Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)

[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.

____________________