[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1360-1386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. . Chafee, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 247. A bill to provide for the protection of children from 
tobacco; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just under 3 years ago, on March 31, 1998, 
Senators Harkin, John Chafee and Graham teamed up to introduce the 
first comprehensive bipartisan legislation to reduce teen smoking. 
Today, I am pleased to announce that Senators Harkin, Lincoln Chafee 
and Graham are teaming up again with the same goal. We are re-
introducing the first bipartisan Senate bill to restore the Food and 
Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from tobacco.
  We hope the introduction of this bill is the beginning of a 
bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed. 
The need is clear. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 
recognized, tobacco use among children and adolescents is probably the 
single most significant threat to public health in the United States. 
Study after study has shown how the tobacco industry continues to 
successfully target our children. In a survey done by the Campaign for 
Tobacco Free Kids, seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing 
tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33 
percent of adults. And 77 percent of teens say it is easy for kids to 
buy cigarettes.
  This is why every day another 3000 kids in this country become 
regular smokers. And that is why cigarette smoking among high school 
seniors is at a 19-year high.
  There is no question. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes 
kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big 
Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the 
nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted.
  The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court last year, were 
about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an investment 
in the future of our kids. They also provided consumers with critical 
protections against false advertising and health claims by tobacco 
manufacturers.
  Tobacco companies are making harm reduction claims about new products 
with no real independent examination or oversight. This deceptive, 
self-interested behavior is not part of a new pattern. The history of 
tobacco companies is rife with examples of deceptive practices designed 
to addict both adults and children with their harmful products. Our 
bill will ensure that this type of behavior is stopped.
  Our legislation re-affirms the FDA's authority over tobacco products. 
It classifies nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as drug delivery 
devices. It allows FDA to implement a ``public health'' standard in its 
review and regulation of tobacco products. Companies will be prevented 
from making claims of reduced risk unless they can show scientific 
evidence their product is actually safer.
  By codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation also allows 
for continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It 
provides needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco 
products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending

[[Page 1361]]

machines. It also includes sensible advertising limits to reduce teen 
access to tobacco.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I 
hope we can work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to move this 
important issue forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 247

       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 ``Kids Deserve Freedom from 
     Tobacco Act of 2001'' or the ``KIDS Act''.

              TITLE I--PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM TOBACCO

   Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration Jurisdiction and General 
                               Authority

     SEC. 101. REFERENCE.

       Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed 
     in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).

     SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       The regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services in the rule dated August 28, 1996 (Vol. 61, 
     No. 168 C.F.R.), adding part 897 to title 21, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, shall be deemed to have been lawfully 
     promulgated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended 
     by this title. Such regulations shall apply to all tobacco 
     products.

     SEC. 103. NONAPPLICABILITY TO OTHER DRUGS OR DEVICES.

       Nothing in this title, or an amendment made by this title, 
     shall be construed to affect the regulation of drugs and 
     devices that are not tobacco products by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act.

     SEC. 104. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CONFIRM JURISDICTION.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Drug.--Section 201(g)(1) (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``; and (D)'' and inserting ``; (D) 
     nicotine in tobacco products; and (E)''.
       (2) Devices.--Section 201(h) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Such term includes a 
     tobacco product.''.
       (3) Other definitions.--Section 201 (21 U.S.C. 321) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(kk) The term `tobacco product' means any product made or 
     derived from tobacco that is intended for human 
     consumption.''.
       (b) Prohibited Acts.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(aa) The manufacture, labeling, distribution, advertising 
     and sale of any adulterated or misbranded tobacco product in 
     violation of--
       ``(1) regulations issued under this Act; or
       ``(2) the KIDS Act, or regulations issued under such 
     Act.''.
       (c) Adulterated Drugs and Devices.--
       (1) In general.--Section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(j) If it is a tobacco product and it does not comply 
     with the provisions of subchapter D of this chapter or the 
     KIDS Act.''.
       (2) Misbranding.--Section 502(q) (21 U.S.C. 352(q)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``or (2)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     (3) in the case of a tobacco product, it is sold, 
     distributed, advertised, labeled, or used in violation of 
     this Act or the KIDS Act, or regulations prescribed under 
     such Acts''.
       (d) Restricted Device.--Section 520(e) (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or use--'' and 
     inserting ``or use, including restrictions on the access to, 
     and the advertising and promotion of, tobacco products--''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Tobacco products are a restricted device under this 
     paragraph.''.
       (e) Regulatory Authority.--Section 503(g) (21 U.S.C. 
     353(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The Secretary may regulate any tobacco product as a 
     drug, device, or both, and may designate the office of the 
     Administration that shall be responsible for regulating such 
     products.''.

     SEC. 105. GENERAL RULE.

       Section 513(a)(1)(B) (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``The sale of tobacco 
     products to adults that comply with performance standards 
     established for these products under section 514 and other 
     provisions of this Act and any regulations prescribed under 
     this Act shall not be prohibited by the Secretary, 
     notwithstanding sections 502(j), 516, and 518.''.

     SEC. 106. SAFETY AND EFFICACY STANDARD AND RECALL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Safety and Efficacy Standard.--Section 513(a) (21 
     U.S.C. 360c(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``For a device which is a tobacco 
     product, the assurance in the previous sentence need not be 
     found if the Secretary finds that special controls achieve 
     the best public health result.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), respectively;
       (B) by striking ``(2) For'' and inserting ``(2)(A) For''; 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), subsections 
     (c)(2)(C), (d)(2)(B), (e)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)(i), and 
     (f)(3)(C)(i), and sections 514, 519(a), 520(e), and 520(f), 
     the safety and effectiveness of a device that is a tobacco 
     product need not be found if the Secretary finds that the 
     action to be taken under any such provision would achieve the 
     best public health result. The finding as to whether the best 
     public health result has been achieved shall be determined 
     with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a 
     whole, including users and non-users of the tobacco product, 
     and taking into account--
       ``(i) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing 
     consumers of tobacco products will stop using such products; 
     and
       ``(ii) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who 
     do not use tobacco products will start using such 
     products.''.
       (b) Recall Authority.--Section 518(e)(1) (21 U.S.C. 
     360h(e)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``adverse health 
     consequences or death,'' the following: ``and for tobacco 
     products that the best public health result would be 
     achieved,''.

               Subtitle B--Regulation of Tobacco Products

     SEC. 111. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

       Section 514(a) (21 U.S.C. 60d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``device'' and inserting 
     ``nontobacco product device'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary may adopt a performance standard under 
     section 514(a)(2) for a tobacco product regardless of whether 
     the product has been classified under section 513. Such 
     standard may--
       ``(A) include provisions to achieve the best public health 
     result;
       ``(B) where necessary to achieve the best public health 
     result, include--
       ``(i) provisions respecting the construction, components, 
     constituents, ingredients, and properties of the tobacco 
     product device, including the reduction or elimination (or 
     both) of nicotine and the other components, ingredients, and 
     constituents of the tobacco product, its components and its 
     by-products, based upon the best available technology;
       ``(ii) provisions for the testing (on a sample basis or, if 
     necessary, on an individual basis) of the tobacco product 
     device or, if it is determined that no other more practicable 
     means are available to the Secretary to assure the conformity 
     of the tobacco product device to such standard, provisions 
     for the testing (on a sample basis or, if necessary, on an 
     individual basis) by the Secretary or by another person at 
     the direction of the Secretary;
       ``(iii) provisions for the measurement of the performance 
     characteristics of the tobacco product device;
       ``(iv) provisions requiring that the results of each test 
     or of certain tests of the tobacco product device required to 
     be made under clause (ii) demonstrate that the tobacco 
     product device is in conformity with the portions of the 
     standard for which the test or tests were required; and
       ``(v) a provision that the sale and distribution of the 
     tobacco product device be restricted but only to the extent 
     that the sale and distribution of a tobacco product device 
     may otherwise be restricted under this Act; and
       ``(C) where appropriate, require the use and prescribe the 
     form and content of labeling for the use of the tobacco 
     product device.
       ``(4) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the KIDS Act, the Secretary (acting through the Commissioner 
     of Food and Drugs) shall establish a Scientific Advisory 
     Committee to evaluate whether a level or range of levels 
     exists at which nicotine yields do not produce drug-
     dependence. The Advisory Committee shall also review any 
     other safety, dependence or health issue assigned to it by 
     the Secretary. The Secretary need not promulgate regulations 
     to establish the Committee.''.

     SEC. 112. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT 
                   TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

       (a) Tobacco Products Regulation.--Chapter V (21 U.S.C. 351 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER F--TOBACCO PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND ACCESS 
                              RESTRICTIONS

     ``SEC. 570. PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS.

       ``Any regulations necessary to implement this subchapter 
     shall be promulgated not

[[Page 1362]]

     later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
     subchapter using notice and comment rulemaking (in accordance 
     with chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code). Such 
     regulations may be revised thereafter as determined necessary 
     by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 571. MAIL-ORDER SALES.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall review and 
     determine whether persons under the age of 18 years are 
     obtaining tobacco products by means of the mail.
       ``(b) Restrictions.--Based solely upon the review conducted 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may take regulatory and 
     administrative action to restrict or eliminate mail order 
     sales of tobacco products.

     ``SEC. 572. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION.

       ``(a) Additional Restrictions on Marketing, Advertising, 
     and Access.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall revise the 
     regulations related to tobacco products promulgated by the 
     Secretary on August 28, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 44396) to include 
     the additional restrictions on marketing, advertising, and 
     access described in Title IA and Title IC of the Proposed 
     Resolution entered into by the tobacco manufacturers and the 
     State attorneys general on June 20, 1997, except that the 
     Secretary shall not include an additional restriction on 
     marketing or advertising in such regulations if its inclusion 
     would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
       ``(b) Warnings.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations to require warnings on cigarette and 
     smokeless tobacco labeling and advertisements. The content, 
     format, and rotation of warnings shall conform to the 
     specifications described in Title IB of the Proposed 
     Resolution entered into by the tobacco manufacturers and the 
     State attorneys general on June 20, 1997.
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the ability of the Secretary to change the 
     text or layout of any of the warning statements, or any of 
     the labeling provisions, under the regulations promulgated 
     under subsection (b) and other provisions of this Act, if 
     determined necessary by the Secretary in order to make such 
     statements or labels larger, more prominent, more 
     conspicuous, or more effective.
       ``(2) Unfair acts.--Nothing in this section (other than the 
     requirements of subsections (a) and (b)) shall be construed 
     to limit or restrict the authority of the Federal Trade 
     Commission with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or 
     practices in the advertising of tobacco products.
       ``(d) Limited Preemption.--
       ``(1) State and local action.--No warning label with 
     respect to tobacco products, or any other tobacco product for 
     which warning labels have been required under this section, 
     other than the warning labels required under this Act, shall 
     be required by any State or local statute or regulation to be 
     included on any package of a tobacco product.
       ``(2) Effect on liability law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall relieve any person from liability at common law or 
     under State statutory law to any other person.
       ``(e) Violation of Section.--Any tobacco product that is in 
     violation of this section shall be deemed to be misbranded.

     ``SEC. 573. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANUFACTURERS, 
                   DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS.

       ``Each manufacturer, distributor, and retailer shall ensure 
     that the tobacco products it manufactures, labels, 
     advertises, packages, distributes, sells, or otherwise holds 
     for sale comply with all applicable requirements of this Act.

     ``SEC. 574. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF TOBACCO AND 
                   NONTOBACCO INGREDIENTS AND CONSTITUENTS.

       ``(a) Disclosure of All Ingredients.--
       ``(1) Immediate and annual disclosure.--Not later than 30 
     days after the date of enactment of this subchapter, and 
     annually thereafter, each manufacturer of a tobacco product 
     shall submit to the Secretary an ingredient list for each 
     brand of tobacco product it manufactures that contains the 
     information described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Requirements.--The list described in paragraph (1) 
     shall, with respect to each brand or variety of tobacco 
     product of a manufacturer, include--
       ``(A) a list of all ingredients, constituents, substances, 
     and compounds that are found in or added to the tobacco or 
     tobacco product (including the paper, filter, or packaging of 
     the product if applicable) in the manufacture of the tobacco 
     product, for each brand or variety of tobacco product so 
     manufactured, including, if determined necessary by the 
     Secretary, any material added to the tobacco used in the 
     product prior to harvesting;
       ``(B) the quantity of the ingredients, constituents, 
     substances, and compounds that are listed under subparagraph 
     (A) in each brand or variety of tobacco product;
       ``(C) the nicotine content of the product, measured in 
     milligrams of nicotine;
       ``(D) for each brand or variety of cigarettes--
       ``(i) the filter ventilation percentage (the level of air 
     dilution in the cigarette as provided by the ventilation 
     holes in the filter, described as a percentage);
       ``(ii) the pH level of the smoke of the cigarette; and
       ``(iii) the tar, unionized (free) nicotine, and carbon 
     monoxide delivery level and any other smoking conditions 
     established by the Secretary, reported in milligrams of tar, 
     nicotine, and carbon monoxide per cigarette;
       ``(E) for each brand or variety of smokeless tobacco 
     products--
       ``(i) the pH level of the tobacco;
       ``(ii) the moisture content of the tobacco expressed as a 
     percentage of the weight of the tobacco; and
       ``(iii) the nicotine content--

       ``(I) for each gram of the product, measured in milligrams 
     of nicotine;
       ``(II) expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the 
     tobacco; and
       ``(III) with respect to unionized (free) nicotine, 
     expressed as a percentage per gram of the tobacco and 
     expressed in milligrams per gram of the tobacco; and

       ``(F) any other information determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Methods.--The Secretary shall have the authority to 
     promulgate regulations to establish the methods to be used by 
     manufacturers in making the determinations required under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Other tobacco products.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to establish 
     information disclosure procedures for other tobacco products.
       ``(b) Safety Assessments.--
       ``(1) Application to new ingredients.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subchapter, and annually thereafter, each 
     manufacturer shall submit to the Secretary a safety 
     assessment for each new ingredient, constituent, substance, 
     or compound that such manufacturer desires to make a part of 
     a tobacco product. Such new ingredient, constituent, 
     substance, or compound shall not be included in a tobacco 
     product prior to approval by the Secretary of such a safety 
     assessment.
       ``(B) Method of filing.--A safety assessment submitted 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be signed by an officer of the 
     manufacturer who is acting on behalf of the manufacturer and 
     who has the authority to bind the manufacturer, and contain a 
     statement that ensures that the information contained in the 
     assessment is true, complete and accurate.
       ``(C) Definition of new ingredient.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `new ingredient, constituent, 
     substance, or compound' means an ingredient, constituent, 
     substance, or compound listed under subsection (a)(1) that 
     was not used in the brand or variety of tobacco product 
     involved prior to January 1, 1998.
       ``(2) Application to other ingredients.--With respect to 
     the application of this section to ingredients, constituents 
     substances, or compounds listed under subsection (a) to which 
     paragraph (1) does not apply, all such ingredients, 
     constituents, substances, or compounds shall be reviewed 
     through the safety assessment process within the 5-year 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this subchapter. 
     The Secretary shall develop a procedure for the submission of 
     safety assessments of such ingredients, constituents, 
     substances, or compounds that staggers such safety 
     assessments within the 5-year period.
       ``(3) Basis of assessment.--The safety assessment of an 
     ingredient, constituent, substance, or compound described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) shall--
       ``(A) be based on the best scientific evidence available at 
     the time of the submission of the assessment; and
       ``(B) demonstrate that there is a reasonable certainty 
     among experts qualified by scientific training and experience 
     who are consulted, that the ingredient, constituent, 
     substance, or compound will not present any risk to consumers 
     or the public in the quantities used under the intended 
     conditions of use.
       ``(c) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
     of enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations to prohibit the use of any ingredient, 
     constituent, substance, or compound in the tobacco product of 
     a manufacturer--
       ``(A) if no safety assessment has been submitted by the 
     manufacturer for the ingredient, constituent, substance, or 
     compound as otherwise required under this section; or
       ``(B) if the Secretary finds that the manufacturer has 
     failed to demonstrate the safety of the ingredient, 
     constituent, substance, or compound that was the subject of 
     the assessment under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Review of assessments.--
       ``(A) General review.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     receipt of a safety assessment under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall review the findings contained in such 
     assessment and approve or disapprove of the safety of the 
     ingredient, constituent, substance, or compound that was the 
     subject of the assessment. The Secretary may, for good cause, 
     extend the period for such review. The Secretary shall 
     provide notice to the manufacturer of an action under this 
     subparagraph.

[[Page 1363]]

       ``(B) Inaction by secretary.--If the Secretary fails to act 
     with respect to an assessment of an existing ingredient, 
     constituent, substance, or additive during the period 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), the manufacturer of the 
     tobacco product involved may continue to use the ingredient, 
     constituent, substance, or compound involved until such time 
     as the Secretary makes a determination with respect to the 
     assessment.
       ``(d) Right to Know; Full Disclosure of Ingredients to the 
     Public.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), a 
     package of a tobacco product shall disclose all ingredients, 
     constituents, substances, or compounds contained in the 
     product in accordance with regulations promulgated under 
     section 701(a) by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Disclosure of percentage of domestic and foreign 
     tobacco.--The regulations referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
     require that the package of a tobacco product disclose, with 
     respect to the tobacco contained in the product--
       ``(A) the percentage that is domestic tobacco; and
       ``(B) the percentage that is foreign tobacco.
       ``(3) Health disclosure.--Notwithstanding section 301(j), 
     the Secretary may require the public disclosure of any 
     ingredient, constituent, substance, or compound contained in 
     a tobacco product that relates to a trade secret or other 
     matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18, United States 
     Code, if the Secretary determines that such disclosure will 
     promote the public health.

     ``SEC. 575. REDUCED RISK PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--No manufacturer, distributor or retailer 
     of tobacco products may make any direct or implied statement 
     in advertising or on a product package that could reasonably 
     be interpreted to state or imply a reduced health risk 
     associated with a tobacco product unless the manufacturer 
     demonstrates to the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary 
     may require, that based on the best available scientific 
     evidence the product significantly reduces the overall health 
     risk to the public when compared to other tobacco products.
       ``(2) Submission to secretary.--Prior to making any 
     statement described in paragraph (1), a manufacturer, 
     distributor or retailer shall submit such statement to the 
     Secretary, who shall review such statement to ensure its 
     accuracy and, in the case of advertising, to prevent such 
     statement from increasing, or preventing the contraction of, 
     the size of the overall market for tobacco products.
       ``(b) Determination by Secretary.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a statement described in subsection (a)(2) is 
     permissible because the tobacco product does present a 
     significantly reduced overall health risk to the public, the 
     Secretary may permit such statement to be made.
       ``(c) Development or Acquisition of Reduced Risk 
     Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any manufacturer that develops or 
     acquires any technology that the manufacturer reasonably 
     believes will reduce the risk from tobacco products shall 
     notify the Secretary of the development or acquisition of the 
     technology. Such notice shall be in such form and within such 
     time as the Secretary shall require.
       ``(2) Confidentiality.--With respect to any technology 
     described in paragraph (1) that is in the early stages of 
     development (as determined by the Secretary), the Secretary 
     shall establish protections to ensure the confidentiality of 
     any proprietary information submitted to the Secretary under 
     this subsection during such development.

     ``SEC. 576. ACCESS TO COMPANY INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Compliance Procedures.--Each manufacturer of tobacco 
     products shall establish procedures to ensure compliance with 
     this Act.
       ``(b) Requirement.--In addition to any other disclosure 
     obligations under this Act, the KIDS Act, or any other law, 
     each manufacturer of tobacco products shall, not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of the KIDS Act and 
     thereafter as required by the Secretary, disclose to the 
     Secretary all nonpublic information and research in its 
     possession or control relating to the addiction or 
     dependency, or the health or safety of tobacco products, 
     including (without limitation) all research relating to 
     processes to make tobacco products less hazardous to 
     consumers and the research and documents described in 
     subsection (c).
       ``(c) Research and Documents.--The documents described in 
     this section include any documents concerning tobacco product 
     research relating to--
       ``(1) nicotine, including--
       ``(A) the interaction between nicotine and other components 
     in tobacco products including ingredients in the tobacco and 
     smoke components;
       ``(B) the role of nicotine in product design and 
     manufacture, including product charters, and parameters in 
     product development, the tobacco blend, filter technology, 
     and paper;
       ``(C) the role of nicotine in tobacco leaf purchasing;
       ``(D) reverse engineering activities involving nicotine 
     (such as analyzing the products of other companies);
       ``(E) an analysis of nicotine delivery; and
       ``(F) the biology, psychopharmacology and any other health 
     effects of nicotine;
       ``(2) other ingredients, including--
       ``(A) the identification of ingredients in tobacco products 
     and constituents in smoke, including additives used in 
     product components such as paper, filter, and wrapper;
       ``(B) any research on the health effects of ingredients; 
     and
       ``(C) any research or other information explaining what 
     happens to ingredients when they are heated and burned;
       ``(3) less hazardous or safer products, including any 
     research or product development information on activities 
     involving reduced risk, less hazardous, low-tar or reduced-
     tar, low-nicotine or reduced-nicotine or nicotine-free 
     products; and
       ``(4) tobacco product advertising, marketing and promotion, 
     including--
       ``(A) documents related to the design of advertising 
     campaigns, including the desired demographics for individual 
     products on the market or being tested;
       ``(B) documents concerning the age of initiation of tobacco 
     use, general tobacco use behavior, beginning smokers, pre-
     smokers, and new smokers;
       ``(C) documents concerning the effects of advertising; and
       ``(D) documents concerning future marketing options or 
     plans in light of the requirements and regulations to be 
     imposed under this subchapter or the KIDS Act.
       ``(d) Authority of Secretary.--With respect to tobacco 
     product manufacturers, the Secretary shall have the same 
     access to records and information and inspection authority as 
     is available with respect to manufacturers of other medical 
     devices.

     ``SEC. 577. OVERSIGHT OF TOBACCO PRODUCT MANUFACTURING.

       ``The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe good 
     manufacturing practice standards for tobacco products. Such 
     regulations shall be modeled after good manufacturing 
     practice regulations for medical devices, food, and other 
     items under section 520(f). Such standards shall be directed 
     specifically toward tobacco products, and shall include--
       ``(1) a quality control system, to ensure that tobacco 
     products comply with such standards;
       ``(2) a system for inspecting tobacco product materials to 
     ensure their compliance with such standards;
       ``(3) requirements for the proper handling of finished 
     tobacco products;
       ``(4) strict tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in 
     or on tobacco or tobacco product commodities in the 
     possession of the manufacturer, except that nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to affect any authority of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency;
       ``(5) authority for officers or employees of the Secretary 
     to inspect any factory, warehouse, or other establishment of 
     any tobacco product manufacturer, and to have access to 
     records, files, papers, processes, controls and facilities 
     related to tobacco product manufacturing, in accordance with 
     appropriate authority and rules promulgated under this Act; 
     and
       ``(6) a requirement that the tobacco product manufacturer 
     maintain such files and records as the Secretary may specify, 
     as well as that the manufacturer report to the Secretary such 
     information as the Secretary shall require, in accordance 
     with section 519.

     ``SEC. 578. PRESERVATION OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY.

       ``Notwithstanding section 521 and except as otherwise 
     provided for in section 572(e), nothing in this subchapter 
     shall be construed as prohibiting a State or locality from 
     imposing requirements, prohibitions, penalties or other 
     measures to further the purposes of this subchapter that are 
     in addition to the requirements, prohibitions, or penalties 
     required under this subchapter. State and local governments 
     may impose additional tobacco product control measures to 
     further restrict or limit the use of such products.''.

     SEC. 113. FUNDING.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subtitle (and the amendments made by this subtitle).
       (b) Trigger.--No expenditures shall be made under this 
     subtitle (or the amendments made by this subtitle) during any 
     fiscal year in which the annual amount appropriated for the 
     Food and Drug Administration is less than the amount so 
     appropriated for the prior fiscal year.

     SEC. 114. REPEALS.

       The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), except for the first section and 
     sections 5(d)(1) and (2) and 6.
       (2) The Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education 
     Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.), except for sections 1, 
     3(f) and 8(a) and (b).
       (3) The Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1964 (Public 
     law 98-474).

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. NONAPPLICATION TO TOBACCO PRODUCERS.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall not apply to

[[Page 1364]]

     the producers of tobacco leaf, including tobacco growers, 
     tobacco warehouses, and tobacco grower cooperatives.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act, or an 
     amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to provide the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority 
     to--
       (1) enter onto a farm owned by a producer of tobacco leaf 
     without the written consent of such producer; or
       (2) promulgate regulations on any matter that involves the 
     production of tobacco leaf or a producer thereof, other than 
     activities by a manufacturer that affect production.
       (c) Manufacturer Acting as Producer.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, if a producer of tobacco 
     leaf is also a tobacco product manufacturer or is owned or 
     controlled by a tobacco product manufacturer, the producer 
     shall be subject to the provisions of this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act, in the producer's capacity as a 
     manufacturer.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``controlled 
     by'' means a producer that is a member of the same controlled 
     group of corporations, as that term is used for purposes of 
     section 52(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or under 
     common control within the meaning of the regulations 
     promulgated under section 52(b) of such Code.

     SEC. 202. EQUAL TREATMENT OF RETAIL OUTLETS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate 
     regulations to require that retail establishments that are 
     accessible to individuals under the age of 18, for which the 
     predominant business is the sale of tobacco products, comply 
     with any advertising restrictions applicable to such 
     establishments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 249. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the bill I have introduced expands the 
existing production tax credit for renewable energy technology to cover 
all renewable energy technologies.
  We have a crisis in America today. It is called electricity. It is 
called power. What took place and is taking place in California is only 
a preview of things that are going to happen all over America unless we 
do something about it. It is time to recognize the present system isn't 
working.
  We can criticize California and what they did. It is obvious to 
everyone that their deregulation program simply was not workable. It 
wasn't workable because they were energy inefficient. They did not 
produce enough energy inside the State of California for the 
deregulation bill they passed to work. The only time a deregulation 
bill such as they had would work is if you have a State that produces 
more electricity than it uses. There are some examples of that. 
California, however, decided they were going to deregulate, even though 
they didn't have enough electricity produced within the State. They 
figured they could buy cheap power elsewhere and have it brought into 
California. It was a recipe for disaster. The disaster hit. They are 
now trying to work their way out of the problem.
  There is no question that the current energy crisis in California has 
demonstrated that America must diversify its energy mix. Already in 
Nevada electricity rates have risen six times; the natural gas price 
has increased more than 75 percent. This is a real problem. All we have 
to do is look around. I have a letter from a man named Ronald Feldstein 
from Carson City, NV. Among other things, he said: I was horrified to 
read that Southwest Gas was increasing our gas bills 35 percent 
effective February 1. Nevada is a poor State, mostly composed of senior 
retired citizens.
  I add editorially, that isn't true, but we do have lots and lots of 
senior citizens. To the author of this letter, it seems the State of 
Nevada is composed mostly of senior citizens.
  Last month, he says, his Southwest Gas bill was over $100; a 35-
percent increase will mean an additional $35 on his electricity bill. 
The only way a senior can afford such a huge increase is to give up 
something. In other words, lower his standard of living. That usually 
means giving up a certain prescription drug or lowering his food bill.
  He went on to say other things, but I think that conveys the problem 
we have in Nevada, and people all over America are about to have; that 
is, a huge increase in the price of fuel energy.
  Ensuring that the lights and heat stay on is critical to sustaining 
America's economic growth and our quality of life. The citizens of 
Nevada and of this Nation demand a national energy strategy to ensure 
their economic well-being and security, and to provide for the quality 
of life they deserve.
  It is a sad state of affairs that people like Mr. Feldstein, which 
can be multiplied in the State of Nevada thousands and thousands of 
times, have to make significant sacrifices to pay their energy bills. 
People are saying: I'm going to have to cut back on my prescriptions. I 
will have to cut back on the food I buy because I have a fixed income, 
and these power bills must be paid because I can't go without heat. 
Carson City, NV, is a cold place in the winter.
  Nevadans understand that a national energy strategy must encompass 
something other than what we are doing. What we are doing now does not 
work. We are depending mostly on importing oil, and people who import 
the oil are manipulating the price and that price is going sky high. We 
have to do something different. Of course, we have to do something 
about conservation. We must be more efficient. We must also expand our 
generating capacity. How are we going to do that? There are some who 
say that one of the ways is to do something with clean coal technology. 
That is something I am willing to take a look at, hopefully, so we can 
reduce the global warming problem when it is necessary to use coal. But 
it is difficult to significantly reduce harmful emissions with coal.
  I have supported clean coal technology. We have a plant near Reno, 
NV, that started out with clean coal technology. It is important we do 
that. We are not going to develop any more nuclear powerplants in 
America in the foreseeable future. There are too many problems. It is 
too expensive. We have no way of disposing of the waste.
  What else can we do? We have powerplants now, but the primary way 
they can be constructed is if they are fueled by natural gas. The cost 
of natural gas has gone way up.
  What else can we do? I think one of the things we can do is develop 
renewable energy resources. This is a responsible way to expand our 
power capacity without compromising air or water quality.
  Fossil fuel plants pump out over 11 million tons of pollutants into 
our air each year. This is not 11 million pounds, but tons, into our 
air each year. Powerplants in the United States are responsible for 35 
percent of our national carbon dioxide emissions which contribute to 
global climate change, global warming. Powerplants in the United States 
are responsible for 66 percent of sulphur dioxide, which causes acid 
rain, 25 percent of nitrogen oxides, which lead to smog, and 21 percent 
of mercury, which poisons fish and other animals. That is what 
powerplants in the United States do. There is no disputing that. That 
is a fact.
  The legislation I have introduced will renew the wind power 
production tax credit, expand the credit to additional renewable 
technologies, including solar, open-loop biomass, poultry and animal 
waste, geothermal, and incremental hydropower facilities. There is so 
much that can be done.
  We are constructing, as we speak, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas at 
the Nevada Test Site, wind-generating capacity that in 3 years will 
produce from windmills enough electricity, 265 megawatts, to power a 
quarter of a million homes.
  These renewable energy sources can enhance America's energy supply on 
a scale of 1 to 3 years, considerably shorter than the time required 
for a fossil fuel powerplant.
  The proposed production tax credit for all these renewable energy 
sources would be made permanent. One of the problems we have with many 
of our tax credits is we do them for a short period of time. People 
don't know whether they are going to be in existence, and therefore 
they are unwilling to commit long term. This proposed production tax 
credit, if it is made permanent, will encourage use of renewable energy 
and

[[Page 1365]]

signal America's long-term commitment to clean energy, to a healthy 
environment, and to our energy independence.
  My bill also allows for coproduction credits to encourage blending of 
renewable energy with traditional fuels and provides a credit for 
renewable facilities on Native American and Native Alaskan lands.
  Renewable energy is poised to make major contributions to our 
Nation's energy needs over the next decade.
  It is so important we recognize that within 3 years one wind-
generating farm in Nevada will produce 8 percent of all the electricity 
needs of the state. We can multiply that by 6 years to 20 percent. It 
is remarkable what can be done.
  Nevada has already developed 200 megawatts of geothermal power with a 
longer term potential of more than 2,500 megawatts, enough capacity to 
meet the State's energy needs. Growing renewable energy industries in 
the United States will also help provide growing employment 
opportunities in the United States and help U.S. renewable technologies 
compete in world markets.
  In States such as Nevada, expanded renewable energy production will 
provide jobs in rural areas--areas that have been largely left out of 
America's recent economic boom.
  The Department of Energy has estimated we could increase our 
generation of geothermal energy almost tenfold, supplying 10 percent of 
the energy needs of the West, and expand wind energy production to 
serve the electricity needs of 10 million homes.
  Renewable energy, as an alternative to traditional energy sources, is 
a commonsense way to ensure the American people that they can have a 
reliable source of power at an affordable price.
  The United States needs to move away from its dependence on fossil 
fuels that pollute the environment and undermine our national security 
interests and balance of trade.
  If there were ever a national security interest that we have, it 
would be doing something about the importation of fossil fuel. We have 
to do something to stop our dependence on these countries that 
manipulate the price of oil and other fuels. We have to do that; it is 
essential for our national security.
  We need to send the signal to utility companies all over America that 
we are committed in the long term to the growth of renewable energy. We 
must accept this commitment for the energy security of the United 
States, for the protection of our environment, and for the health of 
the American people and literally the world.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Byrd, Mr. Carper, Mr.  Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        Mr. Graham, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Miller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 250. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit to holders of qualified bonds issued by Amtrak, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senator Hutchison, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, and 47 other 
cosponsors, the High Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001. With this 
legislation we continue the work begun by our former colleagues, 
Senator Bill Roth, Senator Pat Moynihan, and especially Senator Frank 
Lautenberg, who worked so hard in the last Congress to support high 
speed intercity passenger rail.
  Since the very first steam locomotive in this country rolled in 
Newcastle, Delaware, railroading has been a capital-intensive industry. 
From the rolling stock to the right of way, railroads require major 
long-term investments. But unlike every other passenger rail system in 
the world, Amtrak has lacked a secure source of public support for its 
capital needs. Over the years, along with many of my colleagues here in 
the Senate, I have looked for ways to right that wrong.
  The bill that Senator Hutchison and I introduce today is designed to 
provide Amtrak with the capital funds to establish a truly national 
high speed passenger rail system. The idea is simple, and it is modeled 
on a program we already have in place to support another important 
public priority, public school construction. Under this legislation, 
Amtrak is authorized to issue, over the next ten years, up to $12 
billion in bonds. Instead of an interest payment, the holders of those 
bonds will be paid by a rebate on their federal income taxes.
  The funds generated from the sale of the bonds will be available for 
investments in high speed rail corridors throughout the country, from 
the established and profitable Northeast Corridor to planned corridors 
from Florida to the Pacific Northwest. One thing I learned from my days 
on the County Council in Delaware was that each route on a bus system 
supports and sustains the others. Cut one route, and ridership will 
fall off on the others as the whole system becomes less useful. 
Conversely, the more complete the system the more people will find that 
it meets their needs.
  Another thing I learned on the county council, Mr. President, is that 
if state and local governments are required to put up some of their own 
funds to match assistance from the federal government, they will think 
long and hard about the best use of their funds. That is why this 
legislation requires a twenty percent match by the state before a high 
speed rail project can qualify for the support this bill provides. This 
provision not only provides an additional safeguard that high speed 
rail investments meet the many real needs the states have, but it also 
assures that the funds will be there to pay off the bonds as they come 
due.
  Before a project is eligible for the funds raised under this bill, it 
must be reviewed by the Secretary of Transportation for its financial 
soundness, its role in a national passenger rail system, and its 
contribution to balance among the many regional corridors in the 
national system.
  I know that I don't have to tell my colleagues about the growing 
chorus of public complaints about air travel in this country. All over 
the country, overworked and over booked airports and flyways keep 
passengers sitting in terminals or out on the runways, waiting for some 
movement in a clogged system. The vast majority of our most crowded 
airports are located near rail lines that could take some of those 
passengers where they need to go faster, safer, and more comfortably.
  But only if we make the same investment in passenger rail that every 
other advanced economy does, Mr. President. Today, those tracks carry 
no passengers while our airports are bursting at the seams.
  The same is true for the major highway corridors between our nation's 
cities. Those arteries are clogged with every kind of traffic, from 
freight haulers to vacationers to business travelers. Many of them run 
parallel to major rail corridors, that could share some of that load. 
But only, Mr. President, if we make the same investment in passenger 
rail that every other advanced economy does.
  Just look at the lack of balance in our transportation spending, Mr. 
President. We spend $80 billion a year on our highways. We spend a 
billion just cleaning up road kills, and more than a billion a year 
salting icy roads. But we spend less than $600 million a year on rail 
infrastructure.
  We spend $19 billion a year on aviation, but, again, less than $600 
million on rail.
  These numbers are even more disturbing when you realize what you get

[[Page 1366]]

for each dollar spent. Look at the enormous cost of individual 
projects. Construction of a freeway in Los Angeles costs $125 million 
per mile. Per mile, Mr. President. But that is cheap compared to the 
``Big Dig'' Central Artery in Boston--the price tag on that is $1.5 
billion per mile. Airport construction is just as expensive: the Denver 
International Airport cost $4.2 billion. To expand the Los Angeles 
International Airport will involve $3 billion to $4 billion in ground 
transportation costs alone.
  High speed passenger rail investments can get a lot more done for a 
lot less money--five to ten times as much as an investment in new 
highways. For example, expanding I-95, our major east-coast highway 
corridor, by just one lane can cost as much as $50 million a mile. That 
works out to about 45 passengers per hour for every million dollars. 
But a mile of new, high-speed rail track, which can cost $8 million a 
mile, will move 450 passengers per hour for every million dollars 
invested. That's a good deal all around.--fewer cars, less pollution, 
more people getting where they want to go.
  Under the terms of the Amtrak Reform Act of 1997, we have put Amtrak 
on a path to self-sufficiency in its operating budget by the year 2003. 
I have said many times that I do not think that this is the wisest 
course. Given the long history of underfunding Amtrak's needs, I am far 
from convinced that we have put Amtrak in a position to reach full 
operating self sufficiency by that artificial deadline. But whatever we 
make of that deadline on operating support, Mr. President, it is clear 
that the very least we can do is provide Amtrak with the capital funds 
to become the passenger rail service this nation needs.
  With the commitment of the leadership in both parties, with the 
support of over half of the Senate on the day of its introduction, this 
legislation is off to a great start. We will need all of these 
resources and more to see this through to final passage, and to get a 
real, world-class passenger rail system for the United States under 
way.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 250

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``High-Speed 
     Rail Investment Act of 2001''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED AMTRAK BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
     (relating to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subpart:

``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Amtrak Bonds

``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of qualified Amtrak bonds.

     ``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED AMTRAK BONDS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who 
     holds a qualified Amtrak bond on a credit allowance date of 
     such bond which occurs during the taxable year, there shall 
     be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for such taxable year an amount equal to the sum of 
     the credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to 
     credit allowance dates during such year on which the taxpayer 
     holds such bond.
       ``(b) Amount of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined 
     under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance 
     date for a qualified Amtrak bond is 25 percent of the annual 
     credit determined with respect to such bond.
       ``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with 
     respect to any qualified Amtrak bond is the product of--
       ``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
       ``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
       ``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is 
     the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day 
     before the date of sale of the issue) on outstanding long-
     term corporate debt obligations (determined under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary).
       ``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the 
     case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period 
     ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit 
     determined under this subsection with respect to such credit 
     allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit 
     otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month 
     period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule 
     shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
       ``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a) 
     for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part 
     (other than this subpart and subpart C).
       ``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by 
     paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be 
     carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
       ``(d) Qualified Amtrak Bond.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified Amtrak bond' means 
     any bond issued as part of an issue if--
       ``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are 
     to be used for any qualified project,
       ``(B) the bond is issued by the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation,
       ``(C) the issuer--
       ``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
       ``(ii) certifies that it meets the State contribution 
     requirement of paragraph (3) with respect to such project and 
     that it has received the required State contribution payment 
     before the issuance of such bond,
       ``(iii) certifies that it has obtained the written approval 
     of the Secretary of Transportation for such project, 
     including a finding by the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation that there is a reasonable 
     likelihood that the proposed program will result in a 
     positive incremental financial contribution to the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation and that the investment 
     evaluation process includes a return on investment, 
     leveraging of funds (including State capital and operating 
     contributions), cost effectiveness, safety improvement, 
     mobility improvement, and feasibility, and
       ``(iv) certifies that it has obtained written certification 
     by the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, that, in the case of a qualified project 
     which results in passenger trains operating at speeds greater 
     than 79 miles per hour, the issuer has entered into a written 
     agreement with the rail carriers (as defined in section 24102 
     of title 49, United States Code) the properties of which are 
     to be improved by such project as to the scope and estimated 
     cost of such project and the impact on freight capacity of 
     such rail carriers; Provided that the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation shall not exercise its rights under 
     section 24308(a) of such title 49 to resolve disputes with 
     respect to such project or the cost of such project,
       ``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue 
     does not exceed 20 years,
       ``(E) the payment of principal with respect to such bond is 
     the obligation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
     (regardless of the establishment of the trust account under 
     subsection (j)), and
       ``(F) the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h).
       ``(2) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(A), the proceeds of an issue shall not be 
     treated as used for a qualified project to the extent that 
     the issuer takes any action within its control which causes 
     such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project. The 
     Secretary shall prescribe regulations specifying remedial 
     actions that may be taken (including conditions to taking 
     such remedial actions) to prevent an action described in the 
     preceding sentence from causing a bond to fail to be a 
     qualified Amtrak bond.
       ``(3) State contribution requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C)(ii), 
     the State contribution requirement of this paragraph is met 
     with respect to any qualified project if the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation has a written binding 
     commitment from 1 or more States to make matching 
     contributions not later than the date of issuance of the 
     issue of not less than 20 percent of the cost of the 
     qualified project. State matching contributions may include 
     privately funded contributions.
       ``(B) Use of state matching contributions.--The matching 
     contributions described in subparagraph (A) with respect to 
     each qualified project shall be used--
       ``(i) as necessary to redeem bonds which are a part of the 
     issue with respect to such project, and

[[Page 1367]]

       ``(ii) in the case of any remaining amount, at the election 
     of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the 
     contributing State--

       ``(I) to fund a qualified project,
       ``(II) to redeem other qualified Amtrak bonds, or
       ``(III) for the purposes of subclauses (I) and (II).

       ``(C) State contribution requirement for certain qualified 
     projects.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, with respect to any qualified project on the high-speed 
     rail corridors designated under section 104(d)(2) of title 
     23, United States Code, the State contribution requirement of 
     this paragraph may include the value of land to be 
     contributed by a State for right-of-way and may be derived by 
     a State directly or indirectly from Federal funds, including 
     transfers from the Highway Trust Fund under section 9503.
       ``(ii) Special rules regarding use of bond proceeds.--
     Proceeds from the issuance of bonds for such a qualified 
     project may be used to the extent necessary for the purpose 
     of subparagraph (B)(i), and any such proceeds deposited into 
     the trust account required under subsection (j) shall be 
     deemed expenditures for the qualified project under 
     subsection (h).
       ``(D) State matching contributions may not include federal 
     funds.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), for purposes 
     of this paragraph, State matching contributions shall not be 
     derived, directly or indirectly, from Federal funds, 
     including any transfers from the Highway Trust Fund under 
     section 9503.
       ``(E) No state contribution requirement for certain 
     qualified projects.--With respect to any qualified project 
     described in subsection (e)(4), the State contribution 
     requirement of this paragraph is zero.
       ``(4) Qualified project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified project' means--
       ``(i) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of 
     equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements, 
     including station rehabilitation or construction, track or 
     signal improvements, or the elimination of grade crossings, 
     for the northeast rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and 
     Boston, Massachusetts,
       ``(ii) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of 
     equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements, 
     including station rehabilitation or construction, track or 
     signal improvements, or the elimination of grade crossings, 
     for the improvement of train speeds or safety (or both) on 
     the high-speed rail corridors designated under section 
     104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, and
       ``(iii) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of 
     equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements, 
     including station rehabilitation or construction, track or 
     signal improvements, or the elimination of grade crossings, 
     for other intercity passenger rail corridors for the purpose 
     of increasing railroad speeds to at least 90 miles per hour.
       ``(B) Refinancing rules.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     a refinancing shall constitute a qualified project only if 
     the indebtedness being refinanced (including any obligation 
     directly or indirectly refinanced by such indebtedness) was 
     originally incurred by the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation--
       ``(i) after the date of the enactment of this section,
       ``(ii) for a term of not more than 3 years,
       ``(iii) to finance or acquire capital improvements 
     described in subparagraph (A), and
       ``(iv) in anticipation of being refinanced with proceeds of 
     a qualified Amtrak bond.
       ``(C) Prior issuance costs.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), a qualified project may include the costs a State incurs 
     prior to the issuance of the bonds to fulfill any statutory 
     requirements directly necessary for implementation of the 
     project.
       ``(e) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is a qualified Amtrak bond 
     limitation for each fiscal year. Such limitation is--
       ``(A) $1,200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011, and
       ``(B) except as provided in paragraph (5), zero after 
     fiscal year 2011.
       ``(2) Bonds for rail corridors.--Not more than 
     $3,000,000,000 of the limitation under paragraph (1) may be 
     designated for any 1 rail corridor described in clause (i) or 
     (ii) of subsection (d)(4)(A).
       ``(3) Bonds for other projects.--Not more than $100,000,000 
     of the limitation under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year may 
     be allocated to all qualified projects described in 
     subsection (d)(4)(A)(iii).
       ``(4) Bonds for alaska railroad.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation may allocate to the Alaska Railroad a portion 
     of the qualified Amtrak limitation for any fiscal year in 
     order to allow the Alaska Railroad to issue bonds which meet 
     the requirements of this section for use in financing any 
     project described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(iii) (determined 
     without regard to the requirement of increasing railroad 
     speeds). For purposes of this section, the Alaska Railroad 
     shall be treated in the same manner as the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation.
       ``(5) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any fiscal 
     year--
       ``(A) the limitation amount under paragraph (1), exceeds
       ``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are 
     designated under subsection (d)(1)(C)(i),

     the limitation amount under paragraph (1) for the following 
     fiscal year (through fiscal year 2015) shall be increased by 
     the amount of such excess.
       ``(6) Additional selection criteria.--In selecting 
     qualified projects for allocation of the qualified Amtrak 
     bond limitation under this subsection, the Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       ``(A) may give preference to any project with a State 
     matching contribution rate exceeding 20 percent, and
       ``(B) shall consider regional balance in infrastructure 
     investment and the national interest in ensuring the 
     development of a nation-wide high-speed rail transportation 
     network.
       ``(f) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart--
       ``(1) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
       ``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance 
     date' means--
       ``(A) March 15,
       ``(B) June 15,
       ``(C) September 15, and
       ``(D) December 15.

     Such term includes the last day on which the bond is 
     outstanding.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means the several States and 
     the District of Columbia, and any subdivision thereof.
       ``(4) Program.--The term `program' means 1 or more projects 
     implemented over 1 or more years to support the development 
     of intercity passenger rail corridors.
       ``(g) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income 
     includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer 
     under this section (determined without regard to subsection 
     (c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest 
     income.
       ``(h) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an issue shall 
     be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection if 
     as of the date of issuance, the issuer reasonably expects--
       ``(A) to spend at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the 
     issue for 1 or more qualified projects within the 5-year 
     period beginning on such date, and
       ``(B) to proceed with due diligence to complete such 
     projects and to spend the proceeds of the issue.
       ``(2) Rules regarding continuing compliance after 5-year 
     determination.--If at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the 
     issue is not expended for 1 or more qualified projects within 
     the 5-year period beginning on the date of issuance, an issue 
     shall be treated as continuing to meet the requirements of 
     this subsection if either--
       ``(A) the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to 
     redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after the end of 
     such 5-year period, or
       ``(B) the following requirements are met:
       ``(i) The issuer spends at least 75 percent of the proceeds 
     of the issue for 1 or more qualified projects within the 5-
     year period beginning on the date of issuance.
       ``(ii) The issuer has proceeded with due diligence to spend 
     the proceeds of the issue within such 5-year period and 
     continues to proceed with due diligence to spend such 
     proceeds.
       ``(iii) The issuer pays to the Federal Government any 
     earnings on the proceeds of the issue that accrue after the 
     end of such 5-year period.
       ``(iv) Either--

       ``(I) at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the issue is 
     expended for 1 or more qualified projects within the 6-year 
     period beginning on the date of issuance, or
       ``(II) the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to 
     redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after the end of 
     such 6-year period.

       ``(i) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of 
     Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported 
     to be a qualified Amtrak bond ceases to be a qualified Amtrak 
     bond, the issuer shall pay to the United States (at the time 
     required by the Secretary) an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this 
     section with respect to such bond (determined without regard 
     to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the 
     calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2 
     preceding calendar years, and
       ``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621 
     on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each 
     calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of 
     such calendar year.
       ``(2) Failure to pay.--If the issuer fails to timely pay 
     the amount required by paragraph (1) with respect to such 
     bond, the tax imposed by this chapter on each holder of any 
     such bond which is part of such issue shall be increased (for 
     the taxable year of the holder in which such cessation 
     occurs) by the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed 
     under this section to such holder for taxable years beginning 
     in such 3 calendar years

[[Page 1368]]

     which would have resulted solely from denying any credit 
     under this section with respect to such issue for such 
     taxable years.
       ``(3) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall 
     be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits 
     allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce 
     tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce 
     tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section 
     39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
       ``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under 
     paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this 
     chapter for purposes of determining--
       ``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part, 
     or
       ``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
       ``(j) Use of Trust Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of any matching contribution 
     with respect to a qualified project described in subsection 
     (d)(3)(B)(i) or (d)(3)(B)(ii)(II) and the temporary period 
     investment earnings on proceeds of the issue with respect to 
     such project, and any earnings thereon, shall be held in a 
     trust account by a trustee independent of the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation to be used to the extent 
     necessary to redeem bonds which are part of such issue.
       ``(2) Use of remaining funds in trust account.--Upon the 
     repayment of the principal of all qualified Amtrak bonds 
     issued under this section, any remaining funds in the trust 
     account described in paragraph (1) shall be available--
       ``(A) to the trustee described in paragraph (1), to meet 
     any remaining obligations under any guaranteed investment 
     contract used to secure earnings sufficient to repay the 
     principal of such bonds, and
       ``(B) to the issuer, for any qualified project.
       ``(k) Other Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru 
     entities.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in 
     the case of a partnership, trust, S corporation, or other 
     pass-thru entity, rules similar to the rules of section 41(g) 
     shall apply with respect to the credit allowable under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any 
     qualified Amtrak bond is held by a regulated investment 
     company, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be 
     allowed to shareholders of such company under procedures 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Credits may be stripped.--Under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary--
       ``(A) In general.--There may be a separation (including at 
     issuance) of the ownership of a qualified Amtrak bond and the 
     entitlement to the credit under this section with respect to 
     such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit under 
     this section shall be allowed to the person who on the credit 
     allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the 
     entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
       ``(B) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation 
     described in subparagraph (A), the rules of section 1286 
     shall apply to the qualified Amtrak bond as if it were a 
     stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it 
     were a stripped coupon.
       ``(4) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--Solely for 
     purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by 
     this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified 
     Amtrak bond on a credit allowance date shall be treated as if 
     it were a payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on 
     such date.
       ``(5) Credit may be transferred.--Nothing in any law or 
     rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability 
     of the credit allowed by this section through sale and 
     repurchase agreements.
       ``(6) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified Amtrak bonds shall 
     submit reports similar to the reports required under section 
     149(e).''.
       (b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to 
     returns regarding payments of interest), as amended by 
     section 505(d), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(9) Reporting of credit on qualified amtrak bonds.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under 
     section 54(g) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on 
     the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(f)(2)).
       ``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in regulations, in the case of any interest 
     described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection 
     (b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to 
     subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
       ``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe 
     such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which 
     require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Subpart H. Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Amtrak 
              Bonds.''.

       (2) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and G'' and 
     inserting ``G, and H''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after September 30, 2001.
       (e) Multi-Year Capital Spending Plan and Oversight.--
       (1) Amtrak capital spending plan.--
       (A) In general.--The National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation shall annually submit to the President and 
     Congress a multi-year capital spending plan, as approved by 
     the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
       (B) Contents of plan.--Such plan shall identify the capital 
     investment needs of the Corporation over a period of not less 
     than 5 years and the funding sources available to finance 
     such needs and shall prioritize such needs according to 
     corporate goals and strategies.
       (C) Initial submission date.--The first plan shall be 
     submitted before the issuance of any qualified Amtrak bonds 
     by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation pursuant to 
     section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by 
     this section).
       (2) Oversight of amtrak trust account and qualified 
     projects.--
       (A) Trust account oversight.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall annually report to Congress as to whether the amount 
     deposited in the trust account established by the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation under section 54(j) of such 
     Code (as so added) is sufficient to fully repay at maturity 
     the principal of any outstanding qualified Amtrak bonds 
     issued pursuant to section 54 of such Code (as so added), 
     together with amounts expected to be deposited into such 
     account, as certified by the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation in accordance with procedures prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       (B) Project oversight.--The National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation shall contract for an annual independent 
     assessment of the costs and benefits of the qualified 
     projects financed by such qualified Amtrak bonds, including 
     an assessment of the investment evaluation process of the 
     Corporation. The annual assessment shall be included in the 
     plan submitted under paragraph (1).
       (C) Oversight funding.--Not more than 0.5 percent of the 
     amounts made available through the issuance of qualified 
     Amtrak bonds by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
     pursuant to section 54 of such Code (as so added) may be used 
     by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for 
     assessments described in subparagraph (B).
       (f) Protection of Highway Trust Fund.--
       (1) Certification by the secretary of the treasury.--The 
     issuance of any qualified Amtrak bonds by the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation or the Alaska Railroad 
     pursuant to section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (as added by this section) is conditioned on certification by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation, within 30 days of a request by 
     the issuer, that with respect to funds of the Highway Trust 
     Fund described under paragraph (2), the issuer either--
       (A) has not received such funds during fiscal years 
     commencing with fiscal year 2002 and ending before the fiscal 
     year the bonds are issued, or
       (B) has repaid to the Highway Trust Fund any such funds 
     which were received during such fiscal years.
       (2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to funds 
     received directly, or indirectly from a State or local 
     transit authority, from the Highway Trust Fund established 
     under section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     except for funds authorized to be expended under section 
     9503(c) of such Code, as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) No retroactive effect.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall adversely affect the entitlement of the holders of 
     qualified Amtrak bonds to the tax credit allowed pursuant to 
     section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as so added) 
     or to repayment of principal upon maturity.
       (g) Exemption From Taxes for High-Speed Rail Lines and 
     Improvements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     rail carrier (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United 
     States Code) shall be required to pay any tax or fee imposed 
     by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or by any State or local 
     government with respect to the acquisition, improvement, or 
     ownership of--
       (1) personal or real property funded by the proceeds of 
     qualified Amtrak bonds (as defined in section 54(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) or 
     any State or local bond (as defined in section 103(c)(1) of 
     such Code), or revenues or income from such acquisition, 
     improvement, or ownership, or
       (2) rail lines in high-speed rail corridors designated 
     under section 104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, that 
     are leased by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
       (h) Issuance of Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall issue regulations required under section 54 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code (as added by this section) not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 1369]]

       (i) Issuance of Tax-Exempt Bonds for Rail Passenger 
     Projects.--
       (1) Funding state match requirement.--Section 142(a) 
     (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'', and by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) the State contribution requirement for qualified 
     projects under section 54.''.
       (2) Repeal of governmental ownership requirement for mass 
     commuting facilities.--Section 142(b)(1)(A) (relating to 
     certain facilities must be governmentally owned) is amended 
     by striking ``(3),''.
       (3) Definition of high-speed intercity rail facilities.--
     Section 142(i)(1) is amended by striking ``in excess of 150 
     miles per hour'' and inserting ``prescribed in section 
     104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code,''.
       (4) Exemption from volume cap.--Subsection (g) of section 
     146 (relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (4) and the last sentence of such 
     subsection and inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) any exempt facility bond issued as part of an issue 
     described in paragraph (3), (11), or (13) of section 142(a) 
     (relating to mass commuting facilities, high-speed intercity 
     rail facilities, and State contribution requirements under 
     section 54).''.
       (5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to join our esteemed majority 
and minority leaders in sponsoring the High Speed Rail Investment Act 
of 2001. I am proud that our two leaders have been willing and able to 
work in a bipartisan manner to fulfill a promise that they made last 
month to re-introduce this critical legislation. I thank them, and I 
thank Senator Biden and Senator Hutchison for their strong leadership 
as well. Their commitment to this bill cannot be overstated.
  This legislation would allow Amtrak to sell $12 billion in bonds over 
the next ten years and permit the federal government to provide tax 
credits to bondholders in lieu of interest payments. Amtrak would use 
this money to upgrade existing rail lines to high-speed rail 
capability. This bill has supporters from both parties and all regions 
of the country.
  Mr. President, high speed rail is not a partisan issue. It is not a 
regional issue. It is not an urban issue. The High-Speed Rail 
Investment Act has the support of the National Governors Association, 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of State 
Legislatures. Thirty newspapers, from the New York Times and Providence 
Journal, to the Houston Chronicle and Seattle Post Intelligencer, have 
called for the enactment of this legislation.
  It is in our national interest to construct a national infrastructure 
that is truly intermodal. Rail transportation helps alleviate the 
stress placed on our environment by air and highway transportation. It 
is a sad fact that America's rail transportation, and its lack of a 
national high-speed rail system, lags well behind rail transportation 
in most other nations--we spend less, per capita, on rail 
transportation than Estonia and Greece.
  Mr. President, I know I made many of these same points on the floor 
of the Senate in December when we discussed a similar version of the 
High Speed Rail Investment Act. However, I believe that this 
legislation is critical to our nation's transportation infrastructure 
needs, and these facts bear repeating:
  The federal government has invested $380 billion in our highways and 
$160 billion in airports since Amtrak was created. By contrast, the 
federal government has spent only about $30 billion on Amtrak. We have 
spent just four percent of our transportation budget on rail 
transportation in the last 30 years. The Congress has mandated that 
Amtrak soon achieve operational self-sufficiency. That does not, nor 
should it, preclude further capital improvement grants. This is often 
misunderstood and misinterpreted. Amtrak has reduced its operating 
losses over the last two years, and remains capable of meeting its 
goal. However, it will continue to need the federal government to 
support its track upgrades, rolling stock improvements and other large-
scale upgrades so that it may maintain its trademark quality service.
  There is a compelling need to invest in high-speed rail. Our highways 
and skyways are overburdened. Intercity passenger miles traveled have 
increased 80 percent since 1988, but only 5.5 percent of that has come 
from increased rail travel. Meanwhile, our congested skies have become 
even more crowded. The result, predictably, is that air travel delays 
are up 58 percent since 1995. Things have gotten so bad in Chicago that 
O'Hare airport maintains 1,500 cots for snow-bound travelers. This 
summer, the airport had to order additional cots to accommodate 
passengers left stranded by myriad delays and cancellations.
  Amtrak ridership is on the rise. More than 22.5 million passengers 
rode Amtrak in Fiscal Year 2000, a million more than the previous year. 
Nearly six million riders took Amtrak in the first quarter of this 
fiscal year, the best first quarter in the company's 30-year history. 
Ridership for the quarter was up 8.5 percent, while ticket revenue 
climbed almost 14 percent over the first quarter of FY00. We should 
welcome that increased use and support it by giving Amtrak the 
resources it needs to provide high-quality, dependable service.
  The High-Speed Rail Investment Act is critical to the future of 
Amtrak. For about the cost of the new Denver International Airport, we 
can improve intercity transportation in 29 states. For less than double 
the cost of constructing the new Woodrow Wilson bridge improving 
transportation in two states, we can create eight high-speed rail 
corridors in 29 states.
  High-speed rail is a viable transportation alternative. There is a 
large and growing demand for rail service in the Northeast Corridor. 
Amtrak captures almost 70 percent of the business rail and air travel 
market between Washington and New York and 30 percent of the market 
share between New York and Boston. True high-speed rail will 
undoubtedly increase that market share. These new trains, like the 
Acela Express that debuted in the Northeast this year, currently run at 
an average of only 82 miles per hour, but with track improvements, will 
run at 130 miles per hour.
  As a nation, we have recognized the importance of having the very 
best communication system, and ours is the envy of the world. That 
investment is one of reasons our economy is the strongest in the world. 
And we should do the same for our transportation system. It should be 
equally modern and must be fully intermodal. Rail transportation is a 
part of that network and I hope that we can pass this critical, cost-
efficient legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH:
  S. 252. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving 
funds, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean 
Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2001, legislation which will 
reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF Program administered by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an 
effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater 
collection and treatment projects. Congress created the Clean Water SRF 
Program in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted 
as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, 
as it is known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have 
used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental 
infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a 
community bank, where each state determines which projects get built.
  The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. 
Total federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non-
federal funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged 
bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes 
are participating

[[Page 1370]]

in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects nationwide have been 
approved to date.
  As in many states, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system 
improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding 
levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2001, a level of $1.35 billion was 
appropriated for the Clean Water SRF. However, in Ohio alone, about $4 
billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address 
combined serve overflow, CSO, problems, according to the latest state 
figures. The City of Akron, for example, has proposed a Long Term 
Control Plan that will cost more than $248 million to implement--nearly 
20 percent of the total SRF level appropriated in fiscal year 2001. 
Because of Akron's CSO problem, city sewer rates will more than double 
without outside funding.
  Further, estimates indicate that among Ohio towns with a population 
of less than 10,000, there exists $1.2 billion in CSO needs. In recent 
years, Ohio cities and villages have been spending more on maintaining 
and operating their systems in order to stave-off the inevitable 
upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will need to be 
replaced.
  While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the 
condition of our nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains 
alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 
documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. 
In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 
billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary 
sewer needs. This amount may be too small; private studies demonstrate 
that total needs are closer to $300 billion when anticipated 
replacement costs are considered.
  Authoziation for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal 
year 1994, and the continued failure of Congress to reauthorize the 
program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and 
treatment is not a national priority. The longer we have an absence of 
authorization of this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about 
the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or, in 
some cases, prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of 
substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water 
SRF program is necessary in the 107th Congress.
  The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 
billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only 
would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding 
gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by 
protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and 
increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the 
bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, 
expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer 
financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and 
principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority 
consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans.
  The health and well-being of the American public depends on the 
condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. 
Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often 
taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me assure my colleagues that the 
costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored and the 
price will pay for continued neglect will far exceed the authorization 
level of this bill. Now is the time to address our infrastructure needs 
while the costs are manageable.
  In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped 
thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill 
will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable 
components in the overall development of our nations' infrastructure 
for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this 
legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 253. A bill to reauthorize the Rural Education Initiative in 
subspart 2 of part J of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Education Improvement Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, 
Senators Conrad, Gregg, Hutchinson, Enzi, Hagel, Roberts, Dorgan, 
Thomas, Allard, Burns, and Johnson, as original cosponsors of this 
common sense, bipartisan proposal to help rural schools make better use 
of federal education funds. I also want to acknowledge the valuable 
assistance provided over the past two years by the American Association 
of School Administrators.
  Last Congress, I introduced the Rural Education Initiative Act--the 
foundation for today's legislation. I am pleased that the REIA was 
largely incorporated into the final appropriations bill, thus allowing 
small, rural school districts to combine funds from four formula grant 
programs, giving them the flexibility to target funds toward their 
students' most pressing needs. While the passage of this bill 
represented substantial progress, it was a one-year authorization only, 
and no appropriations were provided for the supplemental grant program 
authorized by the new law.
  Mr. President, the bill we introduce today strengthens the 
legislation enacted last year. The Collins-Conrad bill would provide a 
5-year authorization of the rural education provisions enacted last 
year and authorize $150 million annually for the supplemental grant 
program.
  Our legislation would benefit school districts with fewer than 600 
students in rural communities. More than 35 percent of all school 
districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. In Maine, 
the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 284 school districts 
have fewer than 600 students. Our legislation would help them overcome 
some of the most challenging obstacles they face in participating in 
federal education programs.
  By way of background, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
authorizes formula and competitive grants that help many of our local 
school districts to improve the education of their students. These 
federal grants support such laudable goals as the professional 
development of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the 
classroom, gifted and talented programs, and class size reduction. 
Schools receive categorical grants, each with its own authorized 
activities and regulations, each with its own red tape and paperwork. 
Unfortunately, as valuable as these programs may be for many large 
urban and suburban school districts, they often do not work well in 
rural areas for two major reasons.
  First, formula grants often do not reach small, rural schools in 
amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. These grants 
are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, smaller 
districts often do not receive enough funding from any single grant to 
carry out a meaningful activity. One Main district, for example, 
received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free 
School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve the 
goal of that federal program, yet the school district could not use the 
funds for any other program.
  To give school districts more flexibility to meet local needs, our 
legislation would allow rural districts to combine the funds from four 
categorical programs and use them to address the school district's 
highest priorities.
  The second problem facing many rural school districts is that they 
are essentially shut out of the competitive programs because they lack 
the grant-writers and administrators necessary to apply for, win, and 
manage competitively awarded grants. The Rural Education Improvement 
Act would remedy this program by providing small, rural districts with 
a formula grant in lieu of eligibility for the competitive programs of 
the ESEA.

[[Page 1371]]

  A district would be able to combine this new supplemental grant with 
the funds from the formula grants and use the combined monies for any 
purposes that would improve student achievement or teaching quality. 
Districts might use these funds to hire a new reading or math teacher, 
fund professional development, offer a program for gifted and talented 
students, or purchase computers or library books.
  Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives 
would mean for one school Maine School District in Northern Maine with 
400 students from the towns of Frenchville and St. Agatha receives four 
separate formula grants ranging from $1,904 for Safe and Drug Free 
Schools to $9,542 under the Class Size Reduction Act. You can see the 
problem right there. The amounts of the grants are so small that they 
really are not useful in accomplishing the goals of the program. The 
total for all four programs is just under $16,000. Yet, each must be 
applied for separately, used for different--federally mandated--
purposes, and accounted for independently.
  Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight 
separate reports, for four programs, to receive this $16,000. Under our 
bill, this school district would be freed from the multiple 
applications and reports and would have $16,000 to use for its 
educational priorities.
  Moreover, since this district does not have the resources to apply 
for the competitive grant programs, our legislation would result in a 
supplemental grant of $34,000 as long as the District foregoes its 
eligibility for the competitively awarded grants. Under the Rural 
Education Improvement Act, therefore, the District will have $50,000 
and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing needs.
  But with this flexibility and additional funding come responsibility 
and accountability. In return for the advantages our bill provides, 
participating districts would be held accountable for demonstrating 
improved student performance over a 3-year period. Schools will be held 
responsible for what is really important--improved student 
achievement--rather than for time-consuming paperwork. As 
Superintendent White told me, ``Give me the resources I need plus the 
flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held accountable for 
improved student performance. It will happen.''
  Mr. President, we must improve our educational system without 
requiring every school to adopt a plan designed in Washington and 
without imposing overly burdensome and costly regulations in return for 
federal assistance. Our bill would allow small, rural districts to use 
their own strategies for improvement without the encumbrance of onerous 
federal regulations and unnecessary paperwork.
  Congress took an important step last year by recognizing that small, 
rural districts face challenges in using federal programs to help 
provide a quality education for their students. Due to our efforts last 
year, the law now reflects Congress's intention to provide these 
districts more flexibility and additional funding. This legislation 
will move us from intention to implementation by providing sustained 
support, flexibility, and funding for our rural schools.
  I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American 
Association of School Administrators, National Rural Education 
Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, and the 
National Education Association, and I ask unanimous consent that 
endorsement letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    National Rural


                                        Education Association,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The National Rural Education 
     Association would like to applaud your recognition of the 
     unique hardships that face small, rural schools in respect to 
     their federal funding. Along with U.S. Senators Kent Conrad, 
     D-ND; Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-
     NE; Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; and Tim Johnson, 
     D-SD; and Byron Dorgan, D-ND, you have reintroduced 
     legislation that would ensure that small rural schools get a 
     baseline amount of federal funding.
       Currently, many small and rural schools are at a 
     disadvantage when they receive their ESEA funding. Federal 
     funding formulas are based on enrollment, which prevent small 
     schools from receiving adequate resources. Due to the small 
     numbers of students, these schools rarely receive enough 
     combined funds to hire a teacher. Small schools also lack the 
     administrative capacity to apply for competitive grants. This 
     puts small rural schools on unequal federal footing with many 
     of their urban and suburban counterparts.
       Last December, your Rural Education Initiative was included 
     in the omnibus appropriations bill. The new law allows 
     districts to commingle some of the federal funds they receive 
     and use them in areas to improve student achievement and 
     professional development. In addition, it included 
     legislation that would provide a minimum of $20,000 to 
     schools of 600 or less. These are the same schools are 
     typically receiving approximately $5,000 from the federal 
     government.
       By setting a baseline amount and allowing schools to 
     commingle the funds, the local school district will have the 
     opportunity to hire a specialist, provide signing bonuses to 
     teachers, extend after school opportunities and enhance many 
     other aspects of the small school budget. Most of all, it 
     would enable the school to provide an education consistent 
     with local needs.
       Once again, we would like to extend our grateful thanks for 
     your leadership on this issue. We urge the full Senate to 
     reauthorize and fully fund this legislation on behalf of 
     those schools who are too small to be heard.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Mary Conk,
     Legislative Analyst.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                     of School Administrators,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American Association 
     of School Administrators, representing more than 14,000 
     school system leaders, we would like to express our support 
     for your bill reauthorizing the Rural Education Initiative. 
     Your hard work and commitment to rural schools last congress 
     improved federal education programs for all of the small 
     isolated schools throughout rural America. The changes 
     proposed in your reauthorization bill would improve upon last 
     year's effort by providing more flexibility and increased 
     funding for small isolated schools. Thank you for your 
     continuing advocacy on behalf of rural schoolchildren and 
     rural communities.
       Currently small and rural school districts find it 
     difficult to compete with larger districts for hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in federal education competitive grants. 
     Small, isolated districts receive well below their share of 
     competitive grants, usually because they lack the 
     administrative staff to apply for grants. The problem is 
     compounded by shortcomings of federal formula programs. 
     Federal education programs allocate funds based on 
     enrollment, typically providing very little revenue to the 
     smallest schools. The Collins-Conrad Rural Education 
     Initiative would level the playing field by ensuring that 
     each small district receives at least enough funding to hire 
     a teacher or a specialist.
       Studies in individual states and the National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress document the difficulties of small, 
     rural school districts:
       Difficulty attracting and retaining quality teachers, and 
     administrators,
       Inability to offer advanced academic or vocational courses,
       Disproportionate spending on transportation,
       Loss of a sense of community when schools are consolidated, 
     and
       Inability to process all the federally required paperwork 
     normally required of recipients.
       The Rural Education Initiative would help small/rural 
     districts by providing enough school improvements funds to 
     implement real change. Rural and small school districts would 
     be eligible for grants of $20,000 to $60,000 depending upon 
     enrollment. Although the program was passed into law last 
     year, it has not yet been funded. More than 4,000 small and 
     rural school districts benefit from the flexibility provided 
     in last year's program; those same 4,000 districts will be 
     able to advance even greater improvements when the program is 
     reauthorized and appropriated.
       The funds would be used to enhance the reading and math 
     proficiency of students; to provide an education consistent 
     with local needs; and to enable small/rural communities to 
     prepare young people to compete in the emerging knowledge-
     based economy.
       The Association is grateful to you, Kent Conrad, R-ND; Judd 
     Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-NE; Michael 
     Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; Tim Johnson, D-SD; and Byron 
     Dorgan, D-ND for

[[Page 1372]]

     their advocacy on behalf of rural school children. We urge 
     the full Senate to embrace and fund this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jordan Cross,
     Legislative Specialist.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                 Educational Service Agencies,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Association of 
     Education Service Agencies, we would like to express our 
     gratitude for your work on the Rural Education Initiative. 
     Your efforts during the 106th Congress helped rectify many of 
     the inequalities that disadvantage small school districts. By 
     increasing the flexibility of federal education programs, 
     local districts can now make better use of federal dollars. 
     This year, you have taken that effort one step further with 
     the reauthorization of the Rural Education Initiative. The 
     Collins-Conrad reauthorization proposal would complete last 
     year's goal by ensuring that small rural schools are treated 
     fairly by federal formula programs and funded at an adequate 
     level.
       Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) are intermediate units 
     that frequently provide assistance to small and rural schools 
     that do not have the administrative staff to operate some 
     education programs in-house. When a small rural school 
     district receives a tiny federal education grant, ESAs often 
     facilitate consortia to make better use of federal funds. 
     ESAs are the primary source of professional development and 
     technology assistance to rural schools. The members of our 
     association understand first-hand the particular needs of 
     rural districts; your proposal offers the best hope for 
     accommodating those needs and the best means for improving 
     rural education.
       Rural schoolchildren deserve to benefit from the federal 
     education programs enjoyed by urban and suburban students. We 
     thank you for your work on the Rural Education Initiative, 
     and we offer our full support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Hunter,
     Legislative Specialist.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2001.

Statement of the National Education Association in Support of the Rural 
                          Education Initiative

       The National Education Association's (NEA) supports the 
     concepts included in the Rural Education Initiative (REI), 
     introduced today in the United States Senate by Senators 
     Collins and Conrad.
       NEA research demonstrates the need for increased emphasis 
     on meeting the needs of rural schools. For example, 49 
     percent of the nation's public schools, teaching 40 percent 
     of the nation's students, are located in rural areas and 
     small towns. Yet, schools in rural and small towns receive 
     only 22 percent of total federal, state, and local education 
     spending. In addition, federal funding formulas often provide 
     rural and small towns with small allotments that afford 
     little or no actual assistance but require significant 
     paperwork.
       The Rural Education Initiative represents an important step 
     toward addressing the unique problems associated with 
     education in small towns and rural areas. We encourage its 
     passage into law.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Judd Gregg, to introduce 
the Rural Education Initiative (REI). We introduced similar 
legislation, S. 1225, during the 106th Congress to respond to a number 
of challenges facing small, rural schools, and I am pleased that we 
were successful in incorporating some of the major the provisions of S. 
1225 in the FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This Congressional 
action will provide flexibility for school officials from small, rural 
schools to make better use of Federal education funds for critical 
educational needs at the local level.
  Under Public law 106-1033, Congress authorized school districts with 
fewer than 600 students, and a Department of Education (DOE) Locale 
Code designation of 7 or 8 to combine funding from four Federal 
education programs (Titles, II, IV, VI and Class Size Reduction) and 
use that funding to supplement Federal education programs under Titles 
I, II, IV, and VI. Congress also authorized, although was not able to 
fund, supplemental grants of up to $60,000 to assist small, rural 
school districts develop programs to improve academic achievement and 
the quality of instruction. Funding the supplemental grants program in 
the Rural Education Initiative is a major priority during consideration 
of the Elementary and Secondary Reauthorization in the 107th Congress.
  Today, we are re-introducing legislation to extend the authority 
under the Rural Education Initiative in P.L. 106-1033 for a five-year 
period to permit small, rural school districts to continue to have 
flexibility in the use of funds from a limited number of Federal 
education programs. This bill will also authorize $150 million for 
supplemental grants of up to $60,000 to rural schools to improve 
student achievement, provide professional development opportunities for 
educators or undertake education reform activities. School districts 
with fewer than 600 students and with a DOE Locale Code of 7 or 8 will 
be eligible to participate in the REI program.
  I am particularly pleased that the Rural Education Initiative has 
received bipartisan support and is cosponsored today by Senators 
Collins, Gregg, Hagel, Enzi, Hutchinson, Dorgan, Roberts, Burns, 
Johnson, and Thomas. The Rural Education Initiative is also being 
endorsed by the American Association of School Administrators, the 
National Education Association, the National Rural Education 
Association, and the Association of Educational Service Agencies.
  Mr. President, small rural schools face a growing number of unique 
challenges because of declining school age populations, aging 
facilities, and significant distances and remote locations for many 
rural school districts. While increased Federal education funding and 
targeting of these funds has been very helpful for rural school 
districts, these efforts alone are not responding sufficiently to the 
needs of many small, rural schools.
  Many rural schools, for example, while recognizing the importance of 
new initiatives like Class Size Reduction, are already at the levels 
recommended under the Class Size Reduction Initiative. Under current 
law, rural schools have only limited flexibility to use Class Size 
funds to meet other local education priorities. In many instances, the 
Class Size funds and allocations from a number of other Federal formula 
programs are not sufficient to permit effective use of the funds by the 
rural district.
  Additionally, although rural schools are able to apply for DOE 
competitive grant programs, rural schools are not able to compete as 
effectively as some urban and suburban schools because limited 
resources do not permit many smaller, rural districts to hire 
specialists to prepare grant applications to compete for these funds. 
In some cases, the only option for a smaller district is to form a 
consortium with other schools to qualify for sufficient funding.
  The difficulties accessing DOE competitive grant funds by rural 
schools are summed up well by Elroy Burkle, Superintendent of the 
Starkweather Public School District, a district with 131 students. 
Burkle remarked, ``schools districts have lost their ability to access 
funds directly, and as a result of forming these consortiums in order 
to access these monies, it is my opinion, we have lost our individual 
ability to utilize these monies in an effective manner that would be 
conducive to promoting the educational needs of our individual 
schools.''
  Mr. President, the Rural Education Initiative responds to many of the 
concerns of Elroy Burkle and thousands of other school officials from 
smaller, rural school districts. The REI authorizes flexibility for 
local school officials to more effectively use certain DOE formula 
funds. The legislation also authorizes supplemental grant funding for 
rural school districts who are not in a position to apply for some DOE 
competitive grant programs and in need additional funds for programs to 
improve student achievement or provide professional development 
opportunities for educators.
  As we begin our debate in the 107th Congress on the education 
proposals recently presented by President Bush and reauthorization of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it's very important that we 
consider the Rural Education Initiative as part of this debate. No 
issue is more important for rural America than the future of our 
schools. We must make certain that Federal education dollars are 
available to assist small, rural schools to provide

[[Page 1373]]

the best education opportunities for children in rural America.
  I commend Senator Collins for taking the lead again in the 107th 
Congress on this important education issue. I also congratulate the 
American Association of School Administrators and the National 
Education Association for their leadership on rural education issues 
and the development of this important rural education initiative. I 
strongly urge the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
to carefully examine the many concerns of schools in rural America and 
to support reauthorization of the Rural Education Initiative that was 
adopted during the 106th Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the endorsements of the 
Rural Education Initiative from the American Association, of School 
Administrators, the National Education Association, the National Rural 
Education Association, and the Association of Educational Service 
Agencies be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement of the National Education Association in Support of the Rural 
                          Education Initiative

       The National Education Association (NEA) supports the 
     concepts included in the Rural Education Initiative (REI), 
     introduced today in the United States Senate by Senators 
     Collins and Conrad.
       NEA research demonstrates the need for increased emphasis 
     on meeting the needs of rural schools. For example, 49 
     percent of the nation's public schools, teaching 40 percent 
     of the nation's students, are located in rural areas and 
     small towns. Yet, schools in rural and small towns receive 
     only 22 percent of total federal, state, and local education 
     spending. In addition, federal funding formulas often provide 
     rural and small towns with small allotments that afford 
     little or no actual assistance but require significant 
     paperwork.
       The Rural Education Initiative represents an important step 
     toward addressing the unique problems associated with 
     education in small towns and rural areas. We encourage its 
     passage into law.
                                  ____

                                           American Association of


                                        School Administrators,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the American Association 
     of School Administrators, representing more than 14,000 
     school system leaders, we would like to express our support 
     for your bill reauthorizing the Rural Education Initiative. 
     Your hard work and commitment to rural schools last congress 
     improved federal education programs for all of the small 
     isolated schools throughout rural America. The changes 
     proposed in your reauthorization bill would improve upon last 
     year's effort by providing more flexibility and increased 
     funding for small isolated schools. Thank you for your 
     continuing advocacy on behalf of rural schoolchildren and 
     rural communities.
       Currently small and rural school districts find it 
     difficult to compete with larger districts for hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in federal education competitive grants. 
     Small, isolated districts receive well below their share of 
     competitive grants, usually because they lack the 
     administrative staff to apply for grants. The problem is 
     compounded by shortcomings of federal formula programs. 
     Federal education programs allocate funds based on 
     enrollment, typically providing very little revenue to the 
     smallest schools. The Collins-Conrad Rural Education 
     Initiative would level the playing field by ensuring that 
     each small district receives at least enough funding to hire 
     a teacher or a specialist.
       Studies in individual states and the National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress document the difficulties of small, 
     rural school districts: Difficulty attracting and retaining 
     quality teachers, and administrators, inability to offer 
     advanced academic or vocational courses, disproportionate 
     spending on transportation, loss of a sense of community when 
     schools are consolidated, and inability to process all the 
     federally required paperwork normally required of recipients.
       The Rural Education Initiative would help small/rural 
     districts by providing enough school improvement funds to 
     implement real change. Rural and small school districts would 
     be eligible for grants of $20,000 to $60,000 depending upon 
     enrollment. Although the program was passed into law last 
     year, it has not yet been funded. More than 4,000 small and 
     rural school districts benefit from the flexibility provided 
     in last year's program; those same 4,000 districts will be 
     able to advance even greater improvements when the program is 
     reauthorized and appropriated.
       The funds would be used to enhance the reading and math 
     proficiency of students; to provide an education consistent 
     with local needs; and to enable small/rural communities to 
     prepare young people to compete in the emerging knowledge-
     based economy.
       The Association is grateful to you, Susan Collins, R-ME; 
     Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-NE; 
     Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; Tim Johnson, D-SD; and 
     Byron Dorgan, D-ND for their advocacy on behalf of rural 
     school children. We urge the full Senate to embrace and fund 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jordan Cross,
     Legislative Specialist.
                                  ____



                         National Rural Education Association,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The National Rural Education 
     Association would like to applaud your recognition of the 
     unique hardships that face small, rural schools in respect to 
     their federal funding. Along with U.S. Senators Kent Conrad, 
     D-ND; Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-
     NE; Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-RS; and Tim Johnson, 
     D-SD; and Byron Dorgan, D-ND, you have reintroduced 
     legislation that would ensure that small rural schools get a 
     baseline amount of federal funding.
       Currently, many small and rural schools are at a 
     disadvantage when they receive their ESEA funding. Federal 
     funding formulas are based on enrollment, which prevent small 
     schools from receiving adequate resources. Due to the small 
     numbers of students, these schools rarely receive enough 
     combined funds to hire a teacher. Small schools also lack the 
     administrative capacity to apply for competitive grants. This 
     puts small rural schools on unequal federal footing with many 
     of their urban and suburban counterparts.
       Last December, your Rural Education Initiative was included 
     in the omnibus appropriations bill. The new law allows 
     districts to commingle some of the federal funds they receive 
     and use them in areas to improve student achievement and 
     professional development. In addition, it included 
     legislation that would provide a minimum of $20,000 to 
     schools of 600 or less. These are the same schools typically 
     receiving approximately $5,000 from the federal government.
       By setting a baseline amount and allowing schools to 
     commingle the funds, the local school district will have the 
     opportunity to hire a specialist, provide a signing bonus to 
     teachers, extend after school opportunities and enhance many 
     other aspects of the small school budget. Most of all, it 
     would enable the school to provide an education consistent 
     with local needs.
       Once again, we would like to extend our grateful thanks for 
     your leadership on this issue. We urge the full Senate to 
     reauthorize and fully fund this legislation on behalf of 
     those schools who are too small to be heard.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Mary Conk,
     Legislative Analyst.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                 Educational Service Agencies,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the Association of 
     Education Service Agencies, we would like to express our 
     gratitude for your work on the Rural Education Initiative. 
     Your efforts during the 106th Congress helped rectify many of 
     the inequalities that disadvantage small school districts. By 
     increasing the flexibility of federal education programs, 
     local districts can now make better use of federal dollars. 
     This year, you have taken that effort one step further with 
     the reauthorization of the Rural Education Initiative. The 
     Collins-Conrad reauthorization proposal would complete last 
     year's goal by ensuring that small rural schools are treated 
     fairly by federal formula programs and funded at an adequate 
     level.
       Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) are intermediate units 
     that frequently provide assistance to small and rural schools 
     that do not have the administrative staff to operate some 
     education programs in-house. When a small rural school 
     district receives a tiny federal education, ESAs often 
     facilitate consortia to make better use of federal funds. 
     ESAs are the primary source of professional development and 
     technology assistance to rural schools. The members of our 
     association understand first-hand the particular needs of 
     rural districts; your proposal offers the best hope for 
     accommodating those needs and the best means for improving 
     rural education.
       Rural schoolchildren deserve to benefit from the federal 
     education programs enjoyed by urban and suburban students. We 
     thank you for your work on the Rural Education Initiative, 
     and we offer our full support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Hunter,
                                           Legislative Specialist.


[[Page 1374]]

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Rural 
Education Initiative introduced by Senator Collins. I am also pleased 
to join my other colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee in support of this bill. In a time when the 
education of our nation's youth is a priority, we need to make sure 
that all schools have the opportunity to improve and reform. This 
legislation does just that.
  The Rural Education Initiative Act will allow small rural schools to 
make better use of federal education dollars. In Kansas, 46 percent of 
our school districts have fewer than 600 students. In Utica, Kansas, in 
the Nes Tre La Go Unified School District number 301, there are 34 
elementary students and 39 high school students that make up the entire 
enrollment. Districts like these in Kansas and other rural areas face 
multiple obstacles when obtaining and utilizing federal funds.
  First, they seldom receive enough money from any single grant to make 
a lasting and measurable impact on school improvement. Grants are based 
on school enrollment and the funds doled out to these small districts 
are rarely enough. This bill would allow the merging of splintered 
federal funds so that grant money can be used effectively to meet local 
education priorities. Districts are granted the freedom to spend the 
funds as they see fit.
  Second, small rural districts do not have the manpower to apply for 
competitive grants. This bill provides a formula grant as an option 
instead of limiting districts to the lengthy and involved application 
process for ESEA competitive grant programs. Under this formula, 
districts don't have to strain their resources simply applying for 
federal funds.
  With this reform and flexibility there will be accountability. 
Districts will be required to demonstrate improved student performance 
using tests they already administer to assess student achievement.
  This bill abolishes undue obstacles rural districts face as they try 
to improve the quality of education in their own schools. I urge my 
colleagues to support this common sense legislation and allow small 
rural districts to obtain federal funds and use them to meet their own 
objectives.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my support for Senator Collins' Rural Education Improvement 
Act, a bill that would allow school districts in my state and across 
the nation to more fully benefit from the use of federal grant monies. 
In current formula-based federal grants, some of the amounts rural 
districts receive are so small the school districts can not do anything 
meaningful with them. This ``One-size-fits-all'' policy would be 
remedied under the ``Rural Education Improvement Act,'' which would 
allow several small sums to be joined and spent according to local 
needs. Like Senator Collins, I'm committed to giving parents and local 
school districts more say in how their education dollars are spent. I 
commend the Senator for her efforts in this area and am proud to 
cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 254. A bill to provide further protections for the watershed of 
the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management 
Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Little Sandy 
Watershed Protection Act.
  I promised Oregonians that one of my first legislative actions when 
the 107th Congress convened would be the introduction of this bill.
  Therefore, joined by my friends Senator Gordon Smith and Congressman 
Earl Blumenauer, I introduce this legislation to make sure that 
Portland families can go to their kitchen faucets and get a glass of 
safe and pure drinking water today, tomorrow, and on, into the 21st 
century.
  The Bull Run has been the primary source of water for Portland since 
1895. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Mount Hood National 
Forest, was protected by Congressional action in 1904, in 1977 and then 
again, most recently, in 1996 (P.L. 95-200, 16, U.S.C. 482b note) 
because it was recognized as Portland's primary municipal water supply. 
It still is.
  Today I propose to finish the job of the Oregon Resources and 
Conservation Act of 1996. That law, which I worked on with former 
Senator Mark Hatfield, finally provided full protection to the Bull Run 
watershed, but only gave temporary protection to the adjacent Little 
Sandy watershed. I promised in 1996 that I would return to finish the 
job of protecting Portland's drinking water supply, and I intend to 
continue to push this legislation until the job is completed.
  The bill I introduce today expands the Bull Run Watershed Management 
Unit boundary from approximately 95,382 acres to approximately 98,272 
acres by adding the southern portion of the Little Sandy River 
watershed, an increase of approximately 2,890 acres.
  The protection this bill offers will not only assure clean drinking 
water, but also increase the potential for fish recovery. Reclaiming 
suitable habitat for our region's threatened fish populations must be 
an all-out effort. Through the cooperation of Portland General Electric 
and the City of Portland, the Little Sandy can be an important part of 
that effort.
  The bill I introduce today is a compromise that was passed 
unanimously by the Senate during the last days of the 106th Congress. 
Unfortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives of the 106th Congress 
refused to pass this important, noncontroversial, piece of legislation 
before the final bells rang.
  My belief is that the children of the 21st century deserve water that 
is as safe and pure as any that the Oregon pioneers found in the 19th 
century. This legislation will go a long way toward bringing about that 
vision.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 254

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

     SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE LITTLE 
                   SANDY RIVER WATERSHED IN THE BULL RUN WATERSHED 
                   MANAGEMENT UNIT, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91 
     Stat. 1425) is amended by striking section 1 and inserting 
     the following:

     ``SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 
                   UNIT; DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Definition of Secretary.--In this Act, the term 
     `Secretary' means--
       ``(1) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and
       ``(2) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of 
     the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(b) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established, subject to valid 
     existing rights, a special resources management unit in the 
     State of Oregon, comprising approximately 98,272 acres, as 
     depicted on a map dated May 2000 and entitled `Bull Run 
     Watershed Management Unit'.
       ``(2) Map.--The map described in paragraph (1) shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the offices of--
       ``(A) the Regional Forester-Pacific Northwest Region of the 
     Forest Service; and
       ``(B) the Oregon State Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       ``(3) Boundary adjustments.--The Secretary may periodically 
     make such minor adjustments in the boundaries of the unit as 
     are necessary, after consulting with the city and providing 
     for appropriate public notice and hearings.''.
       (b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Secretary.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91 
     Stat. 1425) is amended by striking ``Secretary of 
     Agriculture'' each place it appears (except subsection (b) of 
     section 1, as added by subsection (a), and except in the 
     amendments made by paragraph (2)) and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (2) Applicable law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 95-200 (16 
     U.S.C. 482b note; 91 Stat. 1425) is amended by striking 
     ``applicable to National Forest System lands'' and inserting 
     ``applicable to land under the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Forest Service (in the case of land administered by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture) or applicable to land under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management 
     (in the case of land administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior)''.

[[Page 1375]]

       (B) Management plans.--The first sentence of section 2(c) 
     of Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91 Stat. 1426) is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (a) and (b)'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, through the maintenance'' and 
     inserting ``(in the case of land administered by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture) or section 202 of the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) (in the 
     case of land administered by the Secretary of the Interior), 
     through the maintenance''.

     SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Timber Cutting Restrictions.--Section 2(b) of Public 
     Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note; 91 Stat. 1426) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall prohibit the cutting of trees on Federal land in the 
     unit, as designated in section 1 and depicted on the map 
     referred to in that section.''.
       (b) Repeal of Management Exception.--The Oregon Resource 
     Conservation Act of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-208) 
     is amended by striking section 606 (110 Stat. 3009-543).
       (c) Repeal of Duplicative Enactment.--Section 1026 of 
     division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4228) and the 
     amendments made by that section are repealed.
       (d) Water Rights.--Nothing in this section strengthens, 
     diminishes, or has any other effect on water rights held by 
     any person or entity.

     SEC. 3. LAND RECLASSIFICATION.

       (a) Oregon and California Railroad Land.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall identify any Oregon and California Railroad land that 
     is subject to the distribution provision of title II of the 
     Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f), within the boundary 
     of the special resources management area described in section 
     1 of Public Law 95-200 (as amended by section 1(a)).
       (b) Public Domain Land.--
       (1) Definition of public domain land.--
       (A) In general.--In this subsection, the term ``public 
     domain land'' has the meaning given the term ``public land'' 
     in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``public domain land'' does not 
     include any land managed under the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 
     U.S.C. 1181a et seq.).
       (2) Identification.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall identify public domain land within the Medford, 
     Roseburg, Eugene, Salem, and Coos Bay Districts and the 
     Klamath Resource Area of the Lakeview District of the Bureau 
     of Land Management in the State of Oregon that--
       (A) is approximately equal in acreage and condition as the 
     land identified in subsection (a); but
       (B) is not subject to the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 
     1181a et seq.).
       (c) Maps.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register 1 or 
     more maps depicting the land identified in subsections (a) 
     and (b).
       (d) Reclassification.--After providing an opportunity for 
     public comment, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     administratively reclassify--
       (1) the land described in subsection (a), as public domain 
     land (as the term is defined in subsection (b)) that is not 
     subject to the distribution provision of title II of the Act 
     of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f); and
       (2) the land described in subsection (b), as Oregon and 
     California Railroad land that is subject to the Act of August 
     28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq.).

     SEC. 4. FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out, in 
     accordance with section 323 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1101 
     note; 112 Stat. 2681-290), watershed restoration that 
     protects or enhances water quality, or relates to the 
     recovery of endangered species or threatened species listed 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.), in Clackamas County, Oregon, $10,000,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 255. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a 
minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissection for 
the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary 
consultations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Women's 
Health and Cancer Rights Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friends, 
Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Johnson of South Dakota, as 
original cosponsors of this bill.
  This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that 
appropriate medical care determines how long a woman stays in the 
hospital after undergoing a mastectomy. This provision says that 
inpatient coverage with respect to the treatment of mastectomy--
regardless of whether the patient's plan is regulated by ERISA or State 
regulations--will be provided for a period of time as is determined by 
the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be 
medically necessary and appropriate. Second, this bill allows any 
person facing a cancer diagnosis of any type to get a second opinion on 
their course of treatment.
  A diagnosis of breast cancer is something that every woman dreads. 
But for an estimated 192,200 American women, this is the year their 
worst fears will be realized. One thousand new cases of breast cancer 
will be diagnosed among the women in Maine, and 200 women in my home 
State will die from this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine women 
will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and for women between 
the ages of 35 and 54, there is no other disease which will claim more 
lives.
  It's not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer'' 
are some of the most frightening words in the English language. For the 
woman who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No 
wonder, then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but 
also by uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do 
to me? What will I have to endure? What's the next step?
  For many woman, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or 
lumpectomy. Despite the medical and scientific advances that have been 
made, despite the advances in early detection technology that more and 
more often negate the need for radical surgery, it still remains a fact 
of life at the beginning of the 21st century these procedures can be 
the most prudent option in attacking and eradicating cancer found in a 
woman's breast.
  These are the kind of decisions that come with a breast cancer 
diagnosis. These are the kind of questions women must answer, and they 
must do so under some of the most stressful and frightening 
circumstances imaginable. The last question a woman should have to 
worry about at a time like this is whether or not their health 
insurance plan will pay for appropriate care after a mastectomy. A 
woman diagnosed with breast cancer in many ways already feels as though 
she has lost control of her life. She should not feel as though she has 
also lost control of her course of treatment.
  The evidence for the need for this bill--especially when it comes to 
so-called ``drive through mastectomies'', is more than just 
allegorical. Indeed, the facts speak for themselves--between 1986 and 
1995, the average length of stay for a mastectomy dropped from about 
six days to about 2 to 3 days. Thousands of women across the country 
are undergoing radical mastectomies on an outpatient basis and are 
being forced out of the hospital before either they or their doctor 
think it's reasonable or prudent.
  This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients, and 
all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis must be 
able to make informed decisions about appropriate and necessary medical 
care.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work 
towards passing it this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 256. A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect 
breastfeeding by new mothers; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is 
very important to working women and their families--the Pregnancy 
Discrimination Act Amendments of 2001. This bill would clarify that the 
Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects breastfeeding under civil rights 
law, requiring that a woman cannot be fired or discriminated against in 
the workplace for expressing breast milk during her own lunch time or 
break time.
  According to the U.S. Department of Labor, women with infants and 
toddlers are the fastest growing segment

[[Page 1376]]

of today's labor force. At least 50 percent of women who are employed 
when they become pregnant return to the labor force by the time their 
children are three months old. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination 
Act was enacted in 1978 and prohibits workplace discrimination on the 
basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, courts 
have not interpreted the Act to include breastfeeding.
  Some employers deny women the opportunity to express milk . . . some 
women have been discharged for requesting to express milk during lunch 
and other regular breaks . . . some women have been harassed or 
discriminated against; some women have had their pay withheld or been 
taken off of shift work for saying that they wanted to pump milk.
  On the other hand, many employers have seen positive results from 
facilitating lactation programs in the workplace, including low 
absenteeism, high productivity, improved company loyalty, high employee 
morale, and lower health care costs. Parental absenteeism due to infant 
illness is three times greater among the parents of formula-fed 
children than those that are breastfed. Worksite programs that aim to 
improve infant health may also bring about a reduction in parental 
absenteeism and health insurance costs.
  There is no doubt as to the health benefit breastfeeding brings to 
both mothers and children. Breastmilk is easily digested and 
assimilated, and contains all the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients 
they require in their first five to six months of life. Furthermore, 
important antibodies, proteins, immune cells, and growth factors that 
can only be found in breast milk. Breastmilk is the first line of 
immunization defense and enhances the effectiveness of vaccines given 
to infants.
  Research studies show that children who are not breastfed have higher 
rates of mortality, meningitis, some types of cancers, asthma and other 
respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, diarrhoeal 
diseases, ear infections, allergies, and obesity. Other research 
studies have shown that breastmilk and breastfeeding have protective 
effects against the development of a number of chronic diseases, 
including juvenile diabetes, lymphomas, Crohn's disease, celiac 
disease, some chronic liver diseases, and ulcerative colitis. A number 
of studies have shown that breastfed children have higher IQs at all 
ages.
  This is a simple bill--it simply inserts the word ``breastfeeding'' 
in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It will change the law to read 
that employment discrimination ``because of or on the basis of 
pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, or related medication 
conditions'' is not permitted.
  I believe that it is absolutely critical to support mothers in across 
the country--they are, of course, raising the very future of our 
country. And we should ensure that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act 
covers this basic fundamental part of mothering.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 257. A bill to permit individuals to continue health plan coverage 
of services while participating in approved clinical studies; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improved 
Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act. This bill builds on progress 
made in the last several years in the difficult and challenging fight 
against life-threatening diseases.
  This bill will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for 
services provided to individuals participating in clinical trials, if 
those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This bill would 
also prevent health plans from discriminating against enrollees who 
choose to participate in clinical trials.
  This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that many 
patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving 
experimental treatments, but currently do not have access to them 
because their insurance will not cover the associated costs. Second, 
without reimbursement for these services, our researchers' ability to 
conduct important research is impeded as it reduces the number of 
patients who seek to participate in clinical trials.
  According to a report published by the General Accounting Office in 
September 1999, ``given the uncertainty about [health insurance] 
approval and payment levels, patients and physicians can be discouraged 
from seeking prior approval from insurers'' and therefore, will not 
attempt to enroll in what could possibly be the patients' last hope. 
When faced with a life-threatening disease, such as cancer, it is 
absolutely paramount that individuals be given every opportunity, every 
possibly imaginable, to fight their illness. What patients should not 
be faced with is the certainty of a health insurance fight.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill which will 
help those suffering from life-threatening diseases and their families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 258. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under the Medicare program of annual screening pap 
smear and screening pelvic exams; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing 
Annual Pap Tests to Save Women's Lives Act of 2001. I am pleased to be 
joined by my friend, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, as an original 
cosponsor of this bill.
  According to the American Cancer Society cervical cancer is one of 
the most successfully treatable cancers when detected at an early 
stage. In fact, 88 percent of cervical cancer patients survive one year 
after diagnosis, and 70 percent survive five years.
  In the 52 years since use of the pap test became widespread, the 
cervical cancer mortality rate has declined by an astonishing 70 
percent. There is no question that this test is the most effective 
cancer screening tool yet developed. The Pap smear can detect 
abnormalities before they develop into cancer. Having an annual Pap 
smear is one of the most important things a woman can do to help 
prevent cervical cancer.
  Congress has recognized the incomparable contribution of the Pap 
smear in preventing cervical cancer and nine years ago directed 
Medicare to begin covering preventive Pap smears. Under this law 
Medicare beneficiaries were eligible for one test every three years, 
although a more frequent interval is allowed for women at high risk of 
developing cervical cancer. And through the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997, Congress expanded the Pap smear benefit to also include a 
screening pelvic exam once every three years. Last year as a part of 
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection 
Act, P.L. 106-544, we brought the screening down to once every other 
year.
  However, the American Cancer Society screening guidelines recommend 
that all women who are or have been sexually active or who are 18 and 
older should have an annual Pap test and pelvic examination. After 
three or more consecutive satisfactory examinations with normal 
findings, the Pap test may be performed less frequently at the 
physician's discretion. Unfortunately, Medicare guidelines do not 
reflect this recommendation.
  Women understand the usefulness and life-saving benefit of the Pap 
smear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 
that 88.3 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 44 have received 
a pap test within the preceding three years. However, this rate 
dropped, for women age 65 and over--only 72.3 percent have received a 
pap test within the preceding three years.
  The bill Senator Lincoln and I are introducing today will bring 
Medicare guidelines in line with the American Cancer recommendations, 
and it will encourage Medicare beneficiaries to utilize this screening 
benefit more regularly.
  The Pap test has contributed immeasurably to the fight against 
cervical cancer. We cannot risk erasing

[[Page 1377]]

our advancements in this fight because of an inadequate Medicare 
screening benefit.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 259. A bill to authorize funding the Department of Energy to 
enhance its mission areas through Technology Transfer and Partnerships 
for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for technology transfer. 
This bi-partisan bill which is referred to as the ``National 
Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001'' is co-sponsored by 
my colleagues Mr. Domenici and Mrs. Murray. Let me summarize this bill. 
First, I will outline the Department's commitment to science and how it 
has admirably worked to transfer its technology in light of a serious 
resource decline. I then will discuss how tech transfer naturally 
compliments the Department's mission oriented R&D. I will review the 
legislation we introduced in the last session which is a start in the 
right direction. I will conclude by proposing how this bill by 
leveraging existing efforts, should move the Department in the right 
direction to support technology transfer without disrupting its R&D 
mission focus.
  The Department of Energy is about science. For FY 2001, the 
Department's R&D budget was roughly $8 billion out of the $18.3 billion 
appropriated. Science programs account for 43 percent of the 
Department's budget. In the area of the physical sciences, DOE provides 
roughly half of all of the federal R&D. In mathematics and computer 
sciences, DOE is second after the DOD. In engineering, the DOE ranks 
third after NASA and the DOD. DOE affiliated scientists have won more 
than 71 Nobel prizes for fundamental research; they garner the largest 
number of R&D 100 awards for applied research. The Department has more 
than 60 multipurpose laboratories and primary purpose facilities across 
the U.S. in high energy physics, materials science, nuclear science and 
engineering, waste management, biosciences, robotics, advanced 
scientific computing, microelectronic and nanomaterials fabrication. 
Each year DOE labs and facilities are used by more than 18,000 
researchers from universities and industry.
  Yet with this surprising portfolio of research, the Department in FY 
2001 only line allocates $10 million for the transfer of technology. In 
1995 this allocation was over $200 million. That is not to say DOE is 
not transferring its technology. In FY 1998, which is our last set of 
good statistics from the Department of Commerce's Office of Technology 
Policy, the DOE was second only to the DOD in the number of CRADA's 
granted from its federal facilities, the DOD had 1424 and the DOE had 
868. The in-kind funds from industry to DOE for these CRADA's averages 
about $100 million while its work for others from non-federal sources 
was $145 million. In FY 1998, the DOE had 168 licenses granted to use 
its technology, the DOD had 34 and HHS had 215. In FY 1998, the DOE had 
512 patents issued on federal lab inventions while the DOD had 579, the 
next closest was HHS with 171. In FY 1998, 50 companies were 
established as a result of DOE technology transfer. To put these 
numbers in perspective, the DOD R&D budget for FY 1998 was $37.5 
billion, HHS' was $13.8 billion, while DOE's was $6.3 billion. These 
statistics are impressive because in FY 1998 the DOE had line allocated 
about 1 percent of its R&D budget to tech transfer. Today, that number 
is 0.14 percent of its R&D budget.
  Given that tech transfer is not the Department's primary mission, the 
question is what is the right mix and what is the optimal technology to 
transfer? For the NNSA, the primary mission is ensuring a safe and 
reliable nuclear stockpile. The Office of Science's primary mission is 
advancing the frontiers of basic R&D. The Office of Environmental 
Management's primary mission is cleaning up contaminated DOE sites. The 
Fossil Energy Program's mission is developing cleaner and more 
efficient fossil fuels. The list goes on. Nor do I think that tech 
transfer, given the above numbers will be the principal engine for 
direct economic growth in the tech heavy new economy. Let me explain 
this premise by examing the pattern of economic and technological 
growth in a little more detail. In the year 2000, the National Science 
Foundation estimates that total U.S. R&D was $264 billion, a 7.9 
percent increase over 1999 which itself was a 7.5 percent increase over 
1998. Technology R&D has a growth rate exceeding 15 percent in the last 
two years alone. What counts is the make up of these R&D trends. In the 
year 2000, the industry contribution to the total R&D was $179 billion, 
a 10.3 percent increase over 1999 while federal R&D grew by only 3.9 
percent. Given the investment the federal government makes in R&D, 
technology transfer from federal labs does not contribute directly to 
these amazing growth rates. In industries like telecommunications and 
chip design, the turn around cycles from research to product ranges 
from 1 to 3 years. The government is simply too slow to contribute 
directly to industrial driven short term needs that are so clearly 
evident in these national trends of R&D funding. On the other end of 
the spectrum, basic and applied R&D are areas where industry finds it 
difficult to invest given the short term equity demands on their 
profits. The right mix then is for the government to maintain basic and 
applied R&D so it can transfer this knowledge to industry over the long 
term.
  If we agree that the government best transfers long term R&D we must 
ask the next question which is how do the Department's mission focused 
R&D programs transfer technology to the private sector and how can the 
Department ensure its continued success with minimal disruption to its 
mission areas? Mission focused DOE programs like the NNSA, 
Environmental Management, Fossil Energy, Renewable Energy, Nuclear 
Energy and the Office of Science all advance the frontiers of science 
at different stages. All of these programs in carrying out their 
missions naturally perform different degrees of tech transfer. The 
Fossil Energy, Nuclear and Renewable programs work closely with 
industry and usually cannot start without an industry partner through a 
CRADA. The NNSA with their advanced computing requirements naturally 
push the state of the art in industry. CRADA's and Licenses provide to 
the NNSA a fresh influx of the outside world's advancing technology 
into their national security missions. The Office of Science with their 
wonderful user facilities and broad basic energy research mandate 
provide a fertile R&D base by which industry can stay competitive ten 
years out into the future, CRADA's smooth and shorten that transition. 
CRADA arrangements are a natural outgrowth of the DOE mission programs. 
A CRADA or License simply makes the tech transfer process smoother. So 
the issue is not how much money do we need to line item for the 
formation of a CRADA or a license--the CRADA is simply a by product of 
a organic tech transfer process in the Department's R&D programs. The 
issue is what kind of organizational structure in the DOE do we need to 
keep track of these tech transfer activities and how to insure that it 
is easily accessible for potential partnerships.
  If as I have just described that tech transfer occurs organically to 
the Department's R&D mission areas we need to ask ourselves is there an 
infrastructure that moves beyond the single contractual framework which 
a CRADA represents? Tech transfer is not so much a static contract but 
it is a multi-dimensional transactional process. In some select cases 
we should stimulate the transactional tech transfer process by regional 
technology clusters. Technology clusters will permit industry to locate 
around these wonderful pools of scientific knowledge. In turn they will 
build the R&D infrastructure surrounding the laboratory itself. We all 
too often think that the internet can solve the distance problem of 
connecting business transactions thus negating the need for regional

[[Page 1378]]

technology clusters--that's actually wrong, very wrong. Successful 
utilization of R&D technology starts because many small business are 
nearby to each other in a supportive state business climate. The 
technology clusters that form simply use the internet to exchange ideas 
and data that they generate from face-to-face collaboration on short 
notice. People to people transactions initiate business and wealth in a 
rather spontaneous event; the internet is simply a tool to make it more 
efficient. You see such natural clustering occurring in Wall Street for 
financial markets, Palo Alto for information technology, Detroit for 
automobiles and right here in Bethesda for genetics around the NIH. 
Thus, enabling the formation technology clusters rather than focusing 
on the static contractual CRADA process should be the next step in the 
evolution of federal technology transfer.
  The bill I am introducing today address the issues I have just 
outlined. It establishes a headquarters level Technology Transfer 
Coordinator as the Secretary's lead advocate for developing DOE 
technology transfer policy across its many missions. This Coordinator 
will collect and disseminate tech transfer data to Congress, the 
interagency and public. I have provided a ceiling limit of about $1 
million per year to collect this data and prepare the reports as 
required by law. I have provided additional funding for the Coordinator 
to help out the administrative tasks associated with the 
Interlaboratory Technology Partnerships Working Group. This group is 
staffed by members from the DOE laboratories and facilities with the 
purpose to deconflict and disseminate publically DOE's R&D. The 
Interlaboratory Technology Partnerships Working Group is a powerful 
grass roots organization outside the beltway. This group operates at 
the local community and laboratory level where the technology 
initiates. I have designated the Coordinator as the Secretary's lead 
federal officer for the group's oversight by reporting its activities 
to Congress and the interagency. I have authorized about $1 million a 
year to leverage the Technology Partnerships Working Group's activities 
by ensuring that it can develop the necessary web interfaces and 
databases by which the public can easily access DOE's technology. I 
have expanded the clustering bill that was introduced in the last 
Congress through the Defense Authorization Act from the NNSA 
laboratories to the entire DOE complex. This expansion will permit 
industry to benefit from the entire range of technology R&D across the 
DOE. If successful, these clusters will strengthen our experience in 
technology clusters; it will actively involve the state and local 
communities in encouraging the role that a technology infrastructure 
will have in their economic development. I have authorized $10 million 
for these clusters while requiring a 50 percent in-kind funding 
contribution from the proposed partner. The clustering partner can be a 
state, university, R&D consortia or business entity. I have given the 
Secretary discretion to stop this clustering expansion if the pilot 
effort for the NNSA labs proves unworkable. I have authorized a small-
business advocate, to support DOE wide, for what has been a lab by lab 
policy. Such a small business provision is needed to accommodate the 
unique needs for R&D collaboration of start up businesses. I have 
proposed modifying the Department of Energy Organization Act to make it 
more flexible in entering into alternative research contracts with 
entities such as R&D consortia. Finally, I have asked the Secretary to 
examine the need for a policy to move people across the lab fence to 
start up companies. This policy is balanced against the unique mission 
areas of each lab. In some cases implementing such a policy may prove 
unworkable based upon a lab's mission requirement. If such a policy 
proves unreasonable based upon a particular lab's mission, I have given 
the Secretary the discretion not to implement it. I must emphasize 
though that half of tech transfer is not just a piece of technology 
moving across the fence but the movement of people and their know-how 
to a small start up. Universities are a classic example of the movement 
of technology and people between their home institution and a small 
regional technology park. Everyone benefits from this flow in people, 
the start-up, the lab or facility with a more vibrant workforce 
surrounding it and the local economy through local high tech business 
start ups.



  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this is not another line item 
CRADA funding project, its not corporate welfare. This bill takes the 
tech transfer activities that are naturally occurring in all these 
varied science mission areas and leverages them with small amounts of 
funding--about 0.06 percent of DOE's overall budget.
  Let me summarize once more what I have just outlined is in the 
proposed bill. First, a small Technology Transfer Coordinator is 
proposed to be the Secretary's advocate across the Department for 
uniform policy development and reporting. Second, a small web based 
interface is proposed to help the public easily access and leverage the 
R&D activities at all the DOE labs and facilities. Third, I've proposed 
to help seed small technology clusters local to the labs under merit 
review and with the discretion not to proceed forward if the FY 2001 
NNSA pilot program proves unworkable. Technology clusters are the next 
evolutionary stage past a static CRADA. Fourth, I've asked the 
Secretary to implement, where its feasible, a policy where by 
laboratory personnel can move with the technology to start up a company 
outside the fence. Fifth, I asked the Secretary to ensure where its 
reasonable a uniform policy to help small businesses with their unique 
needs access DOE technology. Like most government programs that come 
under close scrutiny by Congress, their intent is worthy but the 
program's size oscillates greatly over time. The pendulum for tech 
transfer at the DOE is one such program. This program has swung from a 
$200 million program in the mid 1990's to essentially zero funding in 
FY 2001 with a minimal headquarter's office to help policy development 
across its diverse mission areas. This bill establishes what I feel is 
the right level of tech transfer in a R&D organization by leveraging 
the existing industrial collaboration that naturally occurs in carrying 
out their missions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 259

       Be in 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 Laboratories 
     Partnership Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
       (2) the term ``departmental mission'' means any of the 
     functions vested in the Secretary of Energy by the Department 
     of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) or other 
     law;
       (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
       (4) the term ``National Laboratory'' means any of the 
     following multi-purpose laboratories owned by the Department 
     of Energy--
       (A) Argonne National Laboratory;
       (B) Brookhaven National Laboratory;
       (C) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
     Laboratory;
       (D) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
       (E) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
       (F) Los Alamos National Laboratory;
       (G) National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
       (H) Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
       (I) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; or
       (J) Sandia National Laboratory;
       (5) the term ``facility'' means any of the following 
     primarily single purpose entities owned by the Department of 
     Energy--
       (A) Ames Laboratory;
       (B) East Tennessee Technology Park;
       (C) Environmental Measurement Laboratory;
       (D) Fernald Environmental Management Project;
       (E) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;

[[Page 1379]]

       (F) Kansas City Plant;
       (G) National Energy Technology Laboratory;
       (H) Nevada Test Site;
       (I) New Brunswick Laboratory;
       (J) Pantex Weapons Facility;
       (K) Princeton Plasma Physical Laboratory;
       (L) Savannah River Technology Center;
       (M) Standard Linear Accelerator Center;
       (N) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility;
       (O) Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; or
       (P) other similar organization of the Department designated 
     by the Secretary that engages in technology transfer, 
     partnering, or licensing activities;
       (6) the term ``nonprofit institution'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703(5));
       (7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
       (8) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632);
       (9) the term ``technology-related business concern'' means 
     a for-profit corporation, company, association, firm, 
     partnership, or small business concern that--
       (A) conducts scientific or engineering research,
       (B) develops new technologies,
       (C) manufacturers products based on new technologies, or
       (D) performs technological services;
       (10) the term ``technology cluster'' means a concentration 
     of--
       (A) technology-related business concerns;
       (B) institutions of higher education; or
       (C) other nonprofit institutions,

     that reinforce each other's performance in the areas of 
     technology development through formal or informal 
     relationships;
       (11) the term ``socially and economically disadvantaged 
     small business concerns'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(4)); and
       (12) the term ``NNSA'' means the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration established by title XXXII of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 
     106-65).
       (13) the term Technology Partnerships Working Group refers 
     to the organization of technology transfer representatives of 
     DOE laboratories and facilities, the purpose of which is to 
     coordinate technology transfer activities occurring at DOE 
     laboratories and facilities, exchange information about 
     technology transfer practices, and develop and disseminate to 
     the public and prospective technology partners information 
     about DOE technology transfer opportunities and procedures.

     SEC. 3. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, through the appropriate 
     officials of the Department, shall establish a Technology 
     Infrastructure Program in accordance with this section.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to 
     improve the ability of National Laboratories or facilities to 
     support departmental missions by--
       (1) stimulating the development of technology clusters that 
     can support the missions of the National Laboratories or 
     facilities;
       (2) improving the ability of National Laboratories or 
     facilities to leverage and benefit from commercial research, 
     technology, products, processes, and services; and
       (3) encouraging the exchange of scientific and 
     technological expertise between National Laboratories or 
     facilities and--
       (A) institutions of higher education,
       (B) technology-related business concerns,
       (C) nonprofit institutions, and
       (D) agencies of State, tribal, or local governments,

     that can support the mission of the National Laboratories and 
     facilities.
       (c) Program.--In each of the first three fiscal years after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary may 
     provide no more than $10,000,000 to National Laboratories or 
     Facilities designated by the Secretary to conduct Technology 
     Infrastructure Program Programs.
       (d) Projects.--The Secretary shall authorize the Director 
     of each National Laboratory or facility designated under 
     subsection (c) to implement the Technology Infrastructure 
     Program at such National Laboratory or facility through 
     projects that meet the requirements of subsections (e) and 
     (f).
       (e) Program Requirements.--Each project funded under this 
     section shall meet the following requirements:
       (1) Minimum participants.--Each project shall at a minimum 
     include--
       (A) a National Laboratory or facility; and
       (B) one of the following entities--
       (i) a business,
       (ii) an institution of higher education,
       (iii) a nonprofit institution, or
       (iv) an agency of a State, local, or tribal government.
       (2) Cost sharing.--
       (A) Minimum amount.--Not less than 50 percent of the costs 
     of each project funded under this section be provided from 
     non-Federal sources.
       (B) Qualified funding and resources.--
       (i) The calculation of costs paid by the non-Federal 
     sources to a project shall include cash, personnel, services, 
     equipment, and other resources expended on the project.
       (ii) Independent research and development expenses of 
     government contractors that qualify for reimbursement under 
     section 31-205-18(e) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations 
     issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) may be credited 
     towards costs paid by non-Federal sources to a project, if 
     the expenses meet the other requirements of this section.
       (iii) No funds or other resources expended either before 
     the start of a project under this section or outside the 
     project's scope of work shall be credited toward the costs 
     paid by the non-Federal sources to the project.
       (3) Competitive selection.--All projects where a party 
     other than the Department or a National Laboratory or 
     facility receives funding under this section shall, to the 
     extent practicable, be competitively selected by the National 
     Laboratory or facility using procedures determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary or his designee.
       (4) Accounting standards.--Any participant receiving 
     funding under this section, other than a National Laboratory 
     or facility, may use generally accepted accounting principles 
     for maintaining accounts, books, and records relating to the 
     project.
       (5) Limitations.--No federal funds shall be made available 
     under this section for--
       (A) construction; or
       (B) any project for more than five years.
       (f) Selection Criteria.--
       (1) Threshold funding criteria.--The Secretary shall 
     authorize the provision of Federal funds for under this 
     section only when the Director of the National Laboratory or 
     facility managing such a project determines that the project 
     is likely to improve the participating National Laboratory or 
     facility's ability to achieve technical success in meeting 
     departmental missions.
       (2) Additional criteria.--The Secretary shall also require 
     the Director of the National Laboratory or facility managing 
     a project under this section to consider the following 
     criteria in selecting a project to receive Federal funds--
       (A) the potential of the project to succeed, based on its 
     technical merit, team members, management approach, 
     resources, and project plan;
       (B) the potential of the project to promote the development 
     of a commercially sustainable technology cluster, one that 
     will derive most of the demand for its products or services 
     from the private sector, that can support the missions of the 
     participating National Laboratory or facility;
       (C) the potential of the project to promote the use of 
     commercial research, technology, products, processes, and 
     services by the participating National Laboratory or facility 
     to achieve its departmental mission or the commercial 
     development of technological innovations made at the 
     participating National Laboratory or facility;
       (D) the commitment shown by non-Federal organizations to 
     the project, based primarily on the nature and amount of the 
     financial and other resources they will risk on the project;
       (E) the extent to which the project involves a wide variety 
     and number of institutions of higher education, nonprofit 
     institutions, and technology-related business concerns that 
     can support the missions of the participating National 
     Laboratory or facility and that will make substantive 
     contributions to achieving the goals of the project;
       (F) the extent of participation in the project by agencies 
     of State, tribal, or local governments that will make 
     substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the 
     project; and
       (G) the extent to which the project focuses on promoting 
     the development of technology-related business concerns that 
     are small business concerns or involves such small business 
     concerns substantively in the project.
       (3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall limit 
     the Secretary from requiring the consideration of other 
     criteria, as appropriate, in determining whether projects 
     should be funded under this section.
       (g) Report to Congress on Full Implementation.--Not later 
     than 120 days after the start of the third fiscal year after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     report to Congress on whether the Technology Infrastructure 
     Program should be continued and, if so, how the fully 
     implemented program should be managed.

     SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Advocacy Function.--The Secretary shall direct the 
     Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the 
     Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, to establish a small business advocacy function 
     that is organizationally independent of the procurement 
     function at the National Laboratory or facility. The person 
     or office vested with the small business advocacy function 
     shall--
       (1) work to increase the participation of small business 
     concerns, including socially and economically disadvantaged 
     small business concerns, in procurement, collaborative

[[Page 1380]]

     research, technology licensing, and technology transfer 
     activities conducted by the National Laboratory or facility;
       (2) report to the Director of the National Laboratory or 
     facility on the actual participation of small business 
     concerns in procurement and collaborative research along with 
     recommendations, if appropriate, on how to improve 
     participation;
       (3) make available to small business concerns training, 
     mentoring, and clear, up-to-date information on how to 
     participate in the procurement and collaborative research, 
     including how to submit effective proposals;
       (4) increase the awareness inside the National Laboratory 
     or facility of the capabilities and opportunities presented 
     by small business concerns; and
       (5) establish guidelines for the program under subsection 
     (b) and report the effectiveness of such program to the 
     Director of the National Laboratory or facility.
       (b) Establishment of Small Business Assistance Program.--
     The Secretary shall direct the Director of each National 
     Laboratory, and may direct the Director of each facility the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate, to establish a 
     program to provide small business concerns--
       (1) assistance directed at making them more effective and 
     efficient subcontractors or suppliers to the National 
     Laboratory or facility; or
       (2) general technical assistance, the cost of which shall 
     not exceed $10,000 per instance of assistance, to improve the 
     small business concern's products or services.
       (c) Use of Funds.--None of the funds expended under 
     subsection (b) may be used for direct grants to the small 
     business concerns.

     SEC. 5. POLICY CONTINUITY FOR PARTNERSHIPS, AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   TRANSFER.

       (a) The Secretary shall establish within the Office of 
     Policy, in conjunction with that Office's responsibilities as 
     executive secretariat to the Department's Research and 
     Development Council, a Technology Transfer Coordinator to 
     perform oversight of and policy development for technology 
     transfer activities at the Department of Energy.
       (1) The Secretary through Technology Transfer Coordinator, 
     shall to the extent feasible, insure that the recommendations 
     from the Report as generated by the Secretary of Energy 
     Advisory Board in Sec. 3163 of the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001'' are coordinated and 
     carried Department-wide to non-NNSA laboratories and 
     facilities consistent with the statutory authority of the 
     Administrator of the NNSA.
       (2) No funds under Section 3(c) for partnerships shall be 
     allocated under this Act until the Secretary through the 
     Technology Transfer Coordinator has submitted to Congress an 
     implementation plan that adequately addresses concerns 
     outlined by the Administrator of NNSA of the Technology 
     Infrastructure Pilot Program of collaborative projects as 
     outlined in Section 3161(b) of the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001''. The Secretary shall 
     retain the discretion to not implement the partnership 
     program defined by Section 3 if the implementation concerns 
     cannot be reasonably addressed.
       (3) The Technology Transfer Coordinator shall prepare a 
     report to Congress for each fiscal year of funding under this 
     Act outlining accomplishments, anticipated shortfalls, 
     proposed remedies and expenditure of funds related to DOE 
     Technology Transfer. The report should address the 
     integration of the Department's Technology Transfer efforts 
     within the overall scope of Technology Transfer Policies 
     within the U.S. Government.
       (4) The Technology Transfer Coordinator shall be designated 
     by the Secretary as the Senior Departmental Official 
     responsible for liaison with, and the oversight of funds 
     authorized in section 5(c) the Technology Partnerships 
     Working Group. The Coordinator shall report on the Group's 
     activities and budget in subsection (3).
       (b) Authorization.--The following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Energy, to carry out the 
     duties of the Technology Transfer Coordinator and staff, to 
     remain available until expended, for the purposes of carrying 
     out this Act:
       (1) $2,500,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
       (1) $2,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
       (1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
       (1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
       (1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
       (c) Policy Development.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (b) the following sums are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out DOE Technology 
     Transfer Policy Development and Reporting:
       (1) $1,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
       (2) $1,100,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
       (3) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
       (4) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
       (5) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
       (d) Technology Partnerships Working Group.--Of the funds 
     under subsection (b), the following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out administrative tasks DOE Technology 
     Partnerships Working Group:
       (1) $1,400,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
       (2) $1,500,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
       (3) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
       (4) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
       (5) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2006

     SEC. 6. OTHER TRANSACTIONS AUTHORITY.

       (a) New Authority.--Section 646 of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7256) is amended adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Other Transactions Authority.--(1) In addition to 
     other authorities granted to the Secretary to enter into 
     procurement contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, 
     grants, and other similar arrangements, the Secretary may 
     enter into other transactions with public agencies, private 
     organizations, or persons on such terms as the Secretary may 
     deem appropriate in furtherance of basic, applied, and 
     advanced research functions now or hereafter vested in the 
     Secretary. Such other transactions shall not be subject to 
     the provisions of section 9 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy 
     Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5908).
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that--
       ``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, no transaction 
     entered into under paragraph (1) provides for research that 
     duplicates research being conducted under existing programs 
     carried out by the Department of Energy; and
       ``(ii) to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a 
     transaction authorized by paragraph (1) do not exceed the 
     total amount provided by other parties to the transaction.
       ``(B) A transaction authorized by paragraph (1) may be used 
     for a research project when the use of a standard contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not 
     feasible or appropriate.
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary shall not disclose any trade secret 
     or commercial or financial information submitted by a non-
     Federal entity under paragraph (1) that is privileged and 
     confidential.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall not disclose, for five years 
     after the date the information is received, any other 
     information submitted by a non-Federal entity under paragraph 
     (1), including any proposal, proposal abstract, document 
     supporting a proposal, business plan, or technical 
     information that is privileged and confidential.
       ``(C) The Secretary may protect from disclosure, for up to 
     five years, any information developed pursuant to a 
     transaction under paragraph (1) that would be protected from 
     disclosure under section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States 
     Code, if obtained from a person other than a Federal 
     agency.''.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than six months after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Department shall 
     establish guidelines for the use of other transactions. Other 
     transactions shall be made available, if needed, in order to 
     implement projects funded under section 3.

     SEC. 7. MOBILITY OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

       (a) General Policy.--Not later than two years after the 
     enactment of this Act, based upon the report generated under 
     Section 3161(a)(2) of the ``National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2001'', the Secretary through the 
     Technology Transfer Coordinator shall determine whether it is 
     reasonable to ensure whether each contractor operating a 
     National Laboratory or facility has policies and procedures 
     that do not create disincentives to the transfer of 
     scientific, technical and business personnel among the 
     contractor-operated National Laboratory or facilities. This 
     determination may be made on an individual laboratory or 
     facility basis due to their varied missions.

     SEC. 8. CONFORMANCE WITH NNSA STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

       All actions taken by the Secretary in carrying out this Act 
     with respect to National Laboratories and facilities that are 
     part of the NNSA shall be through the Administrator for 
     Nuclear Security in accordance with the requirements of title 
     XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 261. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, 
with respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased 
involvement of advocates in decisionmaking at the National Cancer 
Institute; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill which 
builds on progress made in the last few years in the difficult and 
challenging fight against breast cancer.
  Our challenge was summed up by one breast cancer advocate when she 
stated, simply and eloquently, ``We must make our voices heard, because 
it is our lives.''
  A diagnosis of breast cancer is something that every woman dreads. 
Over 192,000 American women, and 1,000 in my home state of Maine--will 
face a diagnosis of breast cancer this year. Over 40,000 women across 
the country will die from this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine 
women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and for women 
between the ages of 35 and

[[Page 1381]]

54, there is no other disease which will claim more lives.
  This bill will give breast cancer advocates a voice in the National 
Institutes of Health's, NIH's research decision-making. The Consumer 
Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act urges NIH to follow the 
Department Of Defense's lead and include lay breast cancer advocates in 
breast cancer research decision-making.
  The involvement of these breast cancer advocates at DOD has helped 
foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and 
research projects. While maintaining the higher level of quality 
assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to 
ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and 
wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease, as well as 
the scientific community.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 262. A bill to provide for teaching excellence in America's 
classrooms and homerooms; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, this nation was rocked by the 
publication, in 1983, of the landmark report, A Nation at Risk. The 
findings were devastating: Our educational system was being ``eroded by 
a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our future as a nation and a 
people.'' That report went on to say that if ``an unfriendly foreign 
power'' had tried to impose on America our ``mediocre educational 
performance,'' we might well have viewed it ``as an act of war.''
  A Nation at Risk sounded a wake-up call to our educators, parents, 
businesses, community leaders and officials at all levels of 
government. Since its publication in 1983, a number of states have 
strengthened their commitment to educational improvements. Many 
tightened high school graduation requirements. They pushed for more 
achievement testing for students and higher standards for teachers.
  As a result of these efforts, we have seen improvement. Our dropout 
rate is down, and student achievement is up. Performance on the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, has increased, 
particularly in the key subjects of reading, math, and science. Yet 
still, in America, 2,800 high school students drop out every single 
day. Each school year, more than 45,000 under-prepared teachers, 
teachers who have not even been trained in the subjects they are 
teaching, enter the classroom. Clearly, this is not acceptable.
  The positive news is that eighteen years after A Nation at Risk, 
there is widespread agreement that the improvement of our educational 
system must be a priority and hope that there will be consensus on 
education reform. Key to the success of any effective education reform 
initiative is the issue of teacher quality. What teachers know and can 
do are the single most important influences on what students learn, 
according to the National Commission for Teaching and America's Future 
Teachers.
  Three years after A Nation at Risk, the Carnegie Task Force on 
Teaching as a Profession issued a seminal report, A Nation Prepared: 
Teachers for the 21st Century. Its leading recommendation called for 
the establishment of a National Board for Professional Teaching 
Standards. Founded in 1987, the National Board for Professional 
Teaching Standards is an independent, non-profit, and non-partisan 
organization whose mission is to establish high and rigorous standards 
for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do.
  To date, over 9,500 teachers from all 50 states and the District of 
Columbia have completed advanced certification by the National Board 
for Professional Teaching Standards--the most rigorous assessment 
process that a teacher can go through and the highest professional 
credential in the field of teaching. And more than 12,000 teachers have 
applied for National Board Certification in the 2000-2001 school year. 
Recognizing the value of qualified teachers in the classroom, 39 states 
and 181 local school districts have enacted financial incentives for 
teachers seeking National Board Certification, including fee support to 
candidates and salary increases for teachers who successfully complete 
the certification process.
  Georgia, for example, provides a 10 percent salary increase to 
teachers who achieve National Board Certification as well as full 
reimbursement of the $2300 fee upon certification. The State of 
Louisiana provides an annual salary adjustment of $5,000 for its 
National Board Certified Teachers, NBCTs, and in addition, the State 
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has allocated a $300,000 
supplement over a three-year period to provide fee support for National 
Board Certification. North Carolina, which has over 2,400 National 
Board Certified Teachers, has a particularly strong support program. 
Among its incentives, the State pays the fee for up to 1,500 teachers 
who complete the National Board Certification process; offers up to 
three days of release time for candidates to work on their portfolios 
and prepare for the assessment center exercises; and provides a 12 
percent salary increase for those who achieve National Board 
Certification. Florida, with 1,267 National Board Certified Teachers, 
has passed legislation appropriating $12 million to pay 90 percent of 
its candidates' certification fee. In addition, the State provides a 10 
percent salary increase for the life of the certificate and an 
additional 10 percent bonus to those who mentor newly hired teachers or 
serve as support mentors for advanced certification candidates. Florida 
also provides $150 to candidates to offset National Board Certification 
expenses.
  The incentives offered by Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Florida 
and the remaining 35 states clearly demonstrate that state leaders 
recognize and understand the value and contribution of National Board 
Certification to their own efforts to enhance quality teaching and 
improve school performance. In an effort to assist states' efforts and 
to encourage participation, the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act 
authorized federal assistance to the National Board for Professional 
Teaching Standards. To date, the Board has provided over $18 million to 
the states according to a formula based on teacher population. In FY 
2000, $2.5 million was appropriated to help states and local school 
districts subsidize the certification fee for National Board Certified 
candidates.
  In each and every year since funding was authorized, candidate demand 
has outpaced the money available. Therefore in an effort to encourage 
and promote teacher quality in the classroom, I am joined today by my 
colleague, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Teaching Excellence in 
America's Classrooms and Homerooms (TEACH) Act. According to a new 
study by the National Education Association, teacher salaries have 
remained stagnant over the past decade, and two-thirds of the states do 
not meet the national average of $40,582 for teacher salaries. 
Therefore to help teachers pay the $2300 certification fee, our bill 
would double the candidate subsidy funding, from the current $2.5 
million to $5 million. Further, our legislation would provide an 
additional $1 million for outreach and educational activities to 
heighten teachers' awareness of the National Board Certification 
process, with a priority given to teachers in school districts serving 
special populations, including limited English proficient children, 
children with disabilities, and economically and educationally 
disadvantaged children.
  Teachers who successfully complete the arduous requirements for 
National Board Certification should not be penalized. Therefore, our 
legislation would provide that any financial benefit, such as a bonus, 
which a teacher receives solely as a result of achieving National Board 
Certification would be tax-free. And teachers who pay out of pocket 
expenses for advanced certification, such as fees, travel, and 
supplies, should be reimbursed for these costs. The Teaching Excellence 
in America's Classrooms and Homerooms would allow candidates to take an 
above-the-line deduction for their certification expenses. This will 
allow

[[Page 1382]]

these teachers who do not itemize their deductions to still be able to 
benefit from tax-favored treatment for their National Board 
Certification.
  A study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at 
Greensboro has recently concluded that teachers who are certified by 
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards significantly 
outperform their peers who are not National Board Certified on 11 of 13 
key measures of teaching expertise, including an extensive knowledge of 
subject matter, the capacity to create optimal environments for 
learning, and the ability to inspire students and to promote in them 
problem-solving skills. The Accomplished Teaching Validation Study, 
released in October, was originally designed as a means to seek 
independent validation for the National Board's assessment process, and 
it is based on criteria which two decades of research have deemed to be 
the measures of effective teaching. Among its conclusions, the study 
found that nearly three-quarters of the National Board Certified 
Teachers produced students whose work reflected deep understanding of 
the subject being studied compared with less than one-quarter of non-
certified teachers. The Greensboro study is believed by some education 
leaders to be the first step in compiling research that will shed 
important light on the connection between accomplished teaching and 
student learning.
  Christa McAuliffe, selected to be the first schoolteacher to travel 
in space, described simply but poetically the awesome potential of her 
vocation: ``I touch the future,'' she said. ``I teach.'' If we are to 
improve student achievement and success in school, the United States 
must encourage and support the training and development of our nation's 
teachers, the single most important in-school influence on student 
learning. Investing in teacher quality is a direct investment in 
quality education--and as Benjamin Franklin said, ``on education all 
our lives depend.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter of 
support from the National Education Association be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 262

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

            TITLE I--NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 101. NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION ASSISTANCE.

       Part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6621 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2104. NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     `Teaching Excellence in America's Classrooms and Homerooms 
     Act' (TEACH).
       ``(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Accomplished teachers are an essential resource for 
     schools and key to the success of any effective education 
     reform initiative. What teachers know and can do are the most 
     important influences on what students learn, according to 
     national studies.
       ``(2) Three years after the landmark 1983 report, `A Nation 
     at Risk', the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession 
     issued a seminal report entitled `A Nation Prepared: Teachers 
     for the 21st Century'. Its leading recommendation called for 
     the establishment of a National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards. Founded in 1987, the National Board for 
     Professional Teaching Standards is an independent, nonprofit 
     and nonpartisan organization whose mission is to establish 
     high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers 
     should know and be able to do.
       ``(3) Over 9,500 teachers from all 50 States and the 
     District of Columbia have completed advanced certification by 
     the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which 
     certification is the most rigorous assessment process that a 
     teacher can go through and the highest professional 
     credential in the field of teaching. And more than 12,000 
     teachers have applied for National Board Certification in the 
     2000-2001 school year.
       ``(4) Teacher salaries have remained stagnant over the past 
     decade, according to a new study by the National Education 
     Association, and \2/3\ of the States do not meet the national 
     average of $40,582 for teacher salaries.
       ``(5) The full fee for National Board Certification is 
     $2,300. Thirty-nine States and 181 local school districts 
     have enacted financial incentives for teachers seeking 
     National Board Certification, including fee support to 
     candidates and salary increases for teachers who achieve 
     National Board Certification.
       ``(6) Recent data from the Accomplished Teaching Validation 
     Study have demonstrated that teachers who are certified by 
     the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 
     significantly outperform their peers who are not National 
     Board Certified on 11 of 13 key measures of teaching 
     expertise.
       ``(7) If we are to improve student achievement and success 
     in school, the United States must encourage and support the 
     training and development of our Nation's teachers, who are 
     the single, most important in-school influence on student 
     learning.
       ``(c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide a 
     Federal subsidy and support to certain elementary school and 
     secondary school teachers who pursue advanced certification 
     provided by the National Board for Professional Teaching 
     Standards.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Board.--The term `Board' means the National Board for 
     Professional Teaching Standards.
       ``(2) Eligible teacher.--The term `eligible teacher' means 
     an individual who is a prekindergarten or early childhood 
     educator, or a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom 
     teacher, instructor, counselor, or principal in an elementary 
     school or secondary school on a full-time basis.
       ``(e) Program Authorization.--
       ``(1) Program authorized.--From sums appropriated pursuant 
     to the authority of subsection (g) for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary, in accordance with this section, shall provide 
     financial assistance to the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards, in order to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs of the authorized activities described in subsection 
     (f).
       ``(f) Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Federal funds received under this 
     section may be used only for the following activities:
       ``(A) To help States and local school districts provide fee 
     support to teachers seeking National Board Certification.
       ``(B) For outreach and educational activities directly 
     related to teachers' awareness and pursuit of National Board 
     Certification.
       ``(2) Priorities.--The Board shall give priority to 
     providing outreach and educational activities under paragraph 
     (1)(B) among the following:
       ``(A) School districts in which there are a significant 
     number of low-performing schools.
       ``(B) School districts with low teacher participation rates 
     in the National Board Certification process.
       ``(C) School districts serving special populations, 
     including--
       ``(i) limited English proficient children;
       ``(ii) gifted and talented children;
       ``(iii) children with disabilities; and
       ``(iv) economically and educationally disadvantaged 
     children.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations; Allocation.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     available--
       ``(A) 85 percent of such amounts to carry out subsection 
     (f)(1)(A); and
       ``(B) 15 percent of such amounts to carry out subsection 
     (f)(1)(B).''.

          TITLE II--TAX INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATIONS

     SEC. 201. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY CERTIFIED 
                   TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     redesignating section 139 as section 140 and inserting after 
     section 138 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139. CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY CERTIFIED TEACHERS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible teacher, 
     gross income shall not include the value of any eligible 
     financial benefit received during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Eligible teacher.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `eligible teacher' means an 
     individual who is a pre-kindergarten or early childhood 
     educator, or a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom 
     teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal in an 
     elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis for an 
     academic year ending during a taxable year.
       ``(2) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms 
     `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the 
     respective meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(c) Eligible Financial Benefit.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible financial benefit' means any 
     financial benefit, including incentive payment, received 
     solely by reason of the successful completion by

[[Page 1383]]

     the eligible teacher of the requirements for advanced 
     certification provided by the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards. Such completion shall be verified in such 
     manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.
       ``(d) Amounts Must be Reasonable.--Amounts excluded under 
     subsection (a) shall include only amounts which are 
     reasonable.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3401(a)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``117 or 132'' and inserting 
     ``117, 132, or 139''.
       (2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 139 and inserting the following new 
     items:

``Sec. 139. Certain amounts received by certified teachers.
``Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 202. 2-PERCENT FLOOR ON MISCELLANEOUS ITEMIZED 
                   DEDUCTIONS NOT TO APPLY TO QUALIFIED ADVANCED 
                   CERTIFICATION EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND 
                   SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 67(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining miscellaneous itemized deductions) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(13) any deduction allowable for the qualified advanced 
     certification expenses paid or incurred by an eligible 
     teacher (as defined in section 139(b)).''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 67 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to 2-percent floor on miscellaneous 
     itemized deductions) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) Qualified Advanced Certification Expenses of Eligible 
     Teachers.--For purposes of subsection (b)(13), the term 
     `qualified advanced certification expenses' means expenses--
       ``(1) for fees, supplies, equipment, transportation, and 
     lodging required to secure the advanced certification 
     provided by the National Board for Professional Teaching 
     Standards, and
       ``(2) with respect to which a deduction is allowable under 
     section 162 (determined without regard to this section).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                 Washington, DC, February 5, 2001.
     Senator Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we would like to 
     express our support for the Teaching Excellence in America's 
     Classrooms and Homerooms (TEACH) Act. We believe this 
     legislation will make a critical difference in allowing 
     teachers to pursue National Board Certification and, thereby, 
     ensuring the highest quality teachers in our nation's 
     classrooms.
       As you know, no single factor will have a greater impact on 
     improving student achievement than the quality of our 
     nation's teaching force. National Board Certification offers 
     the highest credential in the teaching profession, taking 
     teachers through a rigorous assessment and evaluation 
     process. An October 2000 study found that Board Certified 
     teachers significantly outperformed their peers on 11 of 13 
     measures of teaching expertise. In addition, the study found 
     that 74 percent of work samples from students of Certified 
     teachers reflected ``high levels of comprehension,'' compared 
     with 29 percent of students whose teachers did not have 
     national certification.
       Unfortunately, the high cost prohibits many teachers from 
     seeking Board Certification. By providing funding to states 
     and local districts to help teachers pay Board Certification 
     fees, your legislation will enable more teachers to 
     participate in this important process. In addition, the 
     resourses provided for outreach will help bring information 
     about Board Certification to many more teachers.
       We thank you for your leadership in introducing the TEACH 
     Act and look forward to working with you in support of our 
     nation's teachers.
           Sincerley,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
                                 Director of Government Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 263. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to ensure that 
coverage of bone mass measurements is provided under the health 
benefits program for Federal employees; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  S. 264. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand coverage of bone mass measurements under part B of the medicare 
program to all individuals at clinical risk for osteoporosis; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which 
build on progress made in the last few years in the difficult and 
challenging fight against osteoporosis. I am pleased to be joined by my 
friend, Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, as an original cosponsor of 
these bills.
  Osteoporosis is a major public health problem affecting 28 million 
Americans, who either have the disease or are at risk due to low bone 
mass. Osteoporosis causes 1.5 million fractures annually at a cost of 
$13.8 billion--$38 million per day--in direct medical expenses. In 
their lifetime, one in two women and one in eight men over the age of 
50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Amazingly, a woman's risk 
of a hip fracture is equal to her combined risk of contracting breast, 
uterine, and ovarian cancer.
  Osteoporosis is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could 
be avoided if low bone mass were detected early and treated. Though we 
now have drugs that promise to reduce fractures by 50 percent and new 
drugs have been proven to actually rebuild bone mass, a bone mass 
measurement is needed to diagnose osteoporosis and determine one's risk 
for future fractures.
  And we have learned that there are some prominent risk factors: age, 
gender, race, a family history of bone fractures, early menopause, 
risky health behaviors such as smoking and excessive alcohol 
consumption, and some medications all have been identified as 
contributing factors to bone loss. But identification of risk factors 
alone cannot predict how much bone a person has and how strong bone is.
  Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act 3\1/2\ years ago. In doing 
so, we dramatically expanded coverage of osteoporosis screening through 
bone mass measurements for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Since we passed this law, we have learned that under the current 
Medicare law, it is very difficult for a man to be reimbursed for a 
bone mass measurement test. Each year, men suffer one-third of all the 
hip fractures that occur, and one-third of these men will not survive 
more than one year. In addition to hip fracture, men also experience 
painful and debilitating fractures of the spine, wrist, and other bones 
due to osteoporosis.
  The first bill we are introducing today, the Medicare Osteoporosis 
Measurement Act, would help all individuals enrolled in Medicare to 
receive the necessary tests if they are at risk for osteoporosis.
  Currently, Medicare guidelines allow for testing in five categories 
of individuals--and most ``at risk'' men do not fall into any of them. 
The first category in the guidelines is for ``an estrogen-deficient 
woman at clinical risk for osteoporosis.'' The Medicare Osteoporosis 
Measurement Act changes this guideline to say that ``an individual, 
including an estrogen-deficient woman, at clinical risk for 
osteoporosis'' will be eligible for bone mass measurement. This 
change--of just a few words--will vastly increase the opportunities for 
men to be covered for the important test.
  The second bill Senator Torricelli and I are introducing today is 
similar to the Medicare bone mass measurement benefit. The Osteoporosis 
Federal Employee Health Benefits Standardization Act guarantees the 
same uniformity of coverage to Federal employees and retirees as 
Congress provided to Medicare beneficiaries in 1997.
  Unfortunately, coverage of bone density tests under the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Program, FEHBP, is inconsistent. Instead of a 
comprehensive national coverage policy, FEHBP leaves it to each of the 
almost 300 participating plans to decide who is eligible to receive a 
bone mass measurement and what constitutes medical necessity. Many 
plans have no specific rules to guide reimbursement and cover the tests 
on a case-by-case basis. Some plans refuse to provide consumers with 
information indicating when the plan covers the test and when it does 
not and some plans cover the test only for people who already have 
osteoporosis.

[[Page 1384]]

  Mr. President, we know that osteoporosis is highly preventable, but 
only if it is discovered in time. There is simply no substitute for 
early detection. These bills will ensure that all Medicare 
beneficiaries at risk for osteoporosis will be able to be tested for 
this disease, and will standardize coverage for bone mass measurement 
under the FEHBP.
  I hope that our colleagues will join Senator Torricelli and me in 
supporting these bills.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Kohl, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 265. A bill to prohibit the use of, and provide for remediation of 
water contaminated by, methyl tertiary butyl ether; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``MTBE 
Elimination Act of 2001.'' I thank my colleagues--Senators Bayh, 
Brownback, Kohl, and Durbin for joining me as original co-sponsors of 
this important legislation. I have become deeply concerned by the use 
and ultimate misuse of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl 
ether, MTBE, a nonrenewable fuel derivative, and its potential adverse 
health effects on those who come in contact with it. As my colleagues 
may remember, I introduced the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2000'' last 
Congress, but no action was taken in the 106th Congress to eliminate 
the use of this potentially hazardous chemical additive.
  Specifically, the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2001'' will phase out 
MTBE use across the United States over the next three years, ensure 
proper labeling of all fuel dispensaries containing MTBE enriched 
reformulated gasoline, provide grant awards for MTBE research, and 
express the sense of the Senate that the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency should provide assistance to 
municipalities to test for MTBE in drinking water sources, as well as 
provide remediation where appropriate. This bill represents an 
important first step toward nationwide safe and healthy drinking water.
  Despite the potential damaging effects of MTBE, research of this 
chemical is still in its preliminary stages. In February of 1996, the 
Health Effects Institute reported that MTBE could be classified as a 
neurotoxicant for its acute impairment effects on humans. Further, the 
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Centers for 
Disease Control from December 1992 through February 1993 monitored 
concentrations of MTBE in the air and in the blood of humans. These 
studies showed that people with a higher concentration of MTBE in their 
bloodstream have a much greater tendency toward headaches, eye 
irritation, nausea, disorientation, and vomiting. Finally, the January 
16, 2000 broadcast of the ``60 Minutes'' show noted, ``the EPA's 
position is that MTBE is a possible human carcinogen.'' Mr. President, 
we must remove this kind of chemical from our Nation's drinking water 
supply.
  Widespread pollution of water systems by MTBE has been perpetuated by 
a lack of knowledge, as well as indifference, to this potentially 
hazardous substance. MTBE does not readily attach to soil particles, 
nor does it naturally biodegrade, making its movement from gasoline to 
water extremely rapid. The physical properties of MTBE, coupled with 
its potential adverse health effects, make the use of this specific 
oxygenate dangerous to the American people.
  The elimination of the use of MTBE in reformulated gasoline should 
not mean the removal of the oxygenate requirement set forth under the 
Clean Air Act of 1990--which requires reformulated gasoline to contain 
two percent oxygen by weight. I believe it to be reasonable for our 
nation to expect both clean air and clean water, without having to 
eliminate the reformulated gasoline market or sacrifice our national 
health.
  According to the United States Department of Agriculture study 
entitled ``Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the 
United States,'' replacing MTBE with the corn-based oxygenate additive 
ethanol would create approximately 13,000 new jobs in rural America, 
increase farm income by more than $1 billion annually over the next ten 
years, and reduce farm program costs and loan deficiency payments 
through an expanded value-added market for grain. Furthermore, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture has concluded that within three years, 
ethanol can be used as a substitute oxygenate for MTBE in nationwide 
markets without price increases or supply disruptions.
  Ethanol has proven to be a viable, environmentally-friendlier 
alternative to MTBE. The Chicago reformulated gas program (RFG) has 
used ethanol for years, and according to the American Lung Association, 
Chicago has established one of the most successful RFG programs in the 
country. Ethanol is vitally important to my home state since Illinois 
is the number one producer of ethanol in the nation. Each year, 274 
million bushels of Illinois corn are used to produce about 678 million 
gallons of ethanol. At a time when agricultural prices are at near-
record lows, this increased demand is sorely needed.
  Recently, Tosco Corporation, one the nation's largest independent oil 
refiners and marketers, announced its intention to sell ethanol-blended 
fuel from its 1,600 retail outlets throughout California. This decision 
will result in the replacement of MTBE with ethanol in one-fifth of 
California's reformulated gasoline by the end of this year, thereby 
helping to protect California's water supply for future generations, 
while keeping its air clean. The bill that I introduce today paves the 
way for this important bio-based fuel to be used not only in California 
and the Midwest, but nationwide. By supporting bio-based fuel through 
legislative measures such as this bill, we are taking positive and 
decisive steps toward cleaning our nation's water, and the environment 
we will leave for our children and grandchildren.
  This legislation will send a signal that the Senate strongly supports 
bio-based fuels research and recognizes the need to find viable ways to 
reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
  Through research programs, localized testing, and proper labeling we 
can help assure that MTBE is properly identified in gasoline, extracted 
from groundwater, and phased out of use thereby reducing the risk of 
future MTBE contamination.
  By phasing out MTBE over a three year period and replacing it with 
ethanol, we can help secure an ample supply of reformulated gasoline, 
clean water, and clean air for future generations. This bill should 
enjoy bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-
sponsoring this bill that is so important to the well being of the 
environment as well as our nation's farmers.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 265

       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 ``MTBE Elimination Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) a single cup of MTBE, equal to the quantity found in 1 
     gallon of gasoline oxygenated with MTBE, renders all of the 
     water in a 5,000,000-gallon well undrinkable;
       (2) the physical properties of MTBE allow MTBE to pass 
     easily from gasoline to air to water, or from gasoline 
     directly to water, but MTBE does not--
       (A) readily attach to soil particles; or
       (B) naturally degrade;
       (3) the development of tumors and nervous system disorders 
     in mice and rats has been linked to exposure to MTBE and 
     tertiary butyl alcohol and formaldehyde, which are 2 
     metabolic byproducts of MTBE;
       (4) reproductive and developmental studies of MTBE indicate 
     that exposure of a pregnant female to MTBE through inhalation 
     can--
       (A) result in maternal toxicity; and
       (B) have possible adverse effects on a developing fetus;
       (5) the Health Effects Institute reported in February 1996 
     that the studies of MTBE support its classification as a 
     neurotoxicant and suggest that its primary effect is likely 
     to be in the form of acute impairment;

[[Page 1385]]

       (6) people with higher levels of MTBE in the bloodstream 
     are significantly more likely to report more headaches, eye 
     irritation, nausea, dizziness, burning of the nose and 
     throat, coughing, disorientation, and vomiting as compared 
     with those who have lower levels of MTBE in the bloodstream;
       (7) available information has shown that MTBE significantly 
     reduces the efficiency of technologies used to remediate 
     water contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons;
       (8) the costs of remediation of MTBE water contamination 
     throughout the United States could run into the billions of 
     dollars;
       (9) although several studies are being conducted to assess 
     possible methods to remediate drinking water contaminated by 
     MTBE, there have been no engineering solutions to make such 
     remediation cost-efficient and practicable;
       (10) the remediation of drinking water contaminated by 
     MTBE, involving the stripping of millions of gallons of 
     contaminated ground water, can cost millions of dollars per 
     municipality;
       (11) the average cost of a single industrial cleanup 
     involving MTBE contamination is approximately $150,000;
       (12) the average cost of a single cleanup involving MTBE 
     contamination that is conducted by a small business or a 
     homeowner is approximately $37,000;
       (13) the reformulated gasoline program under section 211(k) 
     of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k)) has resulted in 
     substantial reductions in the emissions of a number of air 
     pollutants from motor vehicles, including volatile organic 
     compounds, carbon monoxide, and mobile-source toxic air 
     pollutants, including benzene;
       (14) in assessing oxygenate alternatives, the Blue Ribbon 
     Panel of the Environmental Protection Agency determined that 
     ethanol, made from domestic grain and potentially from 
     recycled biomass, is an effective fuel-blending component 
     that--
       (A) provides carbon monoxide emission benefits and high 
     octane; and
       (B) appears to contribute to the reduction of the use of 
     aromatics, providing reductions in emissions of toxic air 
     pollutants and other air quality benefits;
       (15) the Department of Agriculture concluded that ethanol 
     production and distribution could be expanded to meet the 
     needs of the reformulated gasoline program in 4 years, with 
     negligible price impacts and no interruptions in supply; and
       (16) because the reformulated gasoline program is a source 
     of clean air benefits, and ethanol is a viable alternative 
     that provides air quality and economic benefits, research and 
     development efforts should be directed to assess 
     infrastructure and meet other challenges necessary to allow 
     ethanol use to expand sufficiently to meet the requirements 
     of the reformulated gasoline program as the use of MTBE is 
     phased out.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     should provide technical assistance, information, and 
     matching funds to help local communities--
       (1) test drinking water supplies; and
       (2) remediate drinking water contaminated with methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Eligible grantee.--The term ``eligible grantee'' 
     means--
       (A) a Federal research agency;
       (B) a national laboratory;
       (C) a college or university or a research foundation 
     maintained by a college or university;
       (D) a private research organization with an established and 
     demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology 
     transfer; or
       (E) a State environmental research facility.
       (3) MTBE.--The term ``MTBE'' means methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether.

     SEC. 4. USE AND LABELING OF MTBE AS A FUEL ADDITIVE.

       Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on use.--Effective beginning on the date 
     that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, a person shall not use methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether as a fuel additive.
       ``(2) Labeling of fuel dispensing systems for mtbe.--Any 
     person selling oxygenated gasoline containing methyl tertiary 
     butyl ether at retail shall be required under regulations 
     promulgated by the Administrator to label the fuel dispensing 
     system with a notice that--
       ``(A) specifies that the gasoline contains methyl tertiary 
     butyl ether; and
       ``(B) provides such other information concerning methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether as the Administrator determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     establish a schedule that provides for an annual phased 
     reduction in the quantity of methyl tertiary butyl ether that 
     may be used as a fuel additive during the 3-year period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON MTBE GROUND WATER 
                   CONTAMINATION AND REMEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a MTBE research 
     grants program within the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Purpose of grants.--The Administrator may make a grant 
     under this section to an eligible grantee to pay the Federal 
     share of the costs of research on--
       (A) the development of more cost-effective and accurate 
     MTBE ground water testing methods;
       (B) the development of more efficient and cost-effective 
     remediation procedures for water sources contaminated with 
     MTBE; or
       (C) the potential effects of MTBE on human health.
       (b) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Administrator shall--
       (A) seek and accept proposals for grants;
       (B) determine the relevance and merit of proposals;
       (C) award grants on the basis of merit, quality, and 
     relevance to advancing the purposes for which a grant may be 
     awarded under subsection (a); and
       (D) give priority to those proposals the applicants for 
     which demonstrate the availability of matching funds.
       (2) Competitive basis.--A grant under this section shall be 
     awarded on a competitive basis.
       (3) Term.--A grant under this section shall have a term 
     that does not exceed 4 years.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 266. A bill regarding the use of the trust land and resources of 
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise as the original cosponsor of the 
Pelton Dam Agreement legislation introduced today by my friend and 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.
  This legislation sanctions an historic agreement, reached on April 
12, 2000, between the Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 
Reservation, Warm Springs, Portland General Electric Company, PGE, and 
the United States Department of the Interior (Department). This 
agreement is important because it sets a responsible precedent for the 
joint ownership and operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric 
Project located in Jefferson County, Oregon, on the Deschutes River. It 
also provides a model for how the United States, Indian tribes and 
private companies can work together to solve contentious issues.
  Beginning in the summer of 1998, the Warm Springs and PGE began 
negotiations to settle Pelton Dam Project ownership and operation 
issues. Approximately one-third of the Project lands are located on the 
Warm Springs Reservation. Because of the Department's legal trust 
responsibility to the Warm Springs, Department representatives also 
participated in the negotiations. On April 12, 2000, Department, Warm 
Springs and PGE representatives signed the Long Term Global Settlement 
and Compensation Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement creates shared 
ownership responsibilities and benefits between PGE and the Warm 
Springs for all three Pelton Project dams and facilities located both 
on and off the Warm Springs Reservation.
  The Warm Springs, PGE and the Department worked with myself and 
Senator Smith to carefully craft this legislation to authorize the 
Department to sanction the Agreement. This legislation provides Federal 
approval for only the aspects of the Agreement that affect tribal 
lands, resources, or other tribal assets. Section 2(b)(1) makes it 
clear that the legislation does not affect the normal Federal and State 
regulatory approvals that would be required for an agreement of this 
type. Section 2(b)(2) was included to address a Departmental concern 
that this legislation will not be interpreted to mean that legislative 
approval of future similar agreements will be necessary. In addition, 
this bill authorizes a 99-year leasing authority for the Warm Springs 
that is shared by countless other tribes.
  This bill is supported by PGE, the Warm Springs Tribe and Jefferson 
County.

[[Page 1386]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Smith of 
        New Hampshire):
  S. 267. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, to 
make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to 
transfer or market nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Downed Animal 
Protection Act, a bill to eliminate inhumane and improper treatment of 
downed animals at stockyards. Senators Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, 
Robert Torricelli, Judd Gregg, Bob Graham, Bob Smith, Harry Reid and 
Barbara Boxer have joined me in sponsoring this bill. The legislation 
will prohibit the sale or transfer of downed animals unless they have 
been humanely euthanized.
  Downed animals are severely distressed recumbent animals that are too 
sick to rise or move on their own. Once an animal becomes immobile, it 
must remain where it has fallen, often without receiving the most basic 
assistance. Many of these downed animals that survive the stockyard are 
slaughtered for human consumption.
  These animals are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to handle 
humanely. They have very demanding needs, and must be fed and watered 
individually. The suffering of downed animals is so severe that the 
only humane solution to their plight is immediate euthanasia. It is 
important to note that downed animals compromise a tiny fraction, less 
than one-tenth of one percent, of animals at stockyards. Banning their 
sale or transfer would cause no economic hardship.
  While I commend the major livestock organizations such as the United 
Stockyards Corp., the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the 
National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, 
and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, along with 
responsible and conscientious livestock producers throughout the 
country, for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals, this 
lamentable problem still exists. Not only is this suffering inhumane 
and unnecessary, it is eroding public confidence in the industry.
  The Downed Animal Protection Act will prompt stockyards to refuse 
crippled and distressed animals, and will make the prevention of downed 
animals a priority for the livestock industry. The bill will complement 
and reinforce the industry's effort to address this problem by 
encouraging better care of animals at farms and ranches.
  The bill will remove the incentive for sending downed animals to 
stockyards in the hope of receiving some salvage value for the animals 
and would encourage greater care during loading and transport. By 
eliminating this incentive, animals with impaired mobility will receive 
better treatment in order to prevent them from becoming incapacitated. 
In addition, the bill will also discourage improper breeding practices 
that account for most downed animals.
  My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby 
removing any unfair advantages that might result from differing 
standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional 
bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because 
inspectors of the Packers and Stockyard Administration regularly visit 
stockyards to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden 
on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant.
  As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper 
treatment of downed animals at stockyards and I encourage my colleagues 
to support this important legislation. 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. 267

       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 ``Downed Animal Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY 
                   LIVESTOCK.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921, is amended by inserting after section 317 (7 
     U.S.C. 217a) the following:

     ``SEC. 318. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING 
                   NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Humanely euthanized.--The term `humanely euthanized' 
     means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other 
     means that immediately render the animal unconscious, with 
     this state remaining until the animal's death.
       ``(2) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory 
     livestock' means any livestock that is unable to stand and 
     walk unassisted.
       ``(b) Unlawful Practices.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give, 
     receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any nonambulatory 
     livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock has been 
     humanely euthanized.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) takes 
     effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue regulations to carry out the amendment.

                          ____________________