistance to railroads to assist the railroads 
     in reducing the likelihood, severity, and consequences of 
     deliberate acts of crime or terrorism toward rail employees, 
     rail passengers, rail shipments, or rail property.
       (2) Format.--The Secretary may submit the report in both 
     classified and redacted formats if the Secretary determines 
     that such action is appropriate or necessary.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2003 to carry out this section, such sums to remain 
     available until expended.

   TITLE II--INTERSTATE RAILROAD PASSENGER HIGH-SPEED TRANSPORTATION 
                                 SYSTEM

     SEC. 201. INTERSTATE RAILROAD PASSENGER HIGH-SPEED 
                   TRANSPORTATION POLICY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 261 is amended by inserting before 
     section 26101 the following:

     ``Sec. 26100. Policy

       ``(a) In General.--The Congress declares that it is the 
     policy of the United States that designated high-speed 
     railroad passenger transportation corridors are the building 
     blocks of an interconnected interstate railroad passenger 
     system that serves the entire Nation.
       ``(b) Secretary Required To Establish National High-Speed 
     Ground Transportation Policy.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall establish the national high-speed ground 
     transportation policy required by section 309(e)(1) of this 
     title no later than December 31, 2002.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The chapter analysis for chapter 261 is amended by 
     inserting before the item relating to section 26101 the 
     following:

``26100. Policy.''.
       (2) Section 309(e)(1) is amended by striking ``Within 12 
     months after the submission of the study required by 
     subsection (d),'' and inserting ``No later than December 31, 
     2002,''.

     SEC. 202. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--Section 26101(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Planning.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     provide planning assistance to States or group of States and 
     other public agencies promoting the development of high-speed 
     rail corridors designated by the Secretary under section 
     104(d) of title 23.
       ``(2) Secretary may provide direct or financial 
     assistance.--The Secretary may provide planning assistance 
     under paragraph (1) directly or by providing financial 
     assistance to a public agency or group of public agencies to 
     undertake planning activities approved by the Secretary.
       ``(3) 100 percent federal funding.--The Secretary may not 
     require any portion of the publicly financed costs associated 
     with eligible activities to come from non-Federal sources.
       ``(4) Priorities to chicago, atlanta, and dallas/fort 
     worth.--In determining projects to be undertaken pursuant to 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall give the highest 
     priorities to undertaking planning in the vicinity of Union 
     Station in Chicago, Illinois, in metropolitan Atlanta, 
     Georgia, and in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, area.''.
       (b) Conforming and Other Amendments to Section 26101.--
     Section 26101 is further amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c)(2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) the extent to which the proposed planning focuses on 
     high-speed rail systems, giving a priority to systems which 
     will achieve sustained speeds of 125 miles per hour or 
     greater and projects involving dedicated rail passenger 
     rights-of-way;'';
       (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in subsection 
     (c)(12);
       (3) by striking ``completed; and'' in subsection (c)(13) 
     and inserting ``completed.'';
       (4) by striking subsection (c)(14); and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Operators and Certain Service Providers Deemed Rail 
     Carriers.--A person that conducts rail operations, or 
     performs catering, cleaning, construction, maintenance or 
     other services for rail operations, funded or otherwise 
     receiving assistance under this section is deemed to be a 
     rail carrier for purposes of part A of subtitle IV, when so 
     operating or performing such services.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 511(n)(1) of the 
     Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 
     U.S.C. 831(n)(1)) is amended by striking ``125'' and 
     inserting ``90''.
       (d) Financial Assistance To Include Loans and Loan 
     Guarantees.--Section 26105(1) is amended by inserting 
     ``loans, loan guarantees,'' after ``contracts,''.
       (e) Reinvestment of Non-passenger Operating Profit.--Amtrak 
     shall invest any revenue from non-passenger operations in 
     capital needs outside the Northeast Corridor.

     SEC. 203. IMPLEMENATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 261 is amended by inserting after 
     section 26101 the following:

     ``Sec. 26101A. Implementation of corridor plans

       ``(a) Implementation Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     provide implementation assistance to States or group of 
     States and other public agencies promoting the development of 
     high-speed rail corridors designated by the Secretary under 
     section 104(d) of title 23. The Secretary shall establish an 
     application and qualification process and, before providing 
     assistance under this section, make a determination on the 
     record that the applicant is qualified and eligible for 
     assistance under this section.
       ``(2) Secretary may provide direct or financial 
     assistance.--The Secretary may provide implementation 
     assistance under paragraph (1) directly or by providing 
     financial assistance to a public agency or group of public 
     agencies to undertake implementation activities approved by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(3) 100 percent federal share.--The Secretary may not 
     require any portion of the publicly financed costs associated 
     with eligible activities to come from non-Federal sources.
       ``(4) Contribution of land.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3), 
     the Secretary may accept land contributed by a State for 
     right-of-way, without regard to whether the State acquired 
     the land directly or indirectly through the use of Federal 
     funds, including transfers from the Highway Trust Fund under 
     section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(5) Priorities to chicago, atlanta, and dallas/fort 
     worth.--In determining projects to be undertaken pursuant to 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall give the highest 
     priorities to undertaking implementation assistance in the 
     vicinity of Union Station in Chicago, Illinois, in 
     metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, and in the Dallas/Fort Worth, 
     Texas, area.
       ``(6) Special transportation circumstances.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall allocate an appropriate 
     portion of the amounts available for implementation 
     assistance to providing appropriate related assistance in any 
     State the rail transportation system of which--
       ``(A) is not physically connected to rail systems in the 
     continental United States; and
       ``(B) may not otherwise qualify for high-speed rail 
     implementation assistance due to the constraints imposed on 
     the railway infrastructure in that State due to the unique 
     characteristics of the geography of that State or other 
     relevant considerations, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Eligible Implementation Activities.--The following 
     activities are eligible for implementation assistance under 
     subsection (a):
       ``(1) Security planning and the acquisition of security and 
     emergency response equipment.
       ``(2) Operating expenses.
       ``(3) Infrastructure acquisition and construction of track 
     and facilities.
       ``(4) Highway-rail grade crossing eliminations and 
     improvements.
       ``(5) Acquisition of rights-of-way, locomotives, rolling 
     stock, track, and signal equipment.
       ``(c) Criteria for Determining Assistance for 
     Implementation Activities.--The Secretary, in selecting 
     recipients of assistance under subsection (a), shall--
       ``(1) encourage the use of positive train control 
     technologies;
       ``(2) require that any project meet any existing safety 
     regulations, and give preference to any project determined by 
     the Secretary to have particularly high levels of safety;
       ``(3) encourage intermodal connectivity by locating train 
     stations in or near airports, bus terminals, subway stations, 
     ferry ports, and other modes of transportation; and
       ``(4) ensure a general regional balance in providing such 
     assistance and avoid the concentration of a disproportionate 
     dedication of available financial assistance resources to a 
     single project or region of the country.
       ``(d) Operators and Certain Service Providers Deemed Rail 
     Carriers.--A person that conducts rail operations, or 
     performs catering, cleaning, construction, maintenance or 
     other services for rail operations, funded or otherwise 
     receiving assistance under this section is deemed to be a 
     rail carrier for purposes of part A of subtitle IV, when so 
     operating or performing such services.''.
       (b) Rulemaking Required.--Within 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     initiate a rulemaking to create an application and 
     qualification procedure for providing high-speed rail 
     corridor implementation assistance under section 26101A of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     261 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 26101 the following:

``26101A. Implementation of corridor plans.''.

[[Page S1606]]

     SEC. 204. DESIGNATED HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall give 
     priority in allocating funds authorized by section 26104 of 
     title 49, United States Code, to designated high-speed rail 
     corridors.
       (b) Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), the following shall be considered to be 
     designated high-speed rail corridors:
       (1) California Corridor connecting the San Francisco Bay 
     area and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego.
       (2) Chicago Hub Corridor Network with the following spokes:
       (A) Chicago to Detroit.
       (B) Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, via 
     Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
       (C) Chicago to Kansas City, Missouri, via Springfield, 
     Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri.
       (D) Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky, via Indianapolis, 
     Indiana, and Cincinnati, Ohio.
       (E) Chicago to Cleveland, Ohio, via Toledo, Ohio.
       (F) Cleveland, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, via Columbus, 
     Ohio.
       (3) Empire State Corridor from New York City, New York, 
     through Albany, New York, to Buffalo, New York.
       (4) Florida High-Speed Rail Corridor from Tampa through 
     Orlando to Miami.
       (5) Gulf Coast Corridor from Houston Texas, through New 
     Orleans, Louisiana, to Mobile, Alabama, with a branch from 
     New Orleans, through Meridian, Mississippi, and Birmingham, 
     Alabama, to Atlanta, Georgia.
       (6) Keystone Corridor from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
     through Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to Pittsburgh, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (7) Northeast Corridor from Washington, District of 
     Columbia, through New York City, New York, New Haven, 
     Connecticut, and Providence, Rhode Island, to Boston, 
     Massachusetts, with a branch from New Haven, Connecticut, to 
     Springfield, Massachusetts.
       (8) New England Corridor from Boston, Massachusetts, to 
     Portland and Auburn, Maine, and from Boston, Massachusetts, 
     through Concord, New Hampshire, and Montpelier, Vermont, to 
     Montreal, Quebec.
       (9) Pacific Northwest Corridor from Eugene, Oregon, through 
     Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, to Vancouver, 
     British Columbia.
       (10) South Central Corridor from San Antonio, Texas, 
     through Dallas/ Fort Worth to Little Rock, Arkansas, with a 
     branch from Dallas/Fort Worth through Oklahoma City, 
     Oklahoma, to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
       (11) Southeast Corridor from Washington, District of 
     Columbia, through Richmond, Virginia, Raleigh, North 
     Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, Savannah, Georgia, and 
     Jessup, Georgia, to Jacksonville, Florida, with--
       (A) a branch from Raleigh, North Carolina, through 
     Charlotte, North Carolina, and Greenville, South Carolina, to 
     Atlanta, Georgia; a branch from Richmond, to Hampton Roads/
     Norfolk, Virginia;
       (B) a branch from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Columbia, 
     South Carolina, to Charleston, South Carolina;
       (C) a connecting route from Atlanta, Georgia, to Jessup, 
     Georgia;
       (D) a connecting route from Atlanta, Georgia, to 
     Charleston, South Carolina; and
       (E) a branch from Raleigh, North Carolina, through 
     Florence, South Carolina, to Charleston, South Carolina, and 
     Savannah, Georgia, with a connecting route from Florence, 
     South Carolina, to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
       (12) Southwest Corridor from Los Angeles, California, to 
     Las Vegas, Nevada.
       (c) Other High-Speed Rail Corridors.--For purposes of this 
     section, subsection (b)--
       (1) does not limit the term ``designated high-speed rail 
     corridor'' to those corridors described in subsection (b); 
     and
       (2) does not limit the Secretary of Transportation's 
     authority--
       (A) to designate additional high-speed rail corridors; or
       (B) to terminate the designation of any high-speed rail 
     corridor.

     SEC. 205. LABOR STANDARDS.

       (a) Employee Protection.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall require as a condition of any project financed in whole 
     or in part by funds authorized by this Act that the project 
     be conducted in a manner that provides a fair arrangement at 
     least as protective of the interests of employees who are 
     affected by the project so funded as the terms imposed under 
     arrangements reached under section 141 of the Amtrak Reform 
     and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 U.S.C. 24706 note) on rail 
     carriers.
       (b) Labor Standards.--
       (1) Prevailing wages.--The Secretary or Transportation--
       (A) shall ensure that laborers and mechanics employed by 
     contractors and subcontractors in construction work financed 
     in whole or in part by funds authorized by this Act will be 
     paid wages not less than those prevailing on similar 
     construction in the locality, as determined by the Secretary 
     of Labor under the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-
     Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.); and
       (B) may make such funds available with respect to 
     construction work only after being assured that required 
     labor standards will be maintained on the construction work.
       (2) Wage rates.--Wage rates in a collective bargaining 
     agreement negotiated under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 
     151 et seq.) are deemed for purposes of this subsection to 
     comply with the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-
     Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.).

     SEC. 206. RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS IN HIGH-SPEED RAIL 
                   CORRIDORS.

       (a) In General.--The entire cost of construction of 
     projects for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway 
     crossings in designated high-speed rail corridors, including 
     the separation or protection of grades at crossings, the 
     reconstruction of existing railroad grade crossing 
     structures, and the relocation of highways to eliminate grade 
     crossings, may be paid from sums authorized by subsection 
     (k). In any case when the elimination of the hazards of a 
     railway-highway crossing can be effected by the relocation of 
     a portion of a railway at a cost estimated by the Secretary 
     of Transportation to be less than the cost of such 
     elimination by one of the methods mentioned in the first 
     sentence of this section, then the entire cost of such 
     relocation project may be paid from sums authorized by 
     subsection (k).
       (b) Classification of Projects.--The Secretary may classify 
     the various types of projects involved in the elimination of 
     hazards of high-speed rail corridor railway-highway 
     crossings, and may set for each such classification a 
     percentage of the costs of construction which shall be deemed 
     to represent the net benefit to the railroad or railroads for 
     the purpose of determining the railroad's share of the cost 
     of construction. The percentage so determined shall in no 
     case exceed 10 per cent of such costs. The Secretary shall 
     determine the appropriate classification of each project.
       (c) Liability of Railroad.--Any railroad involved in a 
     project for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway 
     crossings paid for in whole or in part from sums made 
     available under this section shall be liable to the United 
     States for the net benefit to the railroad determined under 
     the classification of such project made under subsection (b). 
     That liability to the United States may be discharged by 
     direct payment to the State transportation department of the 
     State in which the project is located, in which case such 
     payment shall be credited to the cost of the project. The 
     payment may consist in whole or in part of materials and 
     labor furnished by the railroad in connection with the 
     construction of the project. If any such railroad fails to 
     discharge such liability within a 6-month period after 
     completion of the project, it shall be liable to the United 
     States for its share of the cost, and the Secretary shall 
     request the Attorney General to institute proceedings against 
     such railroad for the recovery of the amount for which it is 
     liable under this subsection. The Attorney General is 
     authorized to bring such proceedings on behalf of the United 
     States, in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, and the United States shall be entitled in such 
     proceedings to recover such sums as it is considered and 
     adjudged by the court that such railroad is liable for in the 
     premises. Any amounts recovered by the United States under 
     this subsection shall be credited to miscellaneous receipts.
       (d) Survey and Schedule of Projects.--Each State shall 
     conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all high-
     speed rail corridor railway-highway crossings to identify 
     those railroad crossings which may require separation, 
     relocation, or protective devices, and establish and 
     implement a schedule of projects for this purpose.
       (e) Funds for Protective Devices.--The Secretary shall give 
     priority under this section to the elimination of high-speed 
     rail corridor railway-highway grade crossings, but shall make 
     funds authorized for obligation or expenditure under this 
     section available for the installation of protective devices 
     at high-speed rail corridor railway-highway crossings where 
     appropriate.
       (f) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion funds 
     available for obligation and expenditure under this section 
     between high-speed rail corridor railway-highway crossings on 
     the Northeast Corridor and such crossings outside the 
     Northeast Corridor in an equitable fashion, taking into 
     account traffic volume, traffic patterns, frequency of 
     trains, adequacy of existing hazard warnings, and such other 
     factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (g) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall report to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure not later than December 30 of each year on the 
     progress being made to implement the railway-highway 
     crossings program authorized by this section and the 
     effectiveness of such improvements. Each report shall contain 
     an assessment of the costs of the various treatments employed 
     and subsequent accident experience at improved locations. The 
     report shall include--
       (1) the number of projects undertaken, their distribution 
     by cost range, road system, nature of treatment, and 
     subsequent accident experience at improved locations;
       (2) an analysis and evaluation of the program activities in 
     each State, including identification of any State found not 
     to be in compliance with the schedule of improvements 
     required by subsection (d); and
       (3) recommendations for future implementation of the 
     railway-highway crossings program under this section and 
     section 130 of title 23, United States Code.
       (h) Use of Funds for Matching.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section may be used to provide 
     a local

[[Page S1607]]

     government with funds to be used on a matching basis when 
     State funds are available which may only be spent when the 
     local government produces matching funds for the improvement 
     of railway-highway crossings.
       (i) Incentive Payments for At-Grade Crossing Closures.--.
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     Secretary may make incentive payments to a local government 
     upon the permanent closure by such government of public at-
     grade high-speed rail corridor railway-highway crossings 
     under its jurisdiction.
       (2) Incentive payments by railroads.--The Secretary may not 
     make an incentive payment under paragraph (1) to a local 
     government with respect to the closure of a crossing unless 
     the railroad owning the tracks on which the crossing is 
     located makes an incentive payment to the government with 
     respect to the closure.
       (3) Amount of federal incentive payment.--The amount of the 
     incentive payment payable to a local government under 
     paragraph (1) with respect to a crossing may not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the amount of the incentive payment paid to the 
     government with respect to the crossing by the railroad 
     concerned under paragraph (2); or
       (B) $ 7,500.
       (j) Coordination With Title 23 Program.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Secretary shall--
       (1) implement this section in accordance with the 
     classification of projects and railroad share of the cost as 
     provided in section 646.210 of title 23, Code of Federal 
     Regulations; and
       (2) coordinate the administration of this section with the 
     program established by section 130 of title 23, United States 
     Code, in order to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure 
     the effectiveness of both programs.
       (k) Funding.--Not less than 10 percent of the amounts 
     appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out section 26101A 
     shall be obligated or expended to carry out this section.

     SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 26104 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 26104. Authorization of appropriations

       ``(a) Fiscal Years 2003 Through 2008.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2008--
       ``(1) $25,000,000 for carrying out section 26101;
       ``(2) $1,500,000,000 for carrying out section 26101A; and
       ``(3) $25,000,000 for carrying out section 26102.
       ``(b) Funds To Remain Available.--Funds made available 
     under this section shall remain available until expended.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--Except as specifically provided in 
     section 26101, 26101A, or 26102, no amount authorized by 
     subsection (a) may be used for obligation or expenditure on 
     the Boston-to-Washington segment of the Northeast Corridor 
     while that segment is receiving Federal funds for capital or 
     operating expenses.''.

           TITLE III--NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

     SEC. 301. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 
                   DEFINED.

       (a) In General.--Section 24102 is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) as so redesignated the 
     following:
       ``(5) `national rail passenger transportation system' 
     means--
       ``(A) the spine of the Northeast Corridor between Boston, 
     Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.;
       ``(B) rail corridors that have been designated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation as high-speed corridors, but only 
     after they have been improved to permit operation of high-
     speed service;
       ``(C) long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between 
     endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of 
     the National Defense Rail Act; and
       ``(D) short-distance corridors or routes operated as of the 
     date of enactment of the National Defense Rail Act, unless 
     discontinued by Amtrak.''.
       (b) Amtrak Routes With State Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 247 is amended by inserting after 
     section 27101 the following:

     ``Sec. 24702. Transportation requested by States, 
       authorities, and other persons

       ``(a) Contracts for Transportation.--Amtrak and a State, a 
     regional or local authority, or another person may enter into 
     a contract for Amtrak to operate an intercity rail service or 
     route not included in the national rail passenger 
     transportation system upon such terms as the parties thereto 
     may agree.
       ``(b) Discontinuance.--Upon termination of a contract 
     entered into under this section, or the cessation of 
     financial support under such a contract, Amtrak may 
     discontinue such service or route, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     247 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 24701 the following:

``24702. Transportation requested by States, authorities, and other 
              persons''.

     SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 24104(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' in paragraph (4);
       (2) by striking ``2002,'' in paragraph (5) and inserting 
     ``2002; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) such sums as are authorized by this title and by the 
     National Defense Rail Act for fiscal years 2003 through 
     2007,''.
       (b) Repeal of Self-sufficiency Requirements.
       (1) Title 49 amendments.--Chapter 241 is amended--
       (A) by striking the last sentence of section 24101(d); and
       (B) by striking the last sentence of section 24104(a).
       (2) Amtrak reform and accountability act amendments.--Title 
     II of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 
     U.S.C. 24101 nt) is amended by striking sections 204 and 205.
       (3) Common stock redemption date.--Section 415 of the 
     Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 U.S.C. 24304 
     nt) is amended by striking subsection (b).
       (c) Lease arrangements.--Amtrak may obtain services from 
     the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator 
     may provide services to Amtrak, under section 201(b) and 
     211(b) of the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act 
     of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b) and 491(b)) for fiscal year 2003 
     and each fiscal year thereafter.
       (d) Miscellaneous Amtrak-related Amendments.--
       (1) Financial powers.--Section 415(d) of the Amtrak Reform 
     and Accountability Act of 1997 by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) This section does not affect the applicability of 
     section 3729 of title 31, United States Code, to claims made 
     against Amtrak.''.
       (2) Application of d.c. corporation act.--Section 24301(e) 
     is amended by striking ``title 5, this part, and, to the 
     extent consistent with this part, the District of Columbia 
     Corporation Act (D.C. Code 29-301 et seq.)'' and inserting 
     ``title 5 and this part''.
       (3) Application of buy american act.--Section 24305(f) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Domestic Buying Preferences.--The Buy American Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 10a) and section 301 of the Trade Agreements Act 
     of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511) apply to Amtrak.''.

     SEC. 303. ADDITIONAL AMTRAK AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Excess RRTA.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak for 
     fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year thereafter, an amount 
     equal to the amount Amtrak must pay under section 3221 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in fiscal years that is more 
     than the amount needed for benefits for individuals who 
     retire from Amtrak and for their beneficiaries.
       (b) Principal and Interest Payments.--
       (1) Principal on debt service.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for retirement of principal on loans for capital 
     equipment, or capital leases, the following amounts:
       (A) For fiscal year 2003, $105,000,000.
       (B) For fiscal year 2004, $93,000,000.
       (C) For fiscal year 2005, $105,000,000.
       (D) For fiscal year 2006, $108,000,000.
       (E) For fiscal year 2007, $183,000,000.
       (2) Interest on debt.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for the payment of interest on loans for capital 
     equipment, or capital leases, the following amounts:
       (A) For fiscal year 2003, $160,000,000.
       (B) For fiscal year 2004, $157,000,000.
       (C) For fiscal year 2005, $147,000,000.
       (D) For fiscal year 2006, $142,000,000.
       (E) For fiscal year 2007, $134,000,000.
       (c) Environmental Compliance.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, $30,000,000, of which one-third shall be 
     obligated or expended on the Northeast Corridor and two-
     thirds shall be obligated or expended outside the Northeast 
     Corridor, in order to comply with environmental regulations.
       (d) Compliance with ADA Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak for 
     each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, $43,000,000 for 
     access improvements in facilities and stations necessary to 
     comply with the requirements of the Americans With 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12162), including an 
     initial assessment of the full set of needs across the 
     national rail passenger transportation system, of which--
       (A) $10,000,000 shall be obligated or expended on the 
     Northeast Corridor; and
       (B) $33,000,000,000 shall be obligated or expended outside 
     the Northeast Corridor, of which $15,000,000 shall be 
     obligated or expended for long-distance trains.
       (2) Best efforts requirement.--If Amtrak fails to meet the 
     period for compliance requirement imposed by section 
     242(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12162(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I))--
       (A) it shall not be considered discrimination for purposes 
     of section 202 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 12132) or section 504 
     of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) if Amtrak 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary of 
     Transportation that--

[[Page S1608]]

       (i) Amtrak has made substantial progress toward meeting the 
     requirements of section 242(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Americans 
     With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12162(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I)); and
       (ii) Amtrak's failure to meet the period of compliance 
     requirement of that section is attributable to the 
     insufficiency of appropriated funds; and
       (B) the period for compliance under section 
     242(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12162(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I)) shall be extended 
     until--
       (i) sufficient funds have been appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak to enable 
     Amtrak to comply fully with the requirements of that section; 
     and
       (ii) a reasonable period of time for the completion of 
     necessary construction so funded has passed.

     SEC. 304. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak for 
     fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year thereafter, the 
     following amounts:
       (1) $370,000,000 for capital backlog on infrastructure on 
     the Northeast Corridor to bring infrastructure up to state-
     of-good-repair, including renewal of the South End electric 
     traction system, improvements on bridges and tunnels, and 
     interlocking and signal system renewal.
       (2) $60,000,000 for capital backlog on fleet to bring 
     existing fleet to a state-of-good-repair, including equipment 
     replacement and upgrades necessary to meet current service 
     commitments.
       (3) $40,000,000 for capital backlog on stations and 
     facilities, including improvements to the facility and 
     platform at the existing Penn Station, and bringing 
     maintenance-of-way facilities up to state-of-good-repair.
       (4) $350,000,000 for ongoing capital infrastructure--
       (A) to replace assets on a life-cycle basis;
       (B) to ensure that a state-of-good-repair is maintained in 
     order to meet safety and reliability standards; and
       (C) to meet current service commitments.
       (5) $40,000,000 for ongoing capital fleet investment to 
     sustain regularly scheduled maintenance, including a 120-day 
     cycle of preventive maintenance, and heavy overhauls on a 4-
     year schedule, with interior enhancements as needed.
       (6) $30,000,000 for ongoing capital improvements to 
     stations and facilities to provide for regular upgrades to 
     stations to meet current service needs, and regular 
     improvements to maintenance-of-equipment and maintenance-of-
     way facilities.
       (7) $20,000,000 for ongoing technology upgrades of 
     reservation, distribution, financial, and operations systems, 
     including hardware, software, infrastructure, and 
     communications.
       (b) Life Safety Needs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003:
       (1) $798,000,000 for the 6 New York tunnels built in 1910 
     to provide ventilation, electrical, and fire safety 
     technology upgrades, emergency communication and lighting 
     systems, and emergency access and egress for passengers.
       (2) $57,000,000 for the Baltimore & Potomac tunnel built in 
     1872 to provide adequate drainage, ventilation, 
     communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades.
       (3) $40,000,000 for the Washington, D.C. Union Station 
     tunnels built in 1904 under the Supreme Court and House and 
     Senate Office Buildings to improve ventilation, 
     communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades.
       (c) Infrastructure Upgrades.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, $3,000,000 for the 
     preliminary design of options for a new tunnel on a different 
     alignment to augment the capacity of the existing Baltimore 
     tunnels.
       (d) Corridor Growth Investment.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for corridor growth investments in the Northeast 
     Corridor--
       (1) For fiscal year 2003, $200,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 2004, $300,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 2005, $400,000,000.
       (4) For fiscal year 2006, $500,000,000.
       (5) For fiscal year 2007, $600,000,000.
       (e) Financial Contribution from Other Tunnel Users.--The 
     Secretary shall, taking into account the need for the timely 
     completion of all life safety portions of the tunnel projects 
     described in subsection (b)--
       (1) consider the extent to which rail carriers other than 
     Amtrak use the tunnels;
       (2) consider the feasibility of seeking a financial 
     contribution from those other rail carriers toward the costs 
     of the projects; and carriers if feasible.
       (f) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to this section shall remain available until expended.
       (g) Reinvestment of NEC Operating Profit.--Amtrak shall 
     invest any revenue from operations in the Northeast Corridor 
     in capital needs of the corridor until the backlog of capital 
     improvements are completed under Amtrak's 20-year plan.

     SEC. 305. LONG DISTANCE TRAINS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak for 
     fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     $360,000,000 for operating costs associated with long 
     distance trains.
       (b) Capital Backlog and Upgrades.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the 
     use of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, $70,000,000 to reduce the capital backlog and to 
     bring its existing fleet to a state-of-good-repair, including 
     equipment replacement and upgrades necessary to meet current 
     service commitments.
       (c) Ongoing Capital Infrastructure Investments.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the use of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, $80,000,000 for ongoing 
     capital infrastructure--
       (1) to replace assets on a life-cycle basis;
       (2) to ensure that a state-of-good-repair is maintained in 
     order to meet safety and reliability standards;
       (3) to meet current service commitments; and
       (4) to provide funds for investment in partner railroads to 
     operate passenger service at currently committed levels.
       (d) Capital Fleet Needs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, $50,000,000 for ongoing capital fleet needs to 
     sustain regularly scheduled maintenance, including a 120-day 
     cycle of preventive maintenance, and heavy overhauls on a 4-
     year schedule, with interior enhancements as needed.
       (e) Capital Stations and Facilities.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the 
     use of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, $10,000,000 for ongoing capital stations and 
     facilities needs to provide regular upgrades to stations to 
     meet current service needs, and regular improvements to 
     maintenance-of-way equipment and maintenance-of-way 
     facilities.
       (f) Technology Needs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, $10,000,000 for ongoing technology needs to 
     upgrade reservation, distribution, financial, and operations 
     systems, including hardware, software, infrastructure, and 
     communications.

     SEC. 306. SHORT DISTANCE TRAINS; STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the use of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003, 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, for obligation and 
     expenditure on routes outside the Northeast Corridor--
       (1) $20,000,000 for capital backlog on infrastructure to 
     bring infrastructure up to a state-of-good-repair, including 
     improvements on bridges and tunnels that are approaching the 
     end of their useful life and interlocking and signal system 
     renewal;
       (2) $10,000,000 for capital backlog on its fleet to bring 
     Amtrak's existing fleet as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act to a state-of-good-repair, including equipment 
     replacement and upgrades necessary to meet current service 
     commitments;
       (3) $170,000,000 for ongoing capital infrastructure to 
     replace assets on a life-cycle basis to ensure a state-of-
     good-repair is maintained in order to meet safety and 
     reliability standards needed to deliver current service 
     commitments, including investment in partner railroads to 
     operate passenger service at currently committed levels.
       (4) $40,000,000 for ongoing capital fleet needs to sustain 
     regularly scheduled maintenance, including a 120-day cycle 
     preventive maintenance schedule, and heavy overhauls on a 4-
     year schedule, with interior enhancements as needed;
       (5) $10,000,000 for ongoing capital stations and facilities 
     needs to provide regular upgrades to stations to meet current 
     service needs, and regular improvements to maintenance-of-way 
     equipment and maintenance-of-way facilities; and
       (6) $20,000,000 for ongoing technology needs to upgrade of 
     reservation, distribution, financial, and operations systems, 
     including hardware, software, infrastructure and 
     communications.

     SEC. 307. RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NORTHEAST CORRIDOR SAFETY 
                   COMMITTEE.

       (a) Re-establishment of Northeast Corridor Safety 
     Committee.--The Secretary of Transportation shall re-
     establish the Northeast Corridor Safety Committee authorized 
     by section 24905(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (b) Termination Date.--Section 24905(b)(4) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 1999,'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2008,''.

     SEC. 308. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE.

       Section 24308 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) On-time Performance.--If the on-time performance of 
     any intercity passenger train averages less than 80 percent 
     for any consecutive 3-month period, Amtrak may petition the 
     Surface Transportation Board to investigate whether, and to 
     what extent, delays are due to causes that could reasonably 
     be addressed by a rail carrier over the tracks of which the 
     intercity passenger train operates, or by a regional 
     authority providing commuter service, if any. In carrying out 
     such an investigation, the Surface

[[Page S1609]]

     Transportation Board shall obtain information from all 
     parties involved and make recommendations regarding 
     reasonable measures to improve the on-time performance of the 
     train.''.

     SEC. 309. AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 24302 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 24302. Board of directors

       ``(a) Composition and Terms.--
       ``(1) The board of directors of Amtrak is composed of the 
     following 9 directors, each of whom must be a citizen of the 
     United States:
       ``(A) The President of Amtrak.
       ``(B) The Secretary of Transportation.
       ``(C) 7 individuals appointed by the President of the 
     United States, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, with an interest, experience, and qualifications in 
     or directly related to rail transportation, including 
     representatives of the passenger rail transportation, travel, 
     hospitality, cruise line, and passenger air transportation 
     businesses, and consumers of passenger rail transportation.
       ``(2) An individual appointed under paragraph (1)(C) of 
     this subsection serves for 5 years or until the individual's 
     successor is appointed and qualified. Not more than 4 
     individuals appointed under paragraph (1)(C) may be members 
     of the same political party.
       ``(3) The board shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman 
     from among its membership. The vice chairman shall serve as 
     chairman in the absence of the chairman.
       ``(4) The Secretary may be represented at a meeting of the 
     board only by the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, or the 
     General Counsel of the Department of Transportation.
       ``(b) Pay and Expenses.--Each director not employed by the 
     United States Government is entitled to $300 a day when 
     performing board duties and powers. Each director is entitled 
     to reimbursement for necessary travel, reasonable secretarial 
     and professional staff support, and subsistence expenses 
     incurred in attending board meetings.
       ``(c) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the board is filled in the 
     same way as the original selection, except that an individual 
     appointed by the President of the United States under 
     subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section to fill a vacancy 
     occurring before the end of the term for which the 
     predecessor of that individual was appointed is appointed for 
     the remainder of that term. A vacancy required to be filled 
     by appointment under subsection (a)(1)(C) must be filled not 
     later than 120 days after the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Bylaws.--The board may adopt and amend bylaws 
     governing the operation of Amtrak. The bylaws shall be 
     consistent with this part and the articles of 
     incorporation.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003. The members of the 
     Amtrak Reform Board may continue to serve until 3 directors 
     appointed by the President under section 24302(a) of title 
     49, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), have 
     qualified for office.

     SEC. 310. INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS; REVIEW BY 
                   DOT IG.

       (a) In General.--Amtrak shall employ an independent 
     financial consultant--
       (1) to assess its financial accounting and reporting 
     system;
       (2) to design and assist Amtrak in implementing a modern 
     financial accounting and reporting system, on the basis of 
     the assessment, that will produce accurate and timely 
     financial information in sufficient detail--
       (A) to enable Amtrak to assign revenues and expenses 
     appropriately to each of its lines of business activity; and
       (B) to aggregate expenses and revenues related to 
     infrastructure and distinguish them from expenses and 
     revenues related to rail operations.
       (b) Verification of System; Report.--The Inspector General 
     of the Department of Transportation shall review the 
     accounting system designed and implemented under subsection 
     (a) to ensure that it accomplishes the purposes for which it 
     is intended. The Inspector General shall report his findings 
     and conclusions, together with any recommendations, to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       (c) Review of Financial Status and Funding Requirements by 
     DOT Inspector General.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation shall, as part of the 
     Department's annual assessment of Amtrak's financial status 
     and capital funding requirements review the obligation and 
     expenditure of funds under each such funding document, 
     procedure, or arrangement to ensure that the expenditure and 
     obligation of those funds are consistent with the purposes 
     for which they are provided under this Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the 
     use of Amtrak $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2003 to carry out 
     subsection (a), such sums to remain available until expended.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. REHABILITATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SECURITY 
                   FINANCING.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 102(7) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     802(7)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) `railroad' has the meaning given that term in section 
     20102 of title 49, United States Code; and''.
       (b) General Authority.--Section 502 of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Secretary may provide direct loans and 
     loan guarantees to State and local governments,'' in 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``Secretary shall provide direct 
     loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, 
     interstate compacts entered into under section 410 of the 
     Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 U.S.C 24101 
     nt),'';
       (2) by striking ``or'' in subsection (b)(1)(B);
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) of subsection (b)(1) 
     as subparagraph (D); and
       (4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) of subsection 
     (b)(1) the following:
       ``(C) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate rail safety and 
     security equipment and facilities; or''.
       (c) Extent of Authority.--Section 502(d) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$3,500,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000,000'';
       (2) by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     Secretary shall not establish any limit on the proportion of 
     the unused amount authorized under this subsection that may 
     be used for 1 loan or loan guarantee.''.
       (d) Cohorts of Loans.--Section 502(f) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (C) by adding after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) the size and characteristics of the cohort of which 
     the loan or loan guarantee is a member; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (4) the following: 
     ``A cohort may include loans and loan guarantees. The 
     Secretary shall not establish any limit on the proportion of 
     a cohort that may be used for 1 loan or loan guarantee.''.
       (e) Conditions of Assistance.--Section 502 of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``offered;'' in subsection (f)(2)(A) and 
     inserting ``offered, if any;''and
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (h) the following: 
     ``The Secretary shall not require an applicant for a direct 
     loan or loan guarantee under this section to provide 
     collateral. The Secretary shall not require that an applicant 
     for a direct loan or loan guarantee under this section have 
     previously sought the financial assistance requested from 
     another source. The Secretary shall require recipients of 
     direct loans or loan guarantees under this section to apply 
     the standards of section 22301(b) and (c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, to their projects.''.
       (f) Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval.--Section 502 of 
     the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 
     (45 U.S.C. 822) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval.--Not later 
     than 180 days after receiving a complete application for a 
     direct loan or loan guarantee under this section, the 
     Secretary shall approve or disapprove the application.''.
       (g) Fees and Charges.--Section 503 of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     823) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (k) the following: 
     ``Funds received by the Secretary under the preceding 
     sentence shall be credited to the appropriation from which 
     the expenses of making such appraisals, determinations, and 
     findings were incurred.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Fees and Charges.--Except as provided in this title, 
     the Secretary may not assess any fees, including user fees, 
     or charges in connection with a direct loan or loan guarantee 
     provided under section 502.''.
       (h) Substantive Criteria and Standards.--Not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and post on the Department of Transportation website 
     the substantive criteria and standards used by the Secretary 
     to determine whether to approve or disapprove applications 
     submitted under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization 
     and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822).
       (i) Operators and Service Providers Deemed Rail Carriers.--
     Section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
     Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822), as amended by subsection 
     (f), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Operators and Certain Service Providers Deemed Rail 
     Carriers.--A person that conducts rail operations, or 
     performs catering, cleaning, construction, maintenance, or 
     other services for rail operations, funded or otherwise 
     receiving assistance under this section is deemed to be a 
     rail carrier for purposes of part A of subtitle IV of title 
     49, United States Code, when so operating or performing such 
     services.''.

     SEC. 402. RAIL PASSENGER COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 249 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

[[Page S1610]]

     ``Sec. 24910. Passenger rail cooperative research program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a rail passenger cooperative research program. The 
     program shall--
       ``(1) address, among other matters, intercity rail 
     passenger services, including existing rail passenger 
     technologies and speeds, incrementally enhanced rail systems 
     and infrastructure, and new high-speed wheel-on-rail systems;
       ``(2) give consideration to research on commuter rail, 
     regional rail, freight rail, and other modes of rail 
     transportation that may affect rail passenger transportation 
     due to the interconnectedness of the rail passenger network 
     with other rail transportation services; and
       ``(3) give consideration to regional concerns regarding 
     rail passenger transportation, including meeting research 
     needs common to designated high-speed corridors, long-
     distance rail services, and regional intercity rail 
     corridors, projects, and entities.
       ``(b) Contents.--The program to be carried out under this 
     section shall include research designed--
       ``(1) to develop more accurate models for evaluating the 
     indirect effects of rail passenger service, including the 
     effects on highway and airport and airway congestion, 
     environmental quality, and energy consumption;
       ``(2) to develop a better understanding of modal choice as 
     it affects rail passenger transportation, including 
     development of better models to predict ridership;
       ``(3) to recommend priorities for technology demonstration 
     and development;
       ``(4) to meet additional priorities as determined by the 
     advisory board established under subsection (c), including 
     any recommendations made by the National Research Council;
       ``(5) to explore improvements in management, financing, and 
     institutional structures;
       ``(6) to address rail capacity constraints that affect 
     passenger rail service through a wide variety of options, 
     ranging from operating improvements to dedicated new 
     infrastructure, taking into account the impact of such 
     options on freight and commuter rail operations; and
       ``(7) to improve maintenance, operations, customer service, 
     or other aspects of existing intercity rail passenger service 
     existing in 2002.
       ``(c) Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--In consultation with the heads of 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies, the Secretary 
     shall establish an advisory board to recommend research, 
     technology, and technology transfer activities related to 
     rail passenger transportation.
       ``(2) Membership.--The advisory board shall include--
       ``(A) representatives of State transportation agencies;
       ``(B) transportation and environmental economists, 
     scientists, and engineers; and
       ``(C) representatives of Amtrak, the Alaska Railroad, 
     transit operating agencies, intercity rail passenger 
     agencies, railway labor organizations, and environmental 
     organizations.
       ``(d) National Academy of Sciences.-- The Secretary may 
     make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, 
     the National Academy of Sciences to carry out such activities 
     relating to the research, technology, and technology transfer 
     activities described in subsection (b) as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     249 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``24910. Passenger rail cooperative research program''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, to carry out section 24910(d) of title 49, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 403. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49 REFLECTING ICC 
                   TERMINATION ACT.

       (a) Section 307.--
       (1) Section 307 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' in the 
     section heading and inserting ``Surface Transportation 
     Board'';
       (B) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' in 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``Surface Transportation 
     Board''; and
       (C) by striking ``Commission'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Board''.
       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 3 is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 307 and inserting the 
     following:

``307. Safety information and intervention in Surface Transportation 
              Board proceedings''.

       (b) Section 333.--Section 333 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``Surface Transportation 
     Board''; and
       (2) by striking ``Commission'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``Board''.
       (c) Section 351.--Section 351(c) is amended by striking 
     ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' and inserting ``Surface 
     Transportation Board''.
       (d) Section 24307.--Section 24307(b)(3) is amended by 
     striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' and inserting 
     ``Surface Transportation Board''.
       (e) Section 24308.--Section 24308 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) and inserting ``Surface Transportation 
     Board''; and
       (2) by striking ``Commission'' each place it appears in 
     subsection (a) and (b) and inserting ``Board''.
       (f) Section 24311.--Section 24311 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' in 
     subsection (c)(1) and inserting ``Surface Transportation 
     Board''; and
       (2) by striking ``Commission'' each place it appears in 
     subsection (c) and inserting ``Board''.
       (g) Section 24902.--Section 24902 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' in 
     subsections (g)(2) and (g)(3) and inserting ``Surface 
     Transportation Board''; and
       (2) by striking ``Commission'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (g)(2) and (g)(3) and inserting ``Board''.
       (h) Section 24904.--Section 24904 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interstate Commerce Commission'' in 
     subsection (c)(2) and inserting ``Surface Transportation 
     Board''; and
       (2) by striking ``Commission'' each place it appears in 
     subsection (c) and inserting ``Board''.

     SEC.404. APPLICABILITY OF REVERSION TO ALASKA RAILROAD RIGHT-
                   OF-WAY PROPERTY.

       Section 601(b) of the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 
     (45 U.S.C. 1209(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) The State-owned railroad may convey all right, 
     title, and interest of the State in any land within the 
     right-of-way to a third party in exchange for other land 
     that, in substitution for the land conveyed, is to be 
     utilized as part of the right-of-way if the continuity of the 
     right-of-way corridor for transportation, communications, and 
     transmission purposes is provided by such use of the 
     substituted land.
       ``(B) The provisions of this section that require reversion 
     shall apply to the substituted land, as of the effective date 
     of the exchange of that land in a transaction authorized by 
     subparagraph (A), as fully as if the substituted land had 
     been rail properties of the Alaska Railroad as of January 13, 
     1983.
       ``(C) Upon the conveyance of land in a transaction 
     authorized by subparagraph (A), any reversionary interest in 
     the land under this section shall terminate.''.
                                  ____


                       National Defense Rail Act

       One-time FY 2003 authorization for Security Funds: $1.26 
     billion.
       Total funds authorized annually for FY 2003 through FY 
     2007: $4.61 billion.


                SECURITY PROVISIONS ($1.26 B in FY 2003)

       $360M for Amtrak security needs, evenly divided between the 
     Northeast Corridor and Non-Northeast Corridor.
       $5M for DOT to perform a security assessment of all rail, 
     including freight needs.
       $895M for life safety upgrades to tunnels in NY, Balt, DC.
       $3M for preliminary design work for the Baltimore tunnels.


       FEDERAL HIGH SPEED CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ($1.55 B annually)

       $25M to DOT for Research and Development Activities.
       $25M to DOT for Planning.
       $1.5B to DOT for Implementation/Construction.
       Must be a designated corridor to receive funding. The 
     Northeast Corridor is designated, but not eligible to receive 
     funds under this program if receiving other federal funds.


              NORTHEAST CORRIDOR (NEC) ($1.310 B annually)

       Requires any operating profit on the NEC to be reinvested 
     in NEC infrastructure.
       $720M for infrastructure.
       $100M for fleet.
       $70M for stations/facilities.
       $20M for technology upgrades.
       $400M for growth (annual average).


              COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ($5 M annually)

       Establishes R & D program at National Academy of Sciences 
     similar to highway and transit cooperative research programs.


        NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (500 M annually)

       Requires profits from non-passenger activities to be 
     invested in growth activities outside the NEC.
       $160M (est.) for mandatory excess Railroad Retirement 
     Payments.
       $267M for debt payments (avg.).
       $30M for environmental compliance.
       $43M for ADA compliance.
       $2.5M for onetime external assessment of Amtrak cost 
     accounting.


                 LONG-DISTANCE TRAINS ($580 M annually)

       $360M for operating.
       $120M for fleet.
       $80M for infrastructure.
       $10M for stations/facilities.
       $10M for technology.


       SHORT DISTANCE & STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES ($270 M annually)

       $190M annually for infrastructure.

[[Page S1611]]

       $50M annually for fleet.
       $10M annually for stations.
       $20M annually for technology.


                RAIL PROJECT FINANCING ($350 M annually)

       Expansion of the DOT's Railroad Rehabilitation and 
     Improvement Financing Program.
       $35B authorization for DOT to provide loans and loan 
     guarantees (annual estimated 10% credit risk premium).

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, as my good friend Senator Hollings has 
just stated, we are on the brink of a very important decision. Do we 
continue to underfund a national passenger rail system? Or do we 
finally stand behind the system, committing to it once and for all?
  I agree with my good friend, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, 
and that's why I joined him in introducing this important bill. For 30 
years, I have witnessed Congress dangling a carrot in front of Amtrak's 
eyes, funding it just enough for it to limp along. And I'll tell you, 
this has to stop. Now is the time to commit politically and financially 
to a strong, safe, and efficient passenger rail system. And now is the 
time to determine once and for all, what exactly it is that we want out 
of passenger rail service in the country. Should this be a truly 
national system? And should we devote the resources necessary to 
maintain and expand this networks?
  Senator Hollings and the rest of my colleagues know that I support 
funding the highway and aviation networks, our Nation has relied upon 
them for years, and they have served us well. But I look around today 
and I see crowded skies and congested roads. At the very same time, I 
see empty rails, with the potential to relieve this transportation 
burden and serve as a useful alternative for Americans.
  As Senator Hollings discussed just now, the events of September 11 
further demonstrated, in stark and rigid terms, the necessity of 
transportation choices. For years I have argued that we need to sit 
down together and begin an honest and frank discussion in order to 
create a blueprint for the future of passenger rail.
  And, let me tell you this, this bill that I am introducing with 
Senator Hollings is a good, solid start. Instead of maintaining the 
status quo, the bill offers a vision and a set of priorities for the 
future of passenger rail in this country. It says: we need to make sure 
this system is safe, as September 11 demonstrated it must be. It says: 
we need to seriously invest in the future of this system, which is 
high-speed rail. And it says: the Federal Government will need to 
adequately fund a national passenger rail network, no matter how the 
system is structured.
  And that is something that has always mystified me. When it comes to 
other forms of transportation, highways and airplanes, we have given 
them all they ask for, consistently providing full Federal backing. 
Since 1971, in fact, we have given $750 billion to highways and 
aviation. In the same period of time, since the birth of Amtrak, we 
have only given $25 billion to our national passenger rail system. 
That's only 3 percent of all transportation funding in that period. 
That is appalling.
  If we want a national passenger rail system, and most Americans do, 
as all the polls indicate, then we are going to have to pay for it, and 
understand the long-term commitment it takes to get this kind of system 
up and running. Passenger rail in this country has never had a stable 
funding source instead, it has been subjected to the whims and follies 
of the political process, and it has lost this battle time and time 
again.
  Every single industrialized country, France, Japan, Germany, 
subsidizes a national rail system. For years, we have been living in a 
fantasy - that somehow, we can have our cake and eat it too: that we 
could mandate Amtrak to be self-sufficient without giving it nearly 
enough money to do so. But Amtrak cannot run a national rail network, 
without adequate levels of Federal investment, and still be expected to 
be commercially self-sufficient. That is just not rational.
  There are two steps, then, in ensuring the future of passenger rail. 
Short-term, we have got to make sure that we do not allow Amtrak to go 
bankrupt, or worse, mortgage off their future in a desperate attempt to 
stay afloat. That is why, alongside many of my colleagues, I have 
pushed for the full $1.2 billion appropriations amount that Amtrak has 
requested for next year. This bare-bones minimum will give them the 
ability to maintain the current state of passenger rail, nothing more, 
nothing less.
  And in the long-term, we need a new vision for the future of national 
passenger rail so these one-time, bare-bones funding requests are no 
longer an issue. This bill represents just such a vision. It would 
invest seriously in the planning and implementation of high-speed rail 
corridors, which provides the most bang for the buck and which almost 
every State Governor, Democrat or Republican, has been clamoring for 
for years. It would provide money for debt payments, which Amtrak has 
incurred as a direct result of Federal underfunding. It would authorize 
capital investment funds, to begin to correct the $5.8 billion capital 
backlog Amtrak faces today. And it would fund operating costs for the 
long-distance trains that provide essential service to rural areas of 
the country.
  Moreover, it would address the serious security concerns that plague 
our rail system today. I stood up here months ago, right after one of 
the worst events in our Nation's history. I stood up here in order to 
call attention to what I thought, and continue to think, is a dire 
situation. And that is this matter of rail security. The events of 
September 11 dramatically and starkly revealed how essential it is that 
the United States have a national, effective, and secure railroad 
passenger system. It also exposed how vulnerable that system is right 
now to terrorist attacks. I have traveled through the train tunnels 
that Amtrak uses, and let me tell you, these tunnels are just plain 
frightening, poor ventilation, poor lighting, inadequate evacuation 
routes.
  This reauthorization bill would help the system deal with these 
tunnels and other gaps in our passenger rail security. A one-time 
investment of $1.4 billion would provide security fencing, closed 
circuit television, tunnel rehabilitation, increased security 
inspections, essential security-related improvements. The Department of 
Transportation itself has warned several times in the last few years 
about the necessity of quickly and fully funding Amtrak's security 
needs. $1.4 billion is a small price to pay to avoid a repeat of 
September 11.
  Finally, this bill would bring a greater level of accountability to 
the whole structure. As Senator Hollings indicated, the $1.55 billion 
in funds for high-speed corridor planning and implementation would be 
run through the Department of Transportation, so that the Federal 
Government can work together with state and local agencies in promoting 
the future of our rail system.
  This bill, together with the $1.2 billion appropriations for next 
year, will bring us closer to the type of passenger rail system that 
our Nation deserves and needs. As my good friend Senator Hollings 
alluded to, 50 years ago, our leaders had the vision and foresight to 
stand up and say, we need an interstate highway system, and we need to 
fund it appropriately. Let us today go forward with this blueprint in 
hand and create a similar network for passenger rail.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
  S. 1993. A bill to authorize a military construction project for the 
construction of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Responder Training 
Facility at Fort Leonard Wood Missouri; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation for homeland defense, the Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Responder Training Facility Act of 2002. America's war against 
international terrorism has increased the need to prepare against the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction, known as WMDs.
  Currently the Army's frontline of defense against WMD threats, Fort 
Leonard Wood, does not have the ability to conduct full-scale, joint 
training year round. This preparation gap must be closed. Our national 
security depends on the ability to effectively respond to a WMD attack. 
That is why I have introduced legislation to create a permanent 
training facility at Fort Leonard Wood.

[[Page S1612]]

  Fort Leonard Wood has no dedicated facility for training active duty 
and National Guard WMD responders. This prevents both joint training 
and the expansion of coordination among all WMD responders.
  Last October, we in this body learned first hand the importance of a 
coordinated response to WMD attacks. When letters, filled with anthrax, 
were mailed to members of Congress, 50 of our colleagues in the Senate 
and their staffs were evicted from the Hart office building for over 
three months. Experts from several agencies and departments, who never 
prepared together to respond to a WMD attack, worked to overcome 
setbacks and difficulties to make sure the Hart building was safe 
again. I thank them for all their hard work. But we now know that to 
prepare for future threats, those responsible for responding to WMD 
attacks must train together.
  Constructing of a permanent facility will enable joint training and 
cooperation of WMD Civil Support Teams; Department of Defense Emergency 
Responders; Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Instillation 
Support Teams; and Active and Reserve Component Chemical Units. The 
need to conduct joint operations and training year round is important 
and immediate. It is vital to national security. This is why the Army 
has placed the highest priority on building a permanent facility at 
Fort Leonard Wood.
  This legislation will compliment S. 1909, which was introduced by my 
friend and colleague from Missouri. Senator Bond's legislation calls 
for the establishment of a unified command for homeland defense, a post 
both the President and the Secretary of Defense support.
  S. 1909 will allow the Department of Defense to more effectively 
manage homeland defense resources by centrally locating the unified 
command within the United States, away from a major population center 
at an Armed Forces facility already in use for WMD training.
  Fort Leonard Wood meets all of these requirements and seems like an 
ideal candidate to fulfill this new and important national security 
role. But Fort Leonard Wood is not yet ready. While it has taken the 
lead in preparing WMD responders, there is yet another step to take. We 
must ensure that the country is prepared for future attacks by 
establishing a permanent training facility now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1994. A bill to establish a priority preference among certain 
small business concerns for purposes of Federal contracts, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to 
help our nation's 8(a) Business Development, BD, and HUBZone firms 
compete more effectively in the Federal marketplace.
  This bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Kit Bond, stems 
from a 1997 commitment Senator Bond and I made to each other to seek 
equality between the Small Business Administration's, SBA, 8(a)BD 
program and the HUBZone program.
  Much has been made lately of the SBA's proposed rule to establish 
``parity'' or equality between these two important programs. Some in 
the contracting community have opposed the proposed rule because they 
have concerns about the decline in the number of contracts and contract 
dollar values being awarded to 8(a)BD firms. I share the concerns of 
the contracting community in this regard, but I do not blame the 
HUBZone program for this decline. Rather, I blame the current 
procurement environment.
  In 1997, working with then-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business, Senator Bond, I took the necessary steps to protect the 
8(a)BD program. In my negotiations with Senator Bond, he agreed to 
change the legislation creating the HUBZone program from one of HUBZone 
priority to one of equality between the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs. 
Further, we negotiated a 3 percent increase in the Federal Government's 
small business goal, raising it from 20 percent to 23 percent, in order 
to accommodate the HUBZone program, which when fully phased in for 
Fiscal Year 2003 will have a 3 percent governmentwide goal. This 
increase was put in place specifically to accommodate the HUBZone 
program and ensure that 8(a)BD firms did not lose Federal contracts to 
the HUBZone program.
  The fact remains, however, despite these protections, that 8(a)BD 
firms are experiencing a decline in Federal procurement, which some 
place as high as 34 percent since 1997. The cause of this decline has 
its roots in the new procurement environment created by the reforms in 
the mid-1990s, such as passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the regulatory changes to 
procurement programs in response to the Adarand Inc. v. Pena decision, 
and reductions in the acquisition workforce. Because negative trends 
hit minority-owned firms first and hardest, these small businesses have 
borne a disproportionate share of the percentage decline in Federal 
contract dollars being awarded to small businesses.
  To help combat the negative effects of procurement reform, I have 
been taking a very close look at the SBA's programs to assist small 
businesses, especially small businesses owned by socially and 
economically disadvantaged individuals. The legislation being 
introduced today is the first step in halting and reversing the decline 
brought about by procurement reform.
  This legislation specifically addresses two critical areas of the 
8(a)BD and HUBZone programs. The first deals with the relationship 
between the two programs when a small business has received both an 
8(a)BD and a HUBZone certification, the second deals with the sole-
source threshold issue for these firms.
  First, an important factor in my decision to support the HUBZone 
legislation with the negotiated changes to protect the 8(a)BD program 
was the concept known as ``super-priority'' or ``priority-preference.'' 
The priority-preference stems from Congressional intent that firms that 
are both 8(a)BD and HUBZone certified receive a preference over a firm 
that has a certification in only one program. In addition, the 
priority-preference was intended to allow these firms to combine the 
price evaluation preference available to them under each program, with 
the understanding that any offeror would still need to meet a 
``responsiveness'' test in terms of their offer. Unfortunately, the new 
rule proposed by the SBA does not include the priority-preference, and 
the SBA has issued guidance that states that the priority-preference 
has no statutory provision to support its creation.
  Although I strongly disagree with the SBA's decision to end the 
priority-preference, this legislation will rectify the situation by 
creating a statutory priority-preference for firms that have both an 
8(a)BD and a HUBZone certification. Such a provision will help combine 
the benefits of each program and bring additional jobs and 
opportunities to underdeveloped areas. I view this provision as a win-
win for the 8(a)BD and HUBZone contracting communities.
  Second, this legislation makes an important update to both the 8(a)BD 
and HUBZone programs by raising the sole-source thresholds. One of the 
most important attributes of both of these programs is the authority 
for small businesses to receive contracts on a sole-source basis. This 
excellent benefit is limited, however, by a cap on the dollar amount 
for sole-source contracts. Currently, contracts for goods and services 
are limited to $3 million, while manufacturing contracts are limited to 
$5 million. This legislation updates those limits by $1 million for 
each category--an update that has been needed for some time and that 
Senator Bond and I nearly succeeded in including in the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act of 2000. By increasing the sole-source thresholds, 
the Federal government will immediately put more contract dollars into 
the hands of 8(a)BD and HUBZone firms.
  As I mentioned earlier in my statement, this legislation is merely 
one step in the process to help reverse the negative trends procurement 
reform has had on our nation's small businesses.
  It is my hope that we can move this legislation through the Senate 
quickly, and I would urge all of my colleagues to lend their support.

[[Page S1613]]

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the 
Floor once again on another bipartisan matter with the distinguished 
chairman of the Small Business Committee. We have such a constructive 
working relationship in the Federal procurement issue area, and I 
always welcome the opportunity to work with the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, to advance small business participation in 
Government contracting.
  This bill we are introducing today will further clarify the 
relationship between the HUBZone and 8(a) contracting programs. This 
relationship has been a strongly debated topic lately, although we 
thought our Committee provided clear guidance on the matter in the 1997 
HUBZone Act. In the matter before us, we are clarifying what happens 
when firms are eligible for both programs and become certified.
  The original Small Business Administration regulations on the HUBZone 
program called for the highest contracting priority to be given to 
HUBZone 8(a) ``dual status'' firms. That is, if a firm has been 
certified in both programs, it moves to the head of the class in 
getting Government contracts. The HUBZone regulations said that, in a 
HUBZone set-aside, an 8(a) firm should win over non-8(a) firms. 
Unfortunately, a comparable change was not included in the 8(a) 
regulations, to give HUBZone firms a preference in 8(a) set-asides. In 
a letter to SBA's Acting General Counsel last year, I asked SBA to 
resolve this inconsistency.
  Robert Gangwere, the Acting General Counsel, stated he did not think 
SBA had the statutory authority to grant a ``superpreference'' to 
HUBZone 8(a) dual status firms. Currently, SBA has a proposed 
rulemaking in progress that deletes the ``superpreference'' language.
  This bill would restore that. In a HUBZone set-aside (a competition 
restricted only to firms that are HUBZone firms), an 8(a) bidder would 
have priority over non-8(a) HUBZone bidders. A comparable change would 
be made in the 8(a) set-aside, giving HUBZone firms priority. I think 
this is reasonable, in that it encourages firms to take advantage of 
both programs.
  I do have one reservation with this bill. Both the HUBZone program 
and the Small Disadvantaged Business program, of which 8(a) is a part, 
offer a 10 percent price evaluation preference under certain 
circumstances in full-and-open competition. The old SBA rules called 
for HUBZone 8(a) combined firms to get a 20 percent price evaluation 
preference, combining both the HUBZone preference and the Small 
Disadvantaged Business preference. I think 20 percent is excessive.
  One of the goals of the small business program is to try to help 
small firms stabilize and develop, so they can survive in a competitive 
marketplace. Government contracts are supposed to be a means toward 
that end. But if a firm requires a 20 percent preference to win a 
contract, it probably has not done what it needs to do to become 
efficient and ready for the competitive marketplace. I am concerned 
that a 20 percent preference will be an unreasonable subsidy for 
inefficient firms. If a small business bidder is not even able to get 
within 20 percent of the lowest bidder, it probably is not a viable 
enterprise, and subsidizing its existence is not the highest and best 
use of taxpayer monies.
  With that reservation, I am happy to cosponsor this measure with the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I am confident we can come to some kind of 
accommodation on the price evaluation preference, and look forward to 
working with him to do so.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Enzi, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 1995. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic 
information with respect to health insurance and employment; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic 
Information Non-Discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act 
of 2002. I am joined in introducing this bill by Senators Frist, 
Jeffords, Enzi, Collins, Hagel, DeWine, and Gregg.
  The legislation I am introducing today is the culmination of several 
months work, though it is, in fact, the second part of an effort that 
started several years ago. Specifically, in April 1996, I introduced 
the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act, 
legislation that was designed to protect people's genetic information 
and results of genetic testing, or requests for genetic testing, from 
being used against them by their health insurers. Back then, time was 
on our side as the completion of the Genome was years off.
  However, four years later, in June 2000, everything changed with the 
announcement that the first working draft of the Human Genome was 
completed. And since that time, science has continued to hurry forward, 
further opening the door to early detection and medical intervention 
through the discovery and identification of specific genes linked to 
diseases like breast cancer, Huntington's Disease, glaucoma, colon 
cancer and cystic fibrosis.
  Unfortunately, like so many other scientific breakthroughs in 
history, the completion of the Genome not only brought about the 
prospect for medical advances, such as improved detection and 
intervention, but also potential harm and abuse, as the knowledge of 
individual genetic information could be used against the very same 
person it is invented to help.
  Accordingly, the need for protections against genetic discrimination 
by both health insurers and employers is becoming more urgent everyday. 
If, because of concerns about the way the information could be used, 
people are unwilling to use the potential unlocked by the Genome 
project to take proactive steps to protect their health and that of 
their loved ones, then we will never reap the true benefits of this 
discovery.
  While we cannot yet prevent diseases such as breast cancer, genetic 
testing makes it possible for carriers of these diseases to take extra 
precautions. In fact, early detection is the best weapon we have to 
combat many of these diseases we can now identify, and for breast 
cancer it is a critical component when one considers that almost 
192,000 women were struck by the disease last year. Technological 
advances in screenings coupled with the ability to identify who carries 
the gene linked to breast cancer can help us in our efforts to reduce 
this number. The possibilities for this discovery are limited only by 
the willingness, or unwillingness, of people to use this knowledge.
  In 1997, a woman from Maine brought the reality of this dilemma home 
for me when she wrote of her very real fear of the repercussions 
associated with genetic testing. Bonnie Lee Tucker has nine women in 
her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she 
herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the 
BRCA test for breast cancer, because she worries it will ruin her 
daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future.

  Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National 
Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent 
of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to 
take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. What 
good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would 
most benefit?
  Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome 
Research Institute, has testified before Congress about the next step 
for those involved in the Genome project. He explained that the 
project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the 
connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to 
apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. 
Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the 
involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more 
precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a 
particular outcome.'' However, this effort cannot be successful if 
people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in 
genetic testing.
  The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two 
separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by 
health insurers and the second to prevent employment discrimination, 
based upon genetic information.

[[Page S1614]]

  With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, 
and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the 
consideration of larger privacy issues. As Congress debated what is now 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we 
also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information. And any 
legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the 
interaction of the new protections with the newly promulgated privacy 
rule which was mandated by HIPAA, and our legislation does just that.
  Now we must ensure that we protect genetic information, genetic 
tests, as well as information regarding a request for genetic testing, 
from being used by the insurer against the patient. Genetic information 
only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or 
disorder, and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. However, 
it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other 
health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an 
illness. It is the difference that we must recognize as we discuss 
legislation to protect patients from potential discriminatory practices 
by insurers.
  Unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, 
the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace 
discrimination is new. And to that end, the legislation I introduce 
today creates these protections in the workplace. As demonstrated by 
the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination 
is real and therefore it is essential that we take this information off 
the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes 
widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of 
employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law 
and legislative history on which to build.
  As we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that 
we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic 
information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and 
considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of 
genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from 
those available to people under current law, for instance under the ADA 
or the EEOC.
  The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling 
current law. In addition it addresses changes in the law that have 
occurred since the original introduction of my bill and the other bills 
on this subject. The momentum to address this issue has finally reached 
a critical mass. Clearly this is an issue whose time has come.
  It has been more than eighteen months since the completion of the 
working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, 
the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing 
to take advantage of it.
  It's my sincere hope that the bi-partisan legislation I introduce 
today is the beginning of the end of the debate in our effort to ensure 
that every one of us is just as protected from discrimination because 
of what is in our genes as we are from our heritages, our genders and 
our impairments.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I rise once again today to speak on the 
critical issue of genetic discrimination and to proudly join my 
colleagues, Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Enzi, DeWine, Hagel, and 
Gregg in introducing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 
2002.
  The threat of genetic discrimination, both in the workplace and with 
respect to health insurance coverage, is one of the most troublesome 
Congress faces. As our scientific knowledge has improved, the threat of 
discrimination has increased. As a physician, as a medical researcher, 
and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Public Health, I have a long 
and deep interest in this issue, and I believe we have a unique 
responsibility to ensure that medical and scientific progress does not 
result in individual harm.
  For example, I am deeply troubled by reports of women declining 
genetic testing out of fear that they may lose their health insurance, 
even though a genetic test might reveal that a woman is not at high 
risk and therefore allow her to make more informed health care choices. 
When I first joined Senator Snowe to introduce legislation banning 
genetic discrimination in health insurance in 1998, almost one-third of 
women offered a test for breast cancer risk at the National Institutes 
of Health declined, citing concerns about health insurance 
discrimination. If unchecked and unregulated, this fear of 
discrimination clearly has the potential to prevent individuals from 
participating in research studies or taking advantages of new genetic 
technologies to improve their medical care.
  Scientific advances hold the promise of higher quality medical care, 
yet there is a pressing need for federal legislation to reassure the 
public that learning this information will not result in a loss of 
health insurance coverage or in the loss of a job. I am committed to a 
bipartisan legislative solution, and have worked extensively towards 
this goal with Senator Snowe, Jeffords, and a number of the members of 
this Committee over the past several years. I believe that, together, 
we have made an important step in addressing this through the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act, which has been 
passed by the Senate on three separate occasions.
  Today, we are building on that work, and on the solid foundations 
established in law by the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities 
Act, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2002 builds upon our 
progress in the health insurance area and expands our previous 
legislation to address the threat of employment discrimination and 
health insurance based on genetic information. Moreover, the bill 
incorporates the most recent scientific understandings in the field of 
genetics research in establishing protections and defining relevant 
terms.
  I believe that it is incumbent upon us to pass legislation this year 
that is comprehensive, consistent, reasonable and fair. I am troubled 
by some legislative approaches that would place these new protections 
outside of the established framework of our time-tested civil rights 
laws and that would establish separate protections against genetic 
discrimination than exist for other types of discrimination. The bill 
today meets that standard of providing strong protections that are 
consistent with the current state of scientific knowledge, as well as 
current law.
  I commend my colleagues for their commitment to this issue. I also 
commend President Bush for his commitment to ensuring strong 
protections against genetic discrimination and for calling attention to 
this critical matter. Through this important legislation, we have the 
opportunity to dispel the threat of discrimination based on an 
individual's genetic heritage, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to enact this legislation this year.

                          ____________________