[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5043-S5055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 2579. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit access to off-
site consequences analysis information in order to reduce the risk of 
criminal release from stationary sources, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill to help 
protect communities in Missouri and across the Nation from terrorist 
attack. Chemical plants in communities across America are perfect 
terrorist targets. Right now, the U.S. Government provides a virtual 
blueprint for attacks on these facilities to any member of the public 
who requests the information--on any terrorists frankly. The Community 
Protection From Chemical Terrorism Act will help protect communities 
from terrorists who would use sensitive information made public to 
destroy those communities.
  There are 15,000 chemical facilities across the country. Facilities 
store and use potentially dangerous chemicals to make consumer products 
and keep us healthy. Chlorine, for example, is used by every family to 
whiten and brighten our clothes. Every child, every senior person, 
every family across America is able to drink clean water and avoid 
getting sick because of chlorine treatment.
  However, we know that chlorine is a dangerous chemical if misused or 
abused. According to EPA, at least 123 plants each keep amounts of 
chemicals that if released, could form deadly vapor clouds that would 
put more than one million people in danger. A plant outside of Detroit 
projects that a rupture of one of its 90-ton rail cars of chlorine 
could endanger three million people. Even worse, an accident at a New 
Jersey plant in suburban New York City could cover a 14 mile radius 
affecting 12 million people.
  Missouri is not spared from these dangers. In the Kansas City 
metropolitan area alone, there are over 100 plants filing reports to 
EPA on their potential chemical accidents.
  I am holding back on the names and addresses of these facilities, but 
their identity and location is no secret to those who want to look. In 
fact, the law currently requires EPA to make this information available 
to the public. You do not even have to look, because the newspapers are 
publishing this information. Here is the front page of the Kansas City 
Star with a story ``Chemical Plants Ordered to Prepare for the Worst.'' 
The story describes how information on worst-case scenario accidents is 
publicly available to anyone who bothers to look.
  The San Francisco Chronicle published a story entitled ``If All Hell 
Broke Loose.'' Here you see the newspaper not only describes the 
chemical facilities in Northern California, but provides a map of the 
location of the facilities and the radius of potential damage from a 
toxic release. This newspaper published not only the names and 
addresses of the facilities, but drew a map with their location and

[[Page S5044]]

the radius of destruction from a release. It helps the terrorists by 
showing just what radius of death and destruction would occur. This is 
the front page of a newspaper that is out there for anybody who wants 
to make a terrorist strike in San Francisco. This is published in May 
of 1999. I wonder, after September 11, they would still be so helpful.
  The reason this is a problem is that this is exactly the type of 
information terrorists would use to plan and carry-out an attack. 
Families in suburban San Francisco and across the country have a bulls 
eye on their communities because terrorists can use this publicly 
available information to target their attacks.

  By law, the government requires chemical facilities to report to the 
government the hazardous chemicals they have on site and then predict 
the worst-case scenario for an accident with those chemicals. These 
Offsite Consequence Analysis or OCA reports include the type of 
chemical, the conditions under which a worst-case accident would occur, 
the distance a toxic cloud of chemicals might travel, the environmental 
or public receptors such as hospitals, schools or national parks in 
danger's way, and the number of people who would be harmed by an 
attack.
  According to the FBI, this publicly available chemical facility 
information provides a ``blueprint for potential terrorist attack.'' A 
DOJ report analyzing the threat from terrorists abusing OCA information 
says:

       The distance that a toxic cloud might travel, the numbers 
     of people who might be harmed, and the environmental or 
     public receptors that could be affected are precisely the 
     types of factors that a terrorist weighs when planning an 
     attack.

  Chemical facilities are exactly the type of target terrorists would 
attack to create mayhem and destruction. According to DOJ:

       Certain types of facilities that are required to submit OCA 
     information are preferred terrorist targets. Many such 
     facilities exist in well-populated areas, where a chemical 
     release could result in mass casualties and would result in 
     widespread destruction.

  In a chilling confirmation of this, copies of U.S. chemical trade 
publications were found in one of the cave holes where Osama bin Laden 
had hidden. They found it with the other rat infestations in December.
  Terrorists would have little problem searching through government 
collected OCA. According to DOJ, this data provides ``one-stop shopping 
for refined targeting information, allowing terrorists or other 
criminals to select the best targets from among the 15,000 chemical 
facilities that have submitted OCA data.'' Indeed, accessing this 
publicly available information is easy. In a single afternoon, my staff 
was able to search and find the top ten facilities across my home state 
of Missouri where terrorist attacks would produce the greatest number 
of casualties. By the end of the day, my staff had the names of the 
facilities, their street address, the name of the vulnerable chemicals, 
the conditions under which a worst-case scenario release would occur, 
the radius of harm caused by the attack, any safety or mitigation 
measures plants might use to control the release, and the number of 
people in the affected area who could be hurt.
  It was shocking to me that Federal law makes information which 
terrorists could use to destroy communities available to any member of 
the public.
  The argument goes that communities want to know about dangerous 
chemicals used and stored in their neighborhoods. That is a legitimate 
desire. The law further intends that members of the public use this 
information to pressure chemical facilities to remove dangerous 
chemicals or change their ways so that neighboring communities are not 
in danger from an accidental release. That also is a very legitimate 
concern.
  Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks of September 11th show us that 
times are not so simple anymore. The threat from terrorist attack now 
outweighs the benefits of making this information public. We should be 
concerned about chemical facilities in our communities. However, our 
greatest concern must be protecting those communities from terrorist 
attack.
  In a different time, the environmental policy concerns of making 
worst-case scenario chemical accidental data available to the public 
might have outweighed the security threats to our communities. Sadly, 
those times have passed. According to the Department of Justice, OCA 
worst-case scenario data continues to present a security threat. The 
threat from terrorists using OCA worst-case scenario data is even 
greater after the September 11th terrorist attacks. DOJ believes that 
legislation is necessary to further limit public access to dangerous 
OCA information.
  Unfortunately, the current law does not protect our communities from 
terrorist attack. Congress amended the law concerning OCA information 
in 1999. That legislation, entitled the Chemical Safety Information and 
Site Security Act reversed EPA plans to post OCA information on the 
Internet. However, the law left the task of establishing specific 
regulations for publicizing OCA information to EPA and DOJ. Admittedly, 
the last administration did its work before the terrorist attacks of 
September 11th. It was a different time then. A legitimate argument was 
made that environmental policy concerns outweighed the need to protect 
communities from terrorist attacks.
  However, even the restrictions EPA and DOJ devised to limit access to 
sensitive OCA information were quickly overcome by advocacy groups. 
This story in the New York Times describes how environmental advocates 
put OCA disaster data on the Internet. The caption here is, ``Getting 
around a law intended to avoid helping terrorists.'' My staff used one 
of these sites to help them determine the communities in Missouri most 
at risk from a terrorist attack. This is not fair to the communities 
that wish to avoid terrorist attacks. Further restrictions are 
necessary to protect our communities from terrorist attack.

  The legislation I propose today strikes the best balance between 
allowing the public to monitor the actions of the chemical industry and 
protecting individual communities from terrorist attack. Official users 
engaged in official protection activities will have unrestricted access 
to OCA information. However, my bill will allow members of the public 
to view OCA data on chemical facilities without knowing their specific 
name and location. This will allow advocates to continue watching and 
pressuring the chemical industry at-large to make safety improvements 
without placing specific communities at risk of terrorist attack. For 
those environmental advocates that wish to play a role in a given 
community, this legislation specifically expands local emergency 
planning committees to include members of local and national 
environmental organizations. I recognize that these groups have a role 
to play in making our communities safer and hope they will accept this 
invitation to join in formal community protection activities.
  Communities have much to fear from terrorist attack. According to 
DOJ, the risk of terrorists attempting in the foreseeable future to 
cause an industrial chemical release is both real and credible. We must 
not help those terrorists who want to destroy our communities. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Community Protection From Terrorism Act 
and look forward to working with you on its passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be appropriately referred.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2580. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to require the 
National Transportation Safety Board to investigate all fatal railroad 
grade crossing accidents; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fatal 
Grade Crossing Accident Investigations Act. The bill would require the 
National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, to investigate the facts, 
circumstances and causes of all accidents at railroad grade crossings 
in which there is a fatality or substantial property damage.
  With this bill, we can correct an important gap in our efforts to 
reduce such accidents. Under current law, NTSB investigations of grade 
crossing accidents are undertaken only in select cases, as highway 
accident investigations. The bill would consider grade

[[Page S5045]]

crossing accidents instead to be railroad accidents, which under 
current law already must be investigated if there is a fatality or 
substantial property damage.
  We need better information on fatal grade crossing accidents so we 
can do more to prevent unnecessary loss of life. According to National 
Railroad Administration Safety Statistics, more than 4,000 accidents 
per year occur at grade crossings. In 2000, 425 of these resulted in 
fatalities. Most fatalities occur at what are called passive grade 
crossings, those offering no warning or signal to a motorist of an 
oncoming train. Of Minnesota's more than 8,000 railroad grade 
crossings, three-fourths are passive crossings. The safety of such 
passive crossings is substantially dependent on such factors as 
physical layout and the adequacy of the view for drivers of approaching 
trains. To make good safety choices, communities, transportation 
agencies and departments at the local, state and federal levels need 
better information. That is one reason site-specific accident 
information is so necessary.
  NTSB investigations are essential not only to prevent future 
accidents, through recommendations on operating rules such as speed 
limits, warning or separation devices, improved signaling, signage, 
improvements for driver visibility and increased enforcement of stop 
signs at passive crossings. But their investigations often are also the 
only means of addressing the role of railroads and their personnel in 
accidents.
  This important issue has been brought to my attention by two 
passionate rail safety advocates in Minnesota, Lillian and Gerry Nybo. 
I have worked closely with the Nybos, who have been at the forefront of 
a national movement, ``Citizens Against Railroad Tragedies.'' Their 18-
year-old son, Gerry, Jr., was killed three years ago this week at an 
unguarded rail grade crossing in Audubon Township in Becker County, 
Minnesota. He has just graduated from high school, and his life was 
full of promise. He friend Ryan Nelson was killed in the same accident. 
This legislation is needed to give families such as the Nybos, who have 
lost family members, the results of investigation into the facts and 
causes of these accidents. It is in memory of Gerry Nybo, Jr. that I 
introduce this legislation today.
  My hope in introducing this bill is to give communities the 
information they need to improve safety at dangerous intersections. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill, and 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. 2580

       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 ``Fatal Grade Crossing 
     Accident Investigations Act''.

     SEC. 2. GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS.

       Section 1131(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, including a 
     railroad grade crossing accident,''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, including a 
     railroad grade crossing accident,'' after ``railroad 
     accident''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with 
     respect to railroad grade crossing accidents that occur on or 
     after that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
  S. 2582. A bill to require a report to Congress on a national 
strategy for the deployment of high speed broadband Internet 
telecommunications services, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in 1943, the chairman of a famous 
American electronics company said, ``I think there is a world market 
for maybe five computers.'' Good guess. Industry has repeatedly 
exceeded expectations like that one, and helped the American economy as 
a whole exceed expectations
  New questions are now reverberating from Silicon Valley to 
Pennsylvania Avenue. How do we catch the next great wave of innovation 
and ingenuity to unleash the next great boom of productivity and 
opportunity? How do we find new ways to translate our enormous 
technological prowess into real economic progress for the American 
people?
  I rise today to introduce what I believe will be a roadmap to 
revitalization. It's premised on the extraordinary promise of high-
speed Internet to help us return to high-intensity growth; by 
revolutionizing the way we communicate and live our lives. Its goal is 
to highlight the challenges we face in tapping the transformative 
potential of broadband technology, to spur agreement on a national 
strategy for accelerating its development and deployment, and 
ultimately to help bring on what we all hope will be the broadband 
boom.
  Our country's last big boom was fueled by the most reliable, 
resilient, and renewable source of energy around: America's creative 
genius. Government paved the road, first with R&D funding, then in the 
1990s with sound budget policies, but it was our innovation industries 
that made it happen. In fact, the information technology sector, which 
made up only 4 percent of GDP, was responsible for a remarkable 30 
percent of all economic growth between 1995 and 2000.
  Today, America's high-tech industries, which have survived the big 
bust that followed the big bang of the 1990s, haven't lost their edge. 
Information technology and the innovation economy, for example, are 
still among our greatest national resources. But as we've emerged from 
recession, many businesses across the country have been increasingly 
concerned about our recovery. How strong will it be? How long will it 
last?
  Many in Washington have recognized that broadband can and must be a 
big part of the solution. But most policymakers have been focusing on 
short-term obstacles to the next small jump in speed. I think we need a 
larger and longer vision here. We need to look over the horizon and ask 
what it will take to usher in advanced broadband that will make speeds 
of 10 to 100 megabits per second available all across the country, so 
that we can truly unleash the tremendous economic potential of this 
technology.
  The science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said, ``Any 
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' 
Well, the next generation Internet passes that test. It has the ability 
to levitate productivity, make millions of jobs appear, and transport 
our economy into the future. And there won't be any sleight of hand 
involved. Sometimes, there won't even be wires attached.
  In education, for example, universities, school districts, and 
private companies have already started rolling out impressive 
applications of advanced broadband. We're not just talking about 
streaming video with questions sent through instant messenger. 
Broadband can transform the very nature of instruction, right at the 
time when schools need more flexible and more powerful learning tools 
to meet higher standards.
  In healthcare, the possibilities are equally exciting: hospitals 
without walls, instantaneous remote monitoring of patient vitals, 
comprehensive informatics databases that are available to professionals 
everywhere. We even saw the first remote surgery pioneered last fall, 
when two surgeons in New York operated on a patient in Strasbourg, 
France.
  Indeed, advanced broadband's ability to both increase economic 
opportunities and improve society in so many fields, from law to 
finance, from entertainment to agriculture, and from homeland defense 
to international defense, are just astounding.
  These days, computing power is expanding at an incredible rate. But 
networking speed is way behind computing speed. Industry can't make the 
best use of the computing potential that's available without the pipes 
that bring it home to consumers and businesses--including and 
especially small businesses. While we have some good arteries, we don't 
have the capillaries to carry data all the way.
  I stand here today to say that we in government can't let this 
potentially fertile field of technology lie fallow. We need to make the 
most of this moment, in which the high-speed Internet is on the cusp of 
catalyzing a quantum leap in our economy. Which is to say, we need to 
lead, and seed.
  Unfortunately, the case for making broadband deployment a priority of 
a

[[Page S5046]]

national economic strategy has yet to be understood adequately by 
government. The broadband buck is still stuck on the government's desk, 
and with it, thousands of new opportunities and millions of new jobs. 
Decisions are piling up: on spectrum, competition, rights management, 
spam, privacy, child protection, and more. These are important issues 
that need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved comprehensively, 
with an overarching vision.
  Last week I released a white paper entitled Broadband: A 21st Century 
Technology and Productivity Strategy and today I introduce the National 
Broadband Strategy Act of 2002. The white paper analyzes the 
challenges. The legislation will compel us to meet them, requiring the 
Administration to develop a national broadband strategy within six 
months of passage.
  Taken together, and working in conjunction with insightful leaders 
and groups in the tech community, I am confident these measures can 
spark the development and implementation of a coherent, cross-agency 
strategy to eliminate obstacles, create incentives, and encourage 
industry innovation.
  In the upcoming months, I'll follow up this report and legislation 
with proposals on how to reach truly advanced broadband, the speed I 
mentioned before, upwards of 10 megabits per second. There is no focus 
on this need now, and that's where government particularly needs to 
lead and seed.
  The follow-up legislation I'll propose in the coming months will call 
on the FCC to develop a regulatory framework to meet the challenges of 
the next generation Net: propose tax credits for the deployment of 
advanced broadband, encourage research and development on advanced 
broadband infrastructure that will enable this technology to reach into 
all the corners and crevices of the country, and present a program to 
incentivize research and development on major applications in areas 
where government plays a central role, including education, healthcare, 
and e-government.
  The public sector cannot and should not manage this effort. Our 
future will fortunately be in the hands of thousands of individual 
innovators. Nor should the government be choosing winners and losers. 
To benefit consumers, government must be pro-broadband, but technology 
neutral about how business gets there, by encouraging innovation and 
maximizing competition. Government must clear the path so that business 
innovators can march forward.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of 
legislation. I request unanimous consent that the introductory 
materials to my whitepaper and the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record. I note to my colleagues that the full text of the whitepaper is 
available on my web site, http://lieberman.senate.gov.
 There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2582

       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 ``National Broadband Strategy 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States needs to develop a long-term 
     investment and growth strategy that will restore the 
     unprecedented gains in structural economic productivity with 
     high employment growth experienced by the United States in 
     the late 1990s.
       (2) The gains in structural productivity with high 
     employment growth in the late 1990s resulted from 
     unprecedented investments in information and communication 
     technology.
       (3) It was the precipitous decline in these investments 
     that took the United States economy into recession before 
     September 11, 2001.
       (4) The United States needs to focus on stimulating 
     resurgence in these investments to regain vibrant growth in 
     structural productivity and high employment growth.
       (5) If productivity increases at the rate of 1.5 percent 
     per year, the standard of living will double about every 46 
     years, or about every two generations. On the other hand, if 
     productivity increases at the rate of 3 percent per year, the 
     standard of living will double about every 23 years, or about 
     every generation. This difference results from the so-called 
     miracle of compounding. To take advantage of compounding, a 
     long-term economic strategy for the United States must focus 
     on structural productivity growth.
       (6) Productivity growth has enabled American workers to 
     produce 30 times as much in goods and services in 1999 as 
     they produced in 1899, with only 5 times as many workers. 
     This growth in productivity has increased the standard of 
     living in the United States from $4,200 in 1899 to $33,740 in 
     1999 (expressed in 1999 dollars). Growth in structural 
     productivity will bring about growth in wages and salaries, 
     profits, and government tax receipts.
       (7) The productivity gains of the United States in the late 
     1990s broke a 25-year trend. From the early 1970s to the mid-
     1990s, United States productivity grew sluggishly, at an 
     annual rate of about 1.5 percent. During the final 5 years of 
     the 20th Century, it grew at nearly double that rate.
       (8) The high cyclical productivity growth the United States 
     has experienced in 2001 and 2002 results for the most part 
     from a reduction in employment and increased utilization of 
     existing capacity.
       (9) The United States needs a strategy to generate 
     structural productivity growth arising from the development 
     and deployment of new technology that enhances both 
     efficiency and employment.
       (10) The United States needs to prepare now for the 
     retirement of the Baby Boom generation. If the United States 
     does nothing regarding Social Security, it is estimated that 
     by 2030 the annual shortfall between amounts in the Social 
     Security Trust Fund and the amount required to meet 
     obligations of the Fund will reach $814,000,000,000 (in 1999 
     dollars). The United States has approximately 
     $7,4000,000,000,000 in obligations coming due, and it 
     advisable to have our fiscal house in order, hopefully with 
     no national debt, when these obligations must be paid. 
     Restoring structural productivity and high employment growth 
     is essential to ensure that the United States can honor these 
     obligations.
       (11) Making affordable, high speed broadband Internet 
     connections of 10 Mbps-100 Mbps available to all American 
     homes and small businesses has the potential to restore 
     structural productivity and employment growth.
       (12) High speed broadband Internet applications for voice, 
     data, graphics, and video will revolutionize many aspects of 
     life at home, school, and work. High speed broadband Internet 
     will transform health care, commerce, government, and 
     education. The benefits of a successful high speed broadband 
     Internet deployment strategy to the quality of life and 
     economy of the United States will be immeasurable.
       (13) Traditionally, the United States is considered the 
     world leader in the development and commercialization of new 
     innovations and technologies. However, the United States lags 
     far behind other countries in broadband deployment, including 
     South Korea, Canada, and Sweden. By 2005, the United States 
     is projected to fall to ninth place in broadband deployment, 
     surpassed by Asian markets in Hong Kong and Singapore, the 
     Scandinavian countries Denmark and Norway, and the 
     Netherlands.
       (14) The United States will need high speed broadband 
     Internet for public health, education, and economic welfare, 
     just as the United States now needs universal telephone 
     service. High speed broadband Internet applications are 
     capable of revitalizing the economy and solving countless 
     problems for average Americans. The applications fall into 
     the areas of e-education, e-health, e-commerce, e-government, 
     and e-entertainment.
       (15) The benefits that will arise from development and 
     implementation of a national high speed broadband Internet 
     strategy amply justify a priority for such a strategy. The 
     Federal Government will act one way or another on many of the 
     key policy issues affecting broadband deployment. The only 
     question is whether it acts in accordance with a strategy, or 
     piecemeal.
       (15) Adopting a national strategy for broadband deployment 
     is consistent with the strategies the United States has 
     adopted to speed deployment of other essential 
     infrastructure, including railroads, electric power, 
     telephone service, and radio and television. Each of those 
     technologies has been the focus of a national economic 
     strategy. There is a consensus that the Northwest Ordinance, 
     Morrill Land-Grant Act, and GI bill, and laws for 
     transcontinental railroads, rural electrification, and the 
     interstate highway system, embodied useful and successful 
     strategies for the future of the United States.
       (16) In facilitating high speed broadband Internet 
     deployment, the United States should rely on markets and 
     entrepreneurs and minimize the intrusion of government. 
     Americans need to be creative and innovative when government 
     acts to make sure that it provides value added.
       (17) In crafting a comprehensive strategy to advance 
     deployment of high speed broadband Internet, a broad range of 
     policy options should be addressed, and the Administration 
     needs to provide leadership in developing these options and 
     establishing a priority among them.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR HIGH SPEED BROADBAND INTERNET 
                   DEPLOYMENT.

       (a) Strategy for Increasing Structural Productivity and 
     Employment Growth.--Not later than six months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to 
     Congress a report setting

[[Page S5047]]

     forth a strategy for the nation-wide deployment of high speed 
     broadband Internet telecommunications services.
       (b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A goal for the deployment of broadband 
     telecommunications services nationwide, including a goal 
     regarding the speeds necessary to facilitate applications 
     needed to stimulate structural productivity and employment 
     growth.
       (2) A proposal for policies to foster and maintain 
     competition among firms offering broadband telecommunications 
     service, including competition to deploy high speed broadband 
     Internet of 10 Mbps-100 Mbps.
       (3) A proposal for incentives to enhance demand for high 
     speed broadband Internet telecommunications service, 
     including demand for purposes of serving Federal mission 
     areas such as homeland security, distance learning, health, 
     scientific collaboration, and electronic commerce.
       (4) A proposal for incentives to facilitate and enhance the 
     supply of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications 
     service.
       (5) A proposal to enhance global electronic commerce.
       (6) A proposal for the optimal allocation of Federal 
     Government resources on research and development regarding 
     high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service, 
     including recommendations for the allocation and 
     prioritization of Federal funds.
       (7) A proposal for the optimal allocation of spectrum in 
     furtherance of the deployment of high speed broadband 
     Internet telecommunications service.
       (8) An assessment of various limitations to the deployment 
     of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service, 
     including matters relating to taxation, privacy, security, 
     spamming, content, intellectual property, and rights-of-way, 
     and proposals for eliminating or alleviating such 
     limitations.
       (9) An assessment of the impact of the proposals under this 
     subsection on structural productivity and employment growth 
     in the United States and on the international economic 
     competitiveness of the United States.
       (10) Any other proposals or matters on the deployment of 
     high speed broadband Internet telecommunications services 
     that the President considers appropriate.
       (c) Form.--The report under subsection (a) shall include a 
     draft proposal of any legislation required to implement the 
     goal described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), and of any 
     of the proposals set forth under paragraphs (2) through (8) 
     and (10) of that subsection (b).
                                  ____


     Broadband: A 21st Century Technology and Productivity Strategy

       (From the Office of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, May 2002)

       Over one hundred and fifty years ago, a new technology 
     emerged that grabbed the imaginations of the public and the 
     purse strings of investors. It was a technology that promised 
     to bring people closer together and to greatly stimulate the 
     economy of that time. In order to succeed, that new 
     technology required that the land be crisscrossed with a 
     network upon which news could be carried and goods could be 
     traded.
       Bankers funded hundreds of startup companies that were 
     built to take advantage of the new network. Investors 
     clamored to purchase shares at rapidly rising prices. And 
     then, after little more than a decade of overbuilding the 
     infrastructure, it all fell apart as shares plunged 85% and 
     hundreds of businesses and banks went under.
       The technology was steam-driven railroad and this is the 
     story told in the May 13th issue of Business Week. The 
     analogies to the Information Technology boom of the 1990s are 
     unmistakable and the lessons are invaluable. But the most 
     important part of the story is what happened after the 
     railroad bubble burst.
       Within two decades, railroads were carrying four times as 
     many people as they had at the height of the boom. The tracks 
     were cleared, leaving the most solid companies and the best 
     of the rail technologies to survive. According to W. Brian 
     Arthur, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute, the survivors 
     then developed new strategies that resulted in the industry's 
     greatest growth and had the greatest impact on business and 
     society of that time.
       We now find ourselves in the same situation that the 
     railroads were in as they developed their new strategies, 
     except the technology is now broadband. It is clear that 
     broadband will revolutionize business and society in our 
     time, just as the railroads did in theirs. But it is also a 
     confusing time, as many different interests emerge with many 
     different agendas. The issues to be faced are many and they 
     are complex. For some, there will be no easy answers. But it 
     is time for us to have a national strategy that addresses 
     these issues in a coherent and comprehensive manner.
       My staff has assembled this report over the past ten months 
     with extensive input from industry, academia, and government. 
     It was no small undertaking and I particularly thank Skip 
     Watts and Chuck Ludlam of my office. While there have been 
     numerous bills offered in Congress dealing with isolated 
     components of broadband policy, this report is the first to 
     identify the full range of issues that must be considered as 
     part of a national broadband strategy designed to stimulate 
     economic expansion.
       As the first in a series of legislative initiatives, I will 
     introduce the National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002 next 
     week. This bill highlights the need for a carefully planned 
     national strategy to provide universal availability of 
     broadband and to motivate research and advances in broadband 
     applications and content. It calls upon the Administration to 
     recommend a coherent, cross-agency national broadband 
     strategy in a series of key government policy areas, to 
     Congress.
       I want to emphasize that while there is an ongoing 
     competitive scramble to reach the lower broadband speeds, we 
     need to also pay real attention to advanced broadband and to 
     attaining those much higher speeds. The report's Executive 
     Summary identifies four key elements that will be integral to 
     advanced broadband deployment. The elements include an FCC 
     regulatory plan, tax incentives, research on advanced 
     infrastructure technology, and deployment of applications.
       As with the railroads of the mid-1800s, broadband is now 
     poised to whistle in a new period of economic growth. We must 
     do all that we can to nurture this emerging technology and to 
     stimulate the development of new killer applications in the 
     fields of education, medicine, government, and science. 
     Commerce and entertainment will not trail far behind. The 
     tracks of rail are now the ``pipes'' of broadband.


                           Executive Summary

       Broadband deployment must become a national priority. Major 
     economic growth and productivity gains can be realized by 
     making affordable high-speed broadband Internet connections--
     which are already enjoyed by many universities and large 
     businesses--widely available to American homes, schools, and 
     small businesses.
       In a soft economic climate with limited prospects for near-
     term recovery, broadband deployment is a necessary condition 
     for the restoration of capital spending in the information 
     technology sector. Such investments were the critical drivers 
     of the non-inflationary growth that characterized the late 
     1990s. Broadband, which can play a pivotal role in 
     encouraging investments in information technology, has the 
     potential to transform education, health care, government, 
     entertainment, and commerce.
       Of course, embracing broadband as a vehicle for economic 
     growth raises the question, ``How fast is fast enough for 
     truly advanced emerging applications?'' The telecom, cable, 
     and satellite industries are now providing Internet access at 
     speeds typically less than 1.5 megabits per second (Mbps). A 
     review of existing and likely technologies, however, suggests 
     that we have only achieved the first level of broadband 
     speeds. On the foreseeable horizon are technologies that 
     offer advanced broadband speeds of 10 Mbps in the near-term, 
     and 100 Mbps in the medium-term. A national strategy needs to 
     focus on this advanced broadband opportunity. Arguably, it 
     will be at these advanced speed ranges that the greatest 
     benefits from broadband will come.
       A successful strategy to accelerate the deployment of 
     broadband will lead to immeasurable benefits to the quality 
     of life and economy of the American people. But a successful 
     strategy must encompass various issues in a comprehensive and 
     coherent manner, and the debate must not become mired in any 
     one debate. What we need is a sensible, intelligent approach 
     that addresses the full range of issues within the context of 
     an interrelated framework, not the piecemeal process that has 
     brought us to the present confusion and controversies.
       This strategy must recognize a truth that sometimes becomes 
     lost in the multiplicity of debates over such issues as the 
     regulation of telephone and cable companies. What is 
     overlooked--and must be recognized--is that demand will drive 
     the next phase of broadband expansion. Strong demand from 
     consumers, smaller businesses, and even big businesses that 
     currently have high-speed Internet connectivity, will produce 
     a cycle of innovation and growth. But demand, in turn, 
     requires that applications of real value be developed. It 
     requires, in other words, ``killer applications'' that 
     justify, in the minds of consumers, the price of 
     progressively faster broadband connections.
       The private sector will need to invest hundreds of billions 
     of dollars before widespread broadband access becomes a 
     reality. Government nevertheless has an important role to 
     play as broadband suppliers face novel challenges in the 
     areas of Internet privacy, security, spam, copyright 
     protection, spectrum allocation, and rights-of-way. It is 
     vital that, in these and other areas, government remain 
     ``technology-neutral'' and that competition between the 
     delivery technologies exist alongside competition within 
     the technologies. This will allow the best and most cost-
     effective delivery systems to emerge, meeting the varied 
     needs of different people and different regions across 
     this diverse country.
       There are, however, many ways that government, through a 
     national strategy, can accelerate the life cycle of 
     development and competition for emerging broadband 
     technologies. It can do so by stimulating both the demand and 
     supply side of broadband deployment. On the demand side, 
     government should lead the way in generating demand by 
     expanding e-government services to the public and to 
     businesses, and by supporting the development of broadband 
     tools for e-education and e-healthcare. E-entertainment

[[Page S5048]]

     and e-commerce will be quick to take advantage of the 
     expanded services, and renewed economic growth will surely 
     follow. On the supply side, government can consider such 
     tools as tax credits, loans, and grants for a wide variety of 
     research, deployment, and broadband utilization activities.
       As the first in a series of legislative initiatives, 
     Senator Lieberman will introduce the National Broadband 
     Strategy Act of 2002. This bill highlights the need for a 
     coherent and comprehensive national strategy for providing 
     widespread availability of broadband and for motivating 
     research and advances in broadband applications and content. 
     Because broadband implementation has been piecemeal, and 
     stalled in significant part because numerous government 
     agencies have failed to act quickly in deciding a wide range 
     of broadband issues now pending before them, the bill calls 
     upon the Administration to recommend a coherent, cross-agency 
     national broadband strategy in a series of key government 
     policy areas.
       Parallel to that, and focusing on how we will get to truly 
     advanced broadband speeds (in the range of 10 Mbps and 100 
     Mbps), Senator Lieberman will introduce over the next few 
     months a series of substantive pieces of legislation 
     addressing four key elements integral to a national strategy 
     for advanced broadband deployment. The key elements are:
       (1) FCC Regulatory Framework: Direct the FCC to explore all 
     of the broadband deployment and delivery technology options 
     to enable us to reach advanced broadband speeds. Retaining 
     technological neutrality, the FCC will be asked to develop 
     the regulatory framework to enable and implement a plan to 
     deploy this advanced Internet capability.
       (2) Tax Credits: Establish tax credits and incentives for a 
     range of advanced broadband deployment and broadband 
     utilization efforts. These could include credits for 
     infrastructure deployment, equipment implementation, employee 
     utilization, installation in atypical settings, and 
     innovative applications.
       (3) Advanced Infrastructure R&D: Ensure that fundamental 
     R&D issues are tackled in a coordinated manner to overcome 
     the scientific and technological barriers to advanced 
     widespread broadband deployment. The U.S. has already 
     established successful interagency and interdisciplinary 
     initiatives under the National Information Technology 
     Research & Development Program to advance critical IT 
     technologies. We must leverage our existing expertise in 
     these programs to resolve fundamental obstacles to effective 
     broadband deployment and hasten the next generation of 
     technologies. A cooperative R&D program, including 
     government, industry and universities, will be critical to 
     advanced broadband.
       (4) Application R&D and Deployment: Require federal 
     agencies to undertake R&D and promote the development and 
     availability of major applications in areas where government 
     plays a central role, including e-education, e-medicine, e-
     government, e-science and homeland security. This could 
     stimulate demand for broadband and promote bridging of the 
     digital divide consistent with the missions of government 
     agencies. And the government should lead by example in moving 
     to expand opportunities for broadband-based e-commerce in 
     federal procurement, bidding, and contracting.
       While time and technology will not stop, and our nation's 
     eventual transformation into a broadband society will occur 
     regardless of what steps are taken today, it is ours to 
     choose whether we will be dragged into the next digital age 
     resisting change, or whether we lead others into a new era of 
     economic promise. If we are to take control of our future, we 
     must begin by harnessing the power of broadband as a 
     necessary tool for navigating a world increasingly defined by 
     the speed with which information changes and grows.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2583. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the management of health care services 
for veterans to place certain low-income veterans in a higher health-
care priority category; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary 
Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veteran's Administration defines 
low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of 
living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton 
legislation would make the Veteran's Equitable Resource Allocation just 
that: Equitable.
  More specifically, this bill would replace the national income 
threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5, currently $24,000 for 
all parts of the country, with regional thresholds defined by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far-
reaching proposal would help low income veterans across the country 
afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service 
Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct 
veterans populations.
  Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifices in defense of 
American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of 
gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American 
veterans, veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty, 
have access to quality health care.
  In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource 
Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided 
by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into 
account the costs associated with various veteran populations. 
Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into 
account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant 
metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the 
VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with 
high costs of living and elevated health expenses.
  To allocate money to the Veterans' Integrated Service Networks, 
VISNs, VERA divides veterans into seven priority groups. Veterans who 
have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below 
$24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while 
veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for 
no other special priorities are placed in Priority Group 7c.
  Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low-
income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided 
disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for 
classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every 
single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 
percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York 
City is set at $35,150 and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.
  As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, 
which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend 
to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an 
inflated population of Priority Group 7c veterans.
  The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you 
consider that VERA allocations do not take into account the number of 
veterans classified in Priority Group 7c. With the costs associated 
with veterans in Priority Group 7c not considered as part of the VERA 
allocation, and with high cost of living areas possessing inflated 
populations of Priority Group 7c vets, high cost regions must provide 
care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.
  This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of 
veterans in Priority Group 7c has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. 
Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 
percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, 
the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various 
locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic 
Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for 
unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long 
distances to existing clinics.
  Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets qualify as Priority Group 5 
unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. 
Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority Group 7c must provide 
a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans 
placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under 
the existing framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often 
inappropriately placed in Priority Group 7c, and are forced to provide 
a copayment.
  Recent studies by both the Rand Institute and the General Accounting 
Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a 
geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to 
improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would 
ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs 
of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.
  Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to 
account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The 
bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and 
guarantee that VISNs across the country receive

[[Page S5049]]

adequate compensation for the care they provide.
  I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting 
this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2583

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

     SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE 
                   PRIORITY FOR CERTAIN LOW-INCOME VETERANS BASED 
                   UPON REGIONAL INCOME THRESHOLDS.

       (a) Change in Priority Category.--Section 1705(a) of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A) who are'' after ``Veterans'';
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after ``through (4)''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, or (B) who are described in section 1710(a)(3) 
     of this title and are eligible for treatment as a low-income 
     family under section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)) for the area in which such veterans 
     reside, regardless of whether such veterans are treated as 
     single person families under paragraph (3)(A) of such section 
     3(b) or as families under paragraph (3)(B) of such section 
     3(b)'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (7); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (7) and in 
     that paragraph by striking ``paragraph (7)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5)(B)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1710(f)(4) of such title 
     is amended by striking ``section 1705(a)(7)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1705(a)(5)(B)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 2, 2002.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator 
Corzine, to introduce legislation to remedy the gross disparity in the 
distribution of Federal dollars to provide health care services to our 
nation's veterans around the country.
  The source of the gap is a formula that does not sufficiently take 
into account the needs of all facilities, effectively unfairly 
penalizing states in the Northeast and Midwest. And New York has lost 
tens of millions of dollars as a result. The bill we're introducing 
today would provide increased funding for networks in high-cost of 
living areas, like New York and New Jersey, and help low-income 
veterans afford quality health care.
  In 1997, to repair geographic inequities in the distribution of VA 
allocations, the Federal government put in place the Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation, VERA, system. As I noted in a letter I sent to VA 
Secretary Anthony Principi on this issue in March, the VERA formula was 
intended to better meet the needs of the large number of veterans who 
flocked to the South. As a General Accounting Office, GAO, report 
released in February 2002 makes clear, however, the 6-year-old formula 
has resulted in disparities and cutbacks in health services for 
veterans in the Northeast and Midwest. Veterans' hospitals in these 
regions lost a staggering $921 million.
  The VERA formula is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the 
formula, which is based on the number of veterans, does not take into 
account the differences in various patient health care needs within 
different networks. As the GAO report states, the formula ``excludes 
about one-fifth of VA's workload in determining each network's 
allocation.'' These are veterans who do not have service-related 
disabilities and whose incomes fall within a low-priority range, called 
``Priority 7''.
  Although this group is considered a low-priority, these individuals 
represent a growing percentage of the veteran population who seek care 
at VA facilities. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001, the 
number of veterans with incomes within this range increased from 4 
percent to 22 percent of the total caseload. However, the formula has 
not been adjusted to reflect the dramatic increase in these ``Priority 
7'' cases, leaving many networks without the resources to meet the 
growing demand.
  Further, the formula does not accurately reflect the higher cost of 
medical care in the Northeast. Because VA hospitals in New York City, 
and Nassau and Suffolk counties are situated in a high cost of living 
area, they tend to have an inflated number of Priority Group 7 
veterans. VA health networks in high cost regions provide care to 
thousands of veterans without sufficient funding to do so. 
Additionally, taking into account the regional cost of living would 
relieve many Priority 7 veterans of the burden of making a copayment.
  Finally, the number of veterans treated nationally over the last 
several years rose 47 percent, with all VA networks contributing to 
that increase. As I noted to Secretary Principi, a rise in patient 
caseloads spread across the health network should dictate an equitable 
distribution of funding. The GAO's recommendations can be reduced to 
one simple goal: ``comparable resources for comparable workloads.'' Any 
delay in fixing this formula, the GAO stated, means that approximately 
$200 million in veterans' health funding annually would be allocated 
unjustly.
  One of my State's newspapers, the Poughkeepsie Journal, reported that 
Secretary Principi agreed with the GAO's assessment of the formula but 
wanted to conduct another study of hospital workloads and patient needs 
before taking action. I strongly believe sufficient time has already 
been devoted to studying this issue. I urge Secretary Principi to take 
specific actions now to carry out the recommendations outlined in the 
GAO's report.
  The courageous service and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans in 
defense of our nation and our democratic values should never be 
forgotten. Fulfilling our promise to provide for their health care 
needs is an important part of the enduring bond that we share. I urge 
my colleagues to support our legislation to remedy this unfair formula 
so that all of our nation's veterans have access to the health services 
they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 2584. A bill to support certain housing proposals in the fiscal 
year 2003 budget for the Federal Government, including the downpayment 
assistance initiative under the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the American Dream 
Downpayment Act, which will help thousands of families achieve the 
American Dream of homeownership. The rate of homeownership in the 
United States has risen steadily over the past few years. However, for 
many working families, low-income families, women-headed households, 
minorities, urban dwellers and young families the dream of 
homeownership remains elusive.
  While Americans enjoy the world's greatest opportunities for becoming 
homeowners, only 46 percent of African-American and Hispanic families 
own their homes as compared to 74 percent of non-Hispanic whites who 
own their homes. For many of these families, the biggest barrier to 
homeownership is their inability to afford downpayment requirements and 
closing costs.
  To help eliminate the gaps in homeownership achievement, I am 
introducing the American Dream Downpayment Act. This legislation will 
help 40,000 families annually, focusing on low-income families who are 
first-time homebuyers. The American Dream Downpayment Fund will provide 
communities across America with $200 million in grants to help 
homebuyers with the downpayment and closing costs.
  The American Dream Downpayment Fund, which will be administered as a 
part of HUD's existing HOME Investment Partnerships Program, HOME, will 
make more than 400 State and local governments eligible to receive the 
$200 million in grant funding to help more families achieve the 
American Dream of homeownership.
  The positive effects of homeownership exist on many levels: 
homeownership has public benefits in the form of neighborhood 
stability, individual benefits in the form of the financial rewards 
that come from the appreciation of equity in a home over time, and 
personal benefits that stem from the satisfaction of attaining a goal, 
the pride of ownership, and a greater sense of security. In addition to 
these affirmative impacts of homeownership, the Homeownership Alliance 
released findings of a study revealing that children living in owned 
homes had nine percent higher achievement in mathematics and

[[Page S5050]]

seven percent higher achievement in reading.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on the 
American Dream Downpayment Act. I believe this legislation will be 
critical in helping more families achieve the American Dream of 
homeownership.
  I ask unanimous consent 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. 2584

       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 ``American Dream Downpayment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE UNDER HOME PROGRAM.

       (a) Downpayment Assistance Initiative.--Subtitle E of title 
     II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 12821) is amended to read as follows:

                     ``Subtitle E--Other Assistance

     ``SEC. 271. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     participating jurisdictions to assist low-income families to 
     achieve homeownership, in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Eligible Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grants made under this section may be 
     used only for downpayment assistance toward the purchase of 
     single family housing by low-income families who are first-
     time homebuyers.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term 
     `downpayment assistance' means assistance to help a family 
     acquire a principal residence.
       ``(c) Housing Strategy.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section for a fiscal year, a participating 
     jurisdiction shall include in its comprehensive housing 
     affordability strategy submitted under section 105 for such 
     year, a description of the use of the grant amounts.
       ``(d) Formula Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall allocate any amounts made available for assistance 
     under this section for the fiscal year in accordance with a 
     formula, established by the Secretary, that considers a 
     participating jurisdiction's need for and prior commitment to 
     assistance to homebuyers.
       ``(2) Allocation amounts.--The formula referred to in 
     paragraph (1) may include minimum and maximum allocation 
     amounts.
       ``(e) Reallocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     any amounts allocated to a participating jurisdiction under 
     this section become available for reallocation, the amounts 
     shall be reallocated to other participating jurisdictions in 
     accordance with the formula established pursuant to 
     subsection (d).
       ``(2) Exception.--If a local participating jurisdiction 
     failed to receive amounts allocated under this section and is 
     located in a State that is a participating jurisdiction, the 
     funds shall be reallocated to the State.
       ``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, grants made under this section shall not be subject 
     to the provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Applicable provisions.--In addition to the 
     requirements of this section, grants made under this section 
     shall be subject to the provisions of title I, sections 
     215(b), 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, and 226(a) of subtitle A of 
     this title, and subtitle F of this title.
       ``(3) References.--In applying the requirements of subtitle 
     A referred to in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) any references to funds under subtitle A shall be 
     considered to refer to amounts made available for assistance 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) any references to funds allocated or reallocated 
     under section 217 or 217(d) shall be considered to refer to 
     amounts allocated or reallocated under subsection (d) or (e) 
     of this section, respectively.
       ``(g) Administrative Costs.--Notwithstanding section 
     212(c), a participating jurisdiction may use funds under 
     subtitle A for administrative and planning costs of the 
     jurisdiction in carrying out this section, and the limitation 
     in section 212(c) shall be based on the total amount of funds 
     available under subtitle A and this section.
       ``(h) Funding.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2002.--This section constitutes the 
     subsequent legislation authorizing the Downpayment Assistance 
     Initiative referred to in the item relating to the `HOME 
     Investment Partnerships Program' in title II of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2002 (Public Law 107-73; 115 Stat. 666).
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2003 through 2006.''.
       (b) Relocation Assistance and Downpayment Assistance.--
     Subtitle F of title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act is amended by inserting after section 
     290 (42 U.S.C. 12840) the following:

     ``SEC. 291. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 shall not apply to 
     downpayment assistance under this title.''.

     SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF SHOP PROGRAM.

       Section 11(p) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension 
     Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note) is amended by striking 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001'' and 
     inserting ``$65,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 2004''.

     SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF HOPE VI PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 24(m)(1) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(m)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``$600,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``2002'' and inserting the following: ``$574,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2003''.
       (b) Sunset.--Section 24(n) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(n)) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2002'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. CRAPO):
  S. 2585. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to disclaim 
any Federal interest in lands adjacent to Spirit Lake and Twin Lakes in 
the State of Idaho resulting from possible omission of lands from an 
1880 survey; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I introduce this bill, Spirit Lake 
and Twin Lakes Omitted Lands Act of 2002 to help resolve a land 
ownership problem that affects over 400 private property owners and 
homeowners located around Spirit Lake and Twin Lakes in Kootenai 
County, ID.
  In 1880, a public land survey prepared under contract with the 
General Land Office, grossly misrepresented portions of the actual 
lakeshore of the two lakes. The surveys show the meander lines along 
the lakes up to one-half mile away from their actual location. The 
errors were not discovered until recently. Over the years, the 
shorelines of these popular lakes have become heavily developed and 
property owners have purchased their property and held it in good faith 
ownership. Most of the property owners affected by this situation have 
a chain of title that goes back over 100 years. Due to the inaccuracy 
of the original government survey, county officials have expressed 
concern regarding their inability to approve and regulate new 
developments, surveys, permits, etc. The Bureau of Land Management, the 
responsible Federal agency, has determined that it has no interest in 
the affected land and wishes only to remove the cloud on the titles.
  Under current federal law the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would 
be required to conduct a resurvey to properly describe the land. Much 
of this land would then become ``omitted land'' and would revert to 
federal ownership. Landowners who already paid fair market value for 
the land would then have to re-purchase it, along with paying a $50 
application fee, and paying for the appraisal, survey, and conveyance 
costs.
  Obviously, this is not an acceptable solution and does not provide 
the most equitable benefit to the public, so Senator Crapo and I are 
introducing this legislation. A companion bill is being offered in the 
House of Representatives by Mr. Otter. This legislation will authorize 
funds for the BLM to resurvey the land and direct the BLM to issue 
disclaimers of interest to all of the affected property owners. This is 
the only acceptable solution and one that keeps the landowners whole.
  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. 2585

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The meander lines in the original surveys by John B. 
     David, deputy surveyor, of two lakes in the State of Idaho, 
     Spirit Lake, formerly known as Lake Tesemini, located in T. 
     53 N., R. 4 W., Boise Meridian, and Twin Lakes, formerly 
     known as Fish Lake, located in T. 52 N. and T. 53 N., R. 4 
     W., Boise Meridian, do not reflect the current line of 
     ordinary high water conditions.
       (2) All lands adjacent to the original meander lines have 
     been patented.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to direct the 
     Secretary of the Interior to issue a recordable disclaimer of 
     interest by the

[[Page S5051]]

     United States to any omitted lands or lands lying outside the 
     record meander lines in the vicinity of the lakes referred to 
     in subsection (a).

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Recordable disclaimer of interest.--The term 
     ``recordable disclaimer of interest'' means a document 
     recorded in the county clerk's office or other such local 
     office where real property documents are recorded, in which 
     the United States disclaims any right, title, or interest to 
     those lands found lying outside the recorded meander lines of 
     the lakes referred to in section 1(a)(1), including omitted 
     lands, if any.
       (2) Omitted lands.--The term ``omitted lands'' means those 
     lands that were in place on the date of the original surveys 
     referred to in section 1(a)(1) but were not included in the 
     survey of the township and the meander lines of the water 
     body due to gross error or fraud by the original surveyor.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. SURVEYS.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct a survey investigation of the conditions along 
     the lakeshores of Spirit Lake and Twin Lakes in the townships 
     referenced in section 1(a); and
       (2) after the completion of the survey investigation, 
     resurvey the original meander lines along the lakeshores, 
     using the results of the survey investigation.

      SEC. 4. DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST IN LANDS ADJACENT TO SPIRIT 
                   LAKE AND TWIN LAKES, IDAHO.

       Upon acceptance and approval of the surveys under section 3 
     by the Secretary, the Secretary shall--
       (1) prepare a recordable disclaimer of interest with land 
     descriptions, using the lot or tract numbers of the omitted 
     lands, if any, and lands lying outside the record meander 
     lines, as shown on the survey plats; and
       (2) record such recordable disclaimer of interest 
     simultaneously with the filing of the surveys.

      SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     $400,000 to carry out this Act. Funds appropriated to carry 
     out the purposes of this Act may be available without fiscal 
     year limitation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2587. A bill to establish the Joint Federal and State Navigable 
Waters Commission of Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
will help rectify a long-standing problem that adversely affects an 
array of citizens, landowners, and government entities in Alaska. The 
Alaska Navigable Waters Commission legislation will create a joint 
Federal-State commission to establish a process to facilitate 
determinations of the navigable status of lakes, rivers, and streams in 
Alaska. This is a vital step in determining the ownership of the 
riverbanks and submerged lands.
  Under the Equal Footing Doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act, every 
state gains title to the submerged lands that underlie navigable 
waterways within its borders upon entering the Union. Or, I should say, 
is supposed to gain title. For decades now, the State of Alaska has 
been in the unique position of having unresolved navigability 
determinations for tens of thousands of waterways around the state. 
This leaves not only the ownership status in limbo but causes 
unnecessary jurisdictional problems and headaches. This is an 
intolerable position for Alaskans.
  In fact, since Alaska became a State in 1959, only 13 of its more 
than 22,000 rivers have been determined to be navigable, and the status 
of well over one million lakes has been left in question. The only 
recourse available to the State has been to pursue litigation against 
the United States, a time-consuming, expensive, and unwarranted 
requirement.
  To date, the Federal Government has been unwilling to sit down with 
the State and make these determinations, even though for the vast 
majority of these waterways, no reasonable person could disagree as to 
the navigability of the waters under well-established legal standards.
  I want to stress to my colleagues that this bill does not change in 
any way the legal criteria for navigability determinations. Those have 
been well settled in a body of Federal case law, led by the Gulkana 
decision, that stands undisturbed by this legislation. What the bill 
does is create a joint, Federal-State body to engage in dialogue that 
will help to resolve these long-standing disputes, and bring Alaska the 
same legal rights enjoyed by its 49 sister States.
  Creating a joint commission to resolve thorny Federal-State issues is 
not a novel concept. In 1971, the Congress and the State of Alaska 
created a joint commission to assist in the land-use planning process 
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This process 
streamlines communication between the State and Federal governments, 
and creates an infrastructure for ongoing negotiation over difficult 
issues. It also obviates the need for litigation over the status of 
those waterways where agreement can be reached. I think we all can 
agree that anything that reduces the need for litigation is a good 
thing.
  The Alaska legislature has considered companion legislation, 
introduced by the Senate President, Rick Halford, and the Speaker of 
the Alaska House, Brian Porter. That legislation has now been approved 
by both houses of the legislature. We should enact Federal legislation 
so that we may join the State of Alaska in seeking to rectify the 
problem.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Under the Equal 
Footing Doctrine, Alaska is supposed to enjoy the same rights and 
privileges as all other states. This bill is another important step in 
making that national principle a reality.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2588. A bill to prohibit the exportation of natural gas from the 
United States to Mexico for use in electric energy generation units 
near the United States border that do not comply with air quality 
control requirements that provide air quality protection that is at 
least equivalent to the protection provided by requirements applicable 
in the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from 
harmful power plant emissions.
  This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also introducing today 
in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in 
Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms 
operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution 
standards.
  Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, 
Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, 
California. Imperial County is the region in Southern California 
impacted most by pollution in Mexico. And since the county has some of 
the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest 
childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must 
meet California emission standards.
  One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, 
will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air 
pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other 
plant, to be built by InterGen, will not.
  I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that 
comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air 
quality standards as plants in California.
  The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California 
region deserve nothing less.
  I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned 
about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are 
adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused 
to install pollution control devices on all four operating units.
  This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ 
the best technology available to control pollution and protect the 
public health for residents of Southern California and other border 
regions in a similar situation.
  The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas 
from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired 
generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the 
United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from their 
natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards.
  This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online 
prior

[[Page S5052]]

to January 1, 2002. It will apply to plants built after the new year 
and projects that come online in the future.
  This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the 
U.S.-Mexican border.
  And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate 
more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to 
replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired 
small power sources.
  The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce 
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission 
standards.
  I support the development of new energy projects for California 
because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not 
believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow 
companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to 
devote less attention to clean air and public health.
  It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in the 
California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This 
legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources 
of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout 
the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border 
issues, but I believe it is a good first step.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2589. A bill to provide for the prohibition of snow machines 
within the boundaries of the ``Old Park'' within the boundaries of 
Denali National Park and Preserve, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
resolve the issue of snowmobile access in Denali National Park in my 
home State of Alaska.
  Denali National Park and Preserve encompasses just under 5 million 
acres in the interior of Alaska, including North America's highest 
mountain, 20,320-foot Mount McKinley. Large glaciers of the Alaska 
Range, caribou, Dall sheep, moose, grizzly bears and timber wolves live 
within this great landscape.
  The original Mt. McKinley National Park was created on February 26, 
1917 and additional acreage was added in 1922 and 1932, bringing the 
park size to 1.9 million acres. In September of 1978 a separate Denali 
National Monument was proclaimed. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA. ANILCA incorporated 
Mt. McKinley National Park and the National Monument to create the 4.7, 
plus million acre Denali National Park and Preserve.
  Section 1110(a) of ANILCA, mandates motorized vehicle access for the 
purpose of engaging in traditional activities in specific conservation 
system units. However, the National Park Service recently redefined 
``traditional use,'' and instead ordered the ``old Mt. McKinley 
National Park closed to snowmobiles, which common sense dictates are 
motorized vehicles.
  For the past two years,this closure has been before the Federal 
Courts in Alaska in litigation filed by the International Snowmobile 
Manufactures Association and the Alaska State Snowmobilers Association 
against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service.
  A few months ago, the plaintiffs dismissed their suit against the 
Government, and, with the approval of the Department of Justice, both 
parties are seeking a more reasoned legislative solution to address the 
access issue once and for all.
  This legislation provides such a solution, it addresses snowmobile 
access in the 1.9 million acre ``Old Park'' by permanently excluding 
approximately 1.5 million acres north of the Alaska Range from snow 
machine access while reaffirming the applicability to Section 1110(a) 
access for this actibviey in approximately 400,000 acres south of the 
Alaska Range. In short, this solution eliminates conflict between the 
various user groups, and the many issues relating to wildlife and 
natural resource protection.
  I thank the Alaska State Snowmobile Association, Inc. and the 
International Snowmobile Manufactures Association, for their actions to 
dismiss the legal challenge involving the used of snow machines in 
Denali National Park and Preserve. I look forward to working with the 
Associations; the Department of the Interior; the National Park 
Service; my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol; as well as other 
interested parties, for their assistance in developing environmentally 
and scientifically sound decisions and solution that will achieve both 
reasonable access and protection for the wildlife and valuable natural 
resources found in this outstanding unit of the National Park System.
  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. 2589

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

     SECTION 1. SNOWMOBILE CLOSURE.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, those 
     portions of Denali National Park and Preserve depicted as 
     ``Area A'', within the exterior boundaries of the former Mt. 
     McKinley National Park, on map numbered 222 and entitled 
     Denali National Park and Preserve, dated ``revised 1999'', 
     shall not be considered a conservation system unit for the 
     purposes of access by snowmachines pursuant to Section 
     1110(a) of Public Law 96-487 nor subject to the Departmental 
     regulations implementing that subsection.
       (b) The Statement of Finding, dated June 2000; the 
     Environmental Assessment, revised June 6, 2000; the Finding 
     of No Significant Impact, dated June 6, 2000; and the 
     regulations promulgated by the National Park Service on June 
     19, 2000 that are codified at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 
     13.63(h)(1)-(3), all relating to the closure of portions of 
     Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmobile use, are 
     hereby revoked, and the use of snow machines shall be 
     permitted within ``Area B'' as depicted on the map referenced 
     in subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. 
        Gregg):
  S. 2590. A bill to amend title IX of the Public Heath Service Act to 
provide for the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the 
incidence of events that adversely effect patient safety; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleagues Senators Jeffords, Breaux, and Gregg in introducing crucial 
legislation, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.
  Each year, as many as 98,000 people in the United States die as a 
result of medical errors. More Americans die each year from medical 
errors than from breast cancer, AIDS, or motor vehicle accidents. As a 
physician who has taken the Hippocratic oath ``To do no harm,'' the 
status quo is simply unacceptable. As the Institute of Medicine wrote 
in its landmark 1999 report, To Err is Human: ``[I]t is simply not 
acceptable for patients to be harmed by the same health care system 
that is supposed to offer healing and comfort.''
  The legislation we are introducing today will go a long way toward 
preventing many of these tragedies. Although a variety of patient 
safety initiatives are underway in the private sector as well as within 
the Department of Health and Human Services, and in the states, 
Congress has an important role to play in reinforcing, encouraging, and 
enhancing these efforts.
  The major contribution of this legislation is to foster an open, 
collaborative environment where doctors, nurses, and other health 
professionals can share information freely and analyze it thoroughly. 
Health care providers should not be punished for trying to learn from 
their mistakes, reduce medical errors, and improve the quality of care 
they deliver to patients.
  As a physician and a scientist, I know first hand about the enormous 
complexities of medicine today and the intricate system in which 
providers deliver care. I also recognize the need to examine medical 
errors closely in order to determine where the system has failed 
patients, and how it can be improved. Yet, adequate protections do not 
exist today to foster this type of learning and improvement 
environment. For example, hospitals currently rely upon Mortality and 
Morbidity Conference to share information about medical errors that 
occur with respect to individual patients. Unfortunately, because these 
conferences are focused

[[Page S5053]]

on events involving individual patients within a single hospital, it is 
impossible to address system-wide quality and safety problems that may 
exist across hospital systems and within broader communities. Fear of 
litigation is the primary barrier to sharing and analyzing information 
that could save lives and improve treatment within the broader health 
care community.
  We have seen this type of non-punitive reporting model work to vastly 
improve safety in other situations. In 1975, the Federal Aviation 
Administration established the Aviation Safety Reporting System, ASRS, 
to encourage pilots, controllers, flight attendants, mechanics, and the 
public to voluntarily report actual or potential discrepancies and 
deficiencies involving the safety of aviation operations. Because this 
information was widely shared and analyzed, the ASRS helped to 
significantly improve aviation safety in the United States. The risk of 
dying in a domestic jet flight decreased from one in two million in 
1967 to 1976 to only one in eight million in the 1990s.
  The Institute of Medicine, as well as many experts who have testified 
before Congress during the past few years, have strongly recommended 
that Congress provide the same type of legal protections for 
information gathered and reported to improve health care quality and 
increase patient safety. Without these protections, patient safety 
improvements will continue to be hampered by fears of retribution and 
recrimination. If we are to change the health care culture from ``name, 
shame, and blame'' to a culture of safety and continuous quality 
improvement, we must provide these basic protections.
  In extending these protections, we have tried to encourage widespread 
voluntary error reporting while continuing to allow access to medical 
records and other information that should be available to patients for 
litigation or other purposes. Protecting data reported to a certified 
patient safety reporting system does not mean that such information 
cannot be obtained through other avenues if it is important to securing 
redress for harm. At the same time, information generated by this new 
reporting system designed specifically to reduce errors and broadly 
benefit patients should not become fodder for increased litigation. 
Moreover, the legislation expressly allows for patient safety 
information to be disclosed in the context of a disciplinary proceeding 
or criminal case where it is 1. material to the proceeding; 2. within 
the public interest; and 3. not available from any other source.
  I want to thank Senators Jeffords, Breaux, and Gregg for their 
support, and input into this legislation. I look forward to working 
with them, Senator Kennedy, and my other colleagues in both the House 
and Senate, to pass legislation that will advance patient safety 
efforts.
  I also value the leadership of the Bush Administration on this 
critical issue. The Administration's efforts to improve patient safety 
are underscored by the commitment, support and direct involvement of 
both Secretary Thompson of the Department of Health and Human Services 
and Secretary O'Neill of the Department of Treasury in helping to shape 
this legislation.
  Americans take pride in offering the most advanced medical care in 
the world. A bounty of new devices, new treatments, and new techniques 
offer the hope of living longer and healthier than ever before. Yet, 
medical mistakes continue to take thousands of lives and cost billions 
of dollars each year. We must not let the miracle of modern medicine be 
extinguished by medical errors. This bill will make the changes in 
culture and communications that are needed to increase the safety of 
America's health care system, and improve the quality of care delivered 
to America's patients.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am happy to have the opportunity today 
to speak on the vital issue of patient safety and medical errors, and 
to introduce legislation that will ensure better health care for all 
Americans. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published a classic 
reference book titled To Err is Human, which reported that hospital 
medical errors contribute to approximately 100,000 deaths a year.
  This troubling statistic has been verified by research done by the 
Commonwealth Foundation and reviewed by articles in the Journal of the 
American Medical Association, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the 
New England Journal of Medicine. This statistic shows that medical 
errors are a more common cause of death than motor vehicle accidents or 
breast cancer, and it puts medical errors as the eighth leading cause 
of death in the United States.
  This is totally unacceptable and it need not be occuring at all. 
Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleagues 
Senators Frist, Breaux, and Gregg, the ``Patient Safety and Quality 
Improvement Act,'' that will put us on the path to correcting these 
medical errors.
  The ``Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act'' lays the 
groundwork for preventing these unnecessary deaths and injuries. Only 
by providing a framework through which medical errors can be reported 
and analyzed will we be able to make changes, strengthen and improve 
our health-care system and reduce morbidity and mortality.
  Since the 106th Congress, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee has held five hearings on this important issue. The 
testimony given during these hearings reflected an overwelling 
agreement with the IOM report and the ``Patient Safety and Quality 
Improvement Act,'' acts upon the IOM's findings and recommendations
  Key elements of To Err is Human call for improvements in patient 
safety by developing a learning, rather than a punitive environment; 
legal protections of privacy and privilege that would foster care 
systems to be reviewed and appropriate collaborations to occur in 
developing and implementing patient safety improvement strategies.
  Our legislation addresses all of these concerns. Currently, adequate 
legal protections and a non-punitive environment do not exist to foster 
the exchange of information and the analysis that is needed to deal 
with the complex issues of improving patient safety. Our measure 
creates opportunities for higher standards of continuous safety 
improvement, and encourages a new culture of patient safety dialogue to 
insure that safety information will be shared voluntarily and that 
appropriate collaboration and analysis will occur. It can not be overly 
stress that an environment where information, data, process, and 
recommendations enjoy legal protection and privilege it is essential to 
any safety organization.
  These are the key elements of what the ``Patient Safety and Quality 
Improvement Act'' will do. It promotes a ``culture of safety'' in our 
health care system by providing for the legal protection of information 
reported voluntarily for the purposes of quality improvement and 
patient safety. It creates incentives for creating voluntary reporting 
systems that are non-punitive and promote learning. It recognizes that 
to be effective, these systems must have the buy-in, trust, and 
cooperation of the health care providers. It recognizes the Agency for 
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as the leader in patient; safety 
for funding research and for dissemination of information learned about 
improving patient safety; and finally, it complements many ongoing 
patient safety initiatives in the public and private sector.
  Finally, I want to point out what the bill does not do: It does not 
change existing remedies available to injured patients or limit a 
patient's access to their medical record; it does not ``shield'' or put 
patient information that is otherwise available beyond the reach for 
the purposes of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings; it does 
not change current regulatory processes or add new regulatory 
requirements; and it does not create mandatory, punitive reporting 
systems.
  Our bill enjoys widespread endorsement by over 40 hospital, patient, 
doctor, and consumer advocacy organizations, and this degree of support 
underscores the broad appeal and essential nature of this proposed 
legislation. It is my strong desire that this bill receive the prompt 
attention that the issue clearly deserves.
  All of us are justifiably proud of our hospital system and the 
wonders of medicine and technology. But we can no longer ignore the 
well documented incidence of medical errors, which waste needed medical 
resources and

[[Page S5054]]

cause excessive medical complications and unacceptable loss of life. 
Without attention to this matter, it is reasonable to expect that 
thousands of innocents will suffer unnecessarily in our hospitals. We 
simply must not allow this to happen.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gregg, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, and 
        Mrs. Carnahan):
  S. 2591. A bill to reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2002. This 
important bipartisan bill will continue a valuable program that helps 
save women's lives. I am proud that my good friend, Senator Snowe, and 
other colleagues have joined on a bipartisan basis to introduce this 
legislation.
  Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have 
now. Mammograms must be as safe and accurate as possible. A mammogram 
is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality image or is 
misinterpreted. That's why I have fought over the last 10 years to make 
them even better.
  The Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, that I authored has 
improved the quality of mammograms in this country over the last 10 
years. MQSA has brought facilities nationwide into compliance with 
Federal quality standards. Before MQSA, tests were misread, women were 
misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. This year 
Congress must reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act, 
because women must continue to have safe, quality mammograms. Until 
there are more effective screening tools, mammography is still the 
front line against breast cancer.
  Ten years ago before the Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, 
first became law, there was an uneven patchwork of standards for 
mammography in this country. Image quality of mammograms varied widely. 
The first rule of all medical treatment is: Above all things, do no 
harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by leading a woman and her 
doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when something is. The result 
can be unnecessary suffering or even a death that could have been 
prevented. That is why this legislation is so important.
  What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms 
meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of 
personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, 
tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a 
result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in raising 
the quality of mammography services that women receive.
  What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? 
Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically 
for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform 
mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of 
mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control 
program to ensure reliability, clarity and accurate interpretation of 
mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified 
inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting 
body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  MQSA also ensures that women receive direct written notification of 
their mammogram results. Women will not assume that ``no news is good 
news'' when this is not always the case. They know what their results 
are, so that they can get any follow up care they need.
  The bill that I am introducing today extends the successful MQSA 
program for another five years. It also allows the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to issue a temporary certificate to a mammography 
facility if certain conditions have prevented the facility from 
completing the reaccreditation process before its certificate expires. 
What does this mean? If a facility acquires new mammography equipment 
and this prevents the facility from meeting reaccreditation time 
frames, the facility could get a temporary certificate that would allow 
it to continue to perform mammograms for up to 45 days. The temporary 
certificate can only be issued if the facility's accreditation body has 
issued a 45-day accreditation extension. This will provide protection 
in the law, so that in certain circumstances a mammography facility 
will not have to close its doors when its certificate expires before it 
is reaccredited.
  This bill also brings to bear the expertise of the Institute of 
Medicine and the General Accounting Office to further improve MQSA and 
provide Congress with expert recommendations to consider during the 
next reauthorization of MQSA.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize this 
important program this year. Last year, an estimated 192,200 women were 
diagnosed with breast cancer in this country and about 39,600 women 
died from breast cancer. Early detection and treatment are essential to 
reducing breast cancer deaths. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this 
important bill, and I look forward to its enactment this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. DeWine, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 2592. A bill to provide affordable housing opportunities that are 
headed by grandparents and other relatives of children, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am sure that each and every member of 
the United States Senate, if asked, could share fond memories of times 
they spent with their grandparents. I know that for me many of my most 
memorable childhood memories were spent with my grandmother and 
grandfather. Summer vacations, Christmas dinners and school recitals 
were all the more special because Grandma or Grandpa were there. 
Grandparents are always there to share words of wisdom and windows to 
the past with their grandchildren. They provide unconditional love and 
support to parents and their children as they prepare to become our 
Nation's next generation.
  Today, over 4 million grandparents in America are doing more than 
attending birthday parties and buying their grandchild's first bicycle. 
The US Census bureau reports that over 4 million grandparents are 
serving as a full time parent to their grandchildren. In my own State, 
Louisiana, over 150,000 grandparents are filling these roles. Many of 
these children have parents who have died, are in prison, or are 
suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. Others have been 
taken out of abusive homes. These ``grandfamilies'' come in all shapes 
and sizes. Some live in rural areas, some live in cities, others in 
suburbs. They come from all races, ethnicities and social status and 
they live in every single State in the Nation.
  Grandparents raising children face many barriers, especially if they 
do not have legal custody of the children, as is the case with a large 
portion of these caregivers. Most of these grandparents were at a point 
in their life when the major decisions faced by their peers are 
surrounding prescription drug coverage and retirement plans. Instead, 
these seniors are faced with questions about homework, the cost of baby 
formula and diapers, and where to find safe and affordable housing big 
enough for the whole family. While this bill does not address all of 
these barriers, it does attempt to address the critical need for 
affordable housing.
  These families often live in small apartments, assisted living 
communities or houses that are not suitable for the children they care 
for. If the grandparent is living in public senior housing, where 
children are disallowed, they are often subject to eviction if the 
children are discovered. Furthermore, if a housing development is 
constructed for seniors, these apartments are often not ``child 
proofed'' and there are often no places for the children to play 
safely. If these grandparents can afford to move to housing that is 
more suitable for the children, they are often forced to give up some 
of the amenities

[[Page S5055]]

that improve an elderly person's quality of life, such as ramps and 
bathroom rails.
  Many programs throughout the Nation have tried to address the need to 
provide safe and affordable housing for these families. One program, 
Grandfamilies House, in Massachusetts provides 26, two, three and four 
bedroom apartments that come equipped with the safety features needed 
by the older and younger residents it hopes to serve. In addition, they 
provide on site services to residents, including support groups, 
exercise programs and a before and after school program. This program 
is serving as a model to other communities that are hoping to create 
such an environment for their intergenerational families. There are 
many localities that have begun the process of implementing programs 
like the Grandfamilies House in: Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Chicago, 
IL, Detroit, MI, Nashville, TN; New York City, NY; Cleveland, OH and 
Philadelphia, PA.
  This bill would allow these programs to grow and prosper as well as 
encouraging other public and private partners to engage in developing 
these types of programs. Specifically, this bill authorizes the 
Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development to provide grants under 
a demonstration program that would be targeted toward meeting the 
housing and service needs of grandparent headed households. 
Furthermore, it clarifies key sections of federal housing law to ensure 
that grandparents raising grandchildren are able to access the federal 
assistance provided under federal housing programs. Finally, it directs 
the Secretary of HUD to provide specialized training to HUD personnel 
focused on grandparent-headed and relative-headed families.
  With 4 million children living solely with grandparents or other 
relatives, safe and affordable housing for these families is a concern 
that must be addressed. This is a simple and cost efficient way to 
begin to address this important question. I would like to thank my 
colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Stabenow, for their support of 
this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this 
bill and hope that it will become law this year.

                          ____________________