[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19190-19195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1522. A bill to support community-based group homes for young 
mothers and their children; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Lieberman and Domenici in introducing the Second Chance Homes Promotion 
Act. This legislation would provide needed resources to expand and 
improve the availability of community-based, adult-supervised group 
homes for unmarried teenage mothers and their babies.
  Although rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States have dropped 
in recent years, they remain higher than most industrialized nations. 
Today, four in 10 young women become pregnant at least once before 
entering adulthood. Teenage parents are less likely to graduate from 
school and more likely to end up on public assistance than other 
adolescents. Also, children born to teenage mothers tend to fare more 
poorly in school, are less likely to receive needed health care 
services, and are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. ``Second 
Chance Homes'' help improve this situation by providing teen parents 
with a safe, nurturing environment where they can receive guidance in 
parenting, child development, budgeting, health and nutrition.
  The welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 requires that minor 
teens live with an adult in order to receive welfare benefits. During 
debate on this legislation, I worked with Senator Lieberman and others 
to allow second chance homes to qualify as an alternative residence for 
teenage parents who may be at risk for abuse, neglect or other serious 
problems in their home. Since this time, we have learned that teenagers 
who were provided the opportunity to live in second chance homes are 
more likely to continue their education or receive job training, less 
likely to have a second teenage pregnancy, and more likely to find 
gainful employment that allows them to leave the welfare rolls. I 
strongly believe these are promising results.
  Unfortunately, not all teenage parents who might benefit from second 
chance homes have access to these residences. Today, there are 
approximately 100 second chance homes nationwide, located in only six 
States. This legislation would provide resources for improving the 
homes that already exist and creating additional homes where none 
exist, particularly in tribal and rural communities where there may be 
fewer options for teenage parents and their babies to receive the 
assistance they need. Finally, this legislation would provide resources 
that can be used to conduct further evaluations on the quality and 
effectiveness of second chance homes. It is my hope others will join us 
in supporting this important effort.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Conrad 
and Domenici to introduce the Second Chance Homes Promotion Act of 
2001. This legislation will promote the expansion of Second Chance 
Homes for parenting teenagers and provide needed resources for this 
innovative and accomplished program.
  The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy and births 
in the Western industrialized world. This costs the country at least $7 
billion annually. Four in 10 young women become pregnant at least once 
before they reach the age of 20, nearly one million a year. Teen 
mothers are less likely to complete high school, and more likely to end 
up on welfare. The children of teenage mothers have lower birth 
weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at 
greater risk of abuse and neglect. But we know we can do something 
about this.

[[Page 19191]]

Second Chance Homes are an essential tool to improve the life chances 
of these teenagers.
  In the 1996 welfare reform legislation, I worked to develop the 
concept of Second Chance Homes as an alternative for minor teen parents 
required by that law to live at home or under adult supervision. 
Welfare reform required states to provide or assist teen mothers in 
locating a second chance home, maternity home, or other supportive 
living arrangement if they cannot live at home because of abuse, 
neglect or other reasons.
  Since 1996, these homes have produced notable and promising results: 
fewer second pregnancies, slightly higher adoption rates, less child 
abuse, better maternal and child health, dramatically increased school 
completion rates, higher employment rates, reduced welfare dependency. 
Clearly these are successes we want to replicate.
  Currently only six States have networks of Second Chance Homes. This 
bill will provide resources to expand the number of Second Chance Homes 
across the country to continue these encouraging trends and assist 
these young mothers to the brightest future they can have.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation 
with Senators Lieberman and Conrad that will help to address a very 
serious problem facing our Nation. The rise of teenage pregnancy has 
many implications for American society in terms of educational and 
employment opportunities, economic self-sufficiency, children's health, 
and child abuse and crime prevention. For example, many teenage mothers 
find that their educational and vocational opportunities are severely 
limited. In fact, only one-third of teenage mothers complete high 
school and receive their diploma. Furthermore, teenage pregnancy has 
been linked with increases in child abuse and criminal activity. But, 
perhaps most disturbing is the fact that daughters of teenage mothers 
are 22 percent more likely to become teenage mothers themselves, thus 
creating a self-perpetuating cycle from generation to generation.
  It is clear that these problems will only continue unless we address 
the issue of teenage pregnancy. This is an especially critical issue, 
because the United States has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in 
the western industrialized world. I believe that this legislation will 
help to address these concerns. One of the ideas endorsed by Congress 
in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
of 1996 was the concept of second chance homes. Second chance homes are 
an option for many teenage mothers who are required by the 1996 act to 
live at home or under adult supervision. These homes provide both 
living arrangements and educational opportunities for young mothers.
  Second chance homes have been remarkably successful in decreasing 
both second pregnancies and child abuse and in improving the 
educational and vocational opportunities of teenage mothers. For 
example, New Mexico's second chances homes have produced many success 
stories with several residents earning a registered nurse degree. It is 
truly inspiring to think that many teenagers who had the odds stacked 
against them have been given a second chance and have become vital 
members of the health care profession.
  Despite the successes of second chance homes, many teenage mothers do 
not have access to such a home. Although New Mexico has over a hundred 
second chance homes, many States are not so fortunate. Furthermore, 
according to a 1999 study, eighteen States do not have a policy for 
helping mothers find such a shelter. This is the genesis behind our 
legislation. We hope to increase the availability of second chance 
homes and allow a greater number of teenage mothers to take advantage 
of the many opportunities that they provide. This bill will create a 
competitive grant program within the Department of Health and Human 
Services that will award five-year grants to State, local, and tribal 
governments and to non-profit organizations to create or expand a 
second-chance home. I am hopeful that this significant federal 
investment will allow a greater number of teenage mothers to graduate 
from high school, and even college or vocational training, and will 
increase the health and safety of their children.
  Second chance homes have a remarkable record in alleviating many of 
the problems associated with teenage pregnancy. From education to 
maternal and infant health, they have played a crucial role in the 
success of welfare reform. I thank Senators Lieberman and Conrad for 
their work on this important legislation, and I look forward to all 
teenage mothers having a true second chance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1523. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination 
provisions; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination 
provisions of the Social Security Act, provisions of current law that 
reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers and other 
government pensioners.
  Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower 
than those in the private sector to begin with, find that they are 
penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement 
benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more 
difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.
  The legislation that I introduce today addresses two provisions in 
the current Social Security Act that create this problem: The Windfall 
Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset provision.
  The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social 
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also 
receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund. 
Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 
90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, plus 
32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 15 percent of earnings 
above $3,381. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to 
receive 40 percent of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a 
penalty of $280.50 per month.
  To my mind it is simply unfair, especially at a time when we need to 
be doing all we can to attract qualified people government service, and 
this bill will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 
90 percent to which non-government pension recipients are entitled.
  The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social 
Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the 
spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the 
effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social 
Security.
  It is beyond my understanding why we would want to discourage people 
from pursuing careers in public service, such as teaching, by 
essentially saying that if you do become a teacher your family will 
suffer by not being able to receive the full retirement benefits they 
would otherwise be entitled to.
  There is a teaching crisis in California right now, as there is in 
many States. Yet current Social Security benefit rules penalize private 
sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers, 
or public school teachers who work second jobs during the summer months 
to help make ends meet. They lose legitimately earned Social Security 
benefits. And in certain cases, their wives and husbands will lose 
spousal benefits, too.
  That is simply not fair and not right. California faces a teaching 
crisis, and we need to do everything we can to attract and keep good, 
qualified people as public school teachers, not make an already 
difficult job more difficult.
  The same can be said for other public employees, like police and fire 
fighters.
  This legislation addresses this inequity in the Social Security Act, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.

[[Page 19192]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gregg, and 
        Mr. Warner):
  S. 1525. A bill to extend the moratorium on the imposition of taxes 
on the Internet for an additional 5 years; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Defense of 
Internet Tax Freedom Act, with my friends and colleagues from 
California, Montana, New Hampshire, and Virginia, to extend the 
moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory 
taxes for five-years. As you know, the original provisions of the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act are set to expire this October 21, less than 
two weeks from now.
  As many in this chamber know, I have made extending the moratorium on 
taxes that discriminate against the Internet one of my top priorities 
since coming to the Senate. I cannot ever envision a time when it will 
be okay for any government to tax freedom on the Internet by taxing 
access to the Internet. I cannot ever conceive of any instance or event 
that will precipitate justification for multiple or discriminatory 
taxes on the Internet by any government, large or small, national or 
local.
  For this reason, I have maintained constant and steady support for 
the permanent extension of the Internet moratorium on Internet access, 
multiple and discriminatory taxes. I never thought I would be willing 
to vote for, much less sponsor, legislation that endorsed a limited 
extension, but the events of September 11, 2001 have forced all of us 
in this Congress, and indeed throughout the country, to think and act 
according to the most immediate interests of our Nation.
  Now, more than ever, the people of this country need security, not 
only with regard to safety, but also with regard to their financial 
future. Any additional tax burdens on the Internet now, will mean 
additional costs that many Americans cannot afford, forcing the poorest 
in our society to reduce or even forgo their use of the Internet as a 
tool for education and exploration.
  Consider the fact that by taxing Internet access, States and 
localities are actually contributing to an already growing economic 
``digital divide.'' For every dollar added to the cost of Internet 
access, we can expect to see lost utilization of the Internet by 
thousands of poor and impoverished families nationwide.
  Furthermore, the more expensive you make Internet access, the less 
likely people are to buy advanced services, including broadband 
delivered high-speed Internet access, multimedia expansion cards, and 
Internet protocol enabling software. Given the current state of the 
technology market as a whole, a decrease in consumption resulting from 
Internet access taxes could destroy what glimmer of hope remains for 
many telecommunications and technology manufacturers.
  The effects of these closures have already been felt throughout our 
country. Congress should be working to keep businesses open and 
Americans employed, and that is why we must pass a reasonable extension 
of the moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory 
taxes.
  If you consider for a moment that the Internet has only been around 
in its contemporary form since 1995 or 1996, then you realize that this 
technology and the impact it has made and will continue to make on our 
economy is both very promising and very unsure. To date we have very 
little reliable data as to the real impact the Internet is making on 
the daily lives of Americans.
  We have little to no information as to how and why consumers on the 
web decide to spend their hard earned money. We have no real evidence 
that consumers would decide to spend money or purchase products they 
buy on the web today if these products were only available in 
traditional brick-n-mortar settings.
  The studies we have seen thus far all contradict one another. In one 
study dealing with the effects of Internet purchasing on State 
revenues, I found a quote from the President of the National Conference 
of State Legislatures comparing State budgets in recent years to the 
engine of a luxury car. Yet, I have heard from this and other 
organizations that the Internet is destroying State tax revenue 
streams.
  I don't know who or what to believe. All I know is that many in this 
Senate need time to understand this issue. There are many members in 
this body who do not fully recognize that the moratorium is completely 
unrelated to sales taxes or the collection thereof. Given that fact, I 
cannot see why extending the moratorium for a mere few months or years 
would be beneficial in terms of educating the general public and the 
Members of this body.
  In a matter of months or a few years, the technology sector will only 
just be at the point of full recovery from the current downturn in our 
economy. We will need several years beyond that point of full recovery 
to complete the comprehensive, neutral studies of the Internet and e-
commerce that Members of Congress will need in order to make these 
important decisions, decisions that may directly challenge the 
conventional wisdom of our Founding Fathers and our own historical 
experience.
  Given these requirements, five years seems to be the minimum amount 
of time Congress, the private sector, and other interested 
organizations will need in order to make well-informed, proactive 
decisions regarding other issues not related to the Internet 
moratorium.
  In the meantime, we can guarantee a level of stability for the 
Internet over the next five years that will allow our Nation to 
continue to close the digital divide and encourage new and enhanced 
uses of the web for consumers.
  I call on my colleagues to join me and my fellow cosponsors in 
cosponsoring the Defense of Internet Tax Freedom Act, in supporting a 
five year extension of the Internet moratorium on access multiple and 
discriminatory taxes.
  Let's give the Internet the future it deserves and show America that 
the answer is not more taxes but rather better, more efficient 
government for the people and by the people.
  Mrs. BOXER. Today, I am joining Senators Allen, Burns, and Gregg in 
supporting an extension of the Internet tax moratorium for another 5 
years.
  I supported the moratorium when it was initially instituted in order 
to encourage the growth of the then newly emerging Internet industry. 
In the 1990s, the industry enjoyed a growth spurt that helped move the 
whole economy forward. But recently, Internet companies have fallen on 
hard times.
  Because Internet commerce and technology firms are not now fairing 
well, I support a five year extension of the tax moratorium. I believe 
that renewed investment in the Internet is crucial to the welfare of 
the entire economy and we need to support its growth as much now as we 
did in 1998. Through a clean extension of the tax moratorium, Congress 
can promote an environment for Internet growth that avoids the 
uncertainty, inefficiencies, and barriers to entry that new taxes would 
create.
  The technology sector was in a recession before the September 11, 
2001 attacks. In the first half of 2001, more than 300,000 technology 
sector jobs were eliminated and companies declared bankruptcy because 
of reduced consumer and business spending on technology products. One 
example, Webvan, an Internet grocery delivery company, closed shop in 
July. In the process, 2,000 employees lost their jobs in the company's 
seven markets--San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, 
Seattle, Chicago, and Portland.
  With the additional decline in consumer confidence resulting from the 
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the industry has fallen even 
deeper into recession. The results have been devastating for many 
firms. For example, since the attacks, Cisco laid off 8,500 workers, 
Excite@home has laid off 500 workers, and MicroStrategy has laid off 
200 workers. By extending the Internet tax moratorium for five years, 
we send the message to the industry and its workers that we will not 
turn a deaf ear to this crisis.

[[Page 19193]]

  The economy rose during the last eight years on the new jobs, 
efficiencies, and demand for products that the Internet and Internet-
related companies created. Restoring economic growth will depend 
largely on our ability to spark renewed investment and growth in this 
vital industry. Firms that sell products over the Internet are key 
consumers of computers, software, and hardware. Their growth would 
encourage additional interest in connecting to the Internet and help 
produce new consumer demand for more technology products.
  We should assist, not burden our technology firms at this time. 
Another five years could give the Internet time to work out its current 
growing pains. As technology innovations encourage additional growth 
and renewed interest in the Internet, our economy as a whole will 
benefit. A stronger Internet will mean more jobs, more companies, and a 
broader tax base. That is a net gain for everyone.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1527. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to extend and 
improve the environmental quality incentive program; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a 
bill that would amend and extend the Environmental Quality Improvement 
Program, EQIP, to make it more user friendly, and to make it more 
effective in it's on-the-ground implementation.
  EQIP is a voluntary, Federal cost share program administered by the 
United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, NRCS, and Farm Service Agency, FSA. The program 
was created to assist farmers and ranchers in implementing conservation 
management programs on private lands, lands that not only serve as the 
backbone of our Nation's food supplies but which also provide important 
habitat for America's wildlife, including many endangered species. It 
does this by providing technical, financial, and educational assistance 
to farmers and ranchers as they make capital improvements in irrigation 
and other water systems, address a wide variety of conservation 
problems, provide flood plain protection, support grazing lands 
conservation, and facilitate wildlife habitat protection programs.
  When everything works right, EQIP provides a tremendous benefit to 
producers and the environment. One example of this can be found in an 
EQIP-funded project underway in central Wyoming. This project, known 
locally as the Sand Mesa project, is allowing a group of Wyoming 
farmers to increase irrigation efficiency while also reducing pumping 
costs. They are doing this by replacing an aging canal system with a 
gravity-flow pipeline.
  Under the old system, the open air canals lost a lot of water to 
seepage and evaporation. The water savings from the new pipeline has 
turned out to be critically important in years, like this one, where 
drought is so prevalent in the West. The 14 miles of pipeline replaced 
11 miles of open canal and committed 5,000 acre feet of water for 
existing wetlands. In the first year alone the new system saved at 
least 22,000 acre feet of water. This translates into that much more 
water being available in Bull Lake and Wind River for other uses. The 
gravity-flow pressure is also adequate to eventually run all 36 
irrigation pivots on the new system, which will result in an even 
greater water savings.
  Why did this project work out so well? It wasn't because Washington, 
DC bureaucrats stepped in and told the community the best things to do 
with their money.
  Sand Mesa is a combined effort that unites the knowledge of local 
farmers with local technical experts who together are able to turn 
Wyoming's desert into fertile farmland. Together, the farmers and the 
technicians are designing a conservation and financial plan that will 
allow them to make the most out of their limited environmental and 
financial resources.
  The inclusion of local expertise in establishing program priorities 
is one of EQIP's strongest assets. Local working groups are made up of 
individuals who represent a wide range of interests. The groups are 
made up of farmers, ranchers, representatives from conservation 
districts, agricultural organizations, environmental groups, Native 
Americans, and other local, state and federal agencies.
  Along with the State Advisory Committees, local work groups have made 
a conscientious effort to make sure limited EQIP dollars are put to 
their best use. They have not always been successful. The only existing 
authority these groups have is in identifying priority areas that may, 
if Washington, DC bureaucrats decide, receive funding. The result of 
this allocation structure is that funds are not always equitably 
distributed.
  In 1999 a group of my constituents in Powell, WY approached me with 
serious concerns about the way EQIP regulations took authority away 
from local experts. EQIP was created as a part of the 1996 Farm Bill. 
In establishing EQIP, the Farm Bill terminated four previously existing 
cost share, conservation programs and replaced them with the new 
program. The terminated programs had relied heavily on local input to 
manage all aspects of implementation. Because of this history producers 
had come to expect local expertise to play a bigger role in the new 
program. EQIP regulations, however, consolidated the decision making 
process at the Federal level and left out local input.
  My consitutents were concerned that an unusually large percentage of 
new EQIP dollars were being directed to applicants who did not 
necessarily require federal assistance to complete conservation 
improvements, while smaller, family-owned producers, who could 
sincerely benefit from the program, were being overlooked. Their fears 
were that funding decisions were determined more by politics and grant 
writing ability than by the greatest need or ability to maximize 
environmental benefit per dollar expended.
  In response to their concerns, I wrote a letter to former Secretary 
of Agriculture Dan Glickman and asked for his help in correcting these 
inequities. He forwarded my request to the Wyoming NRCS offices where 
NRCS Wyoming State Director Ed Burton organized a team that reviewed 
the EQIP allocation process. This team identified a number of 
legislative and administrative actions which, if they are followed, 
would ensure the program's most effective implementation.
  This bill is the result of their efforts. The bill addresses four 
areas that the Wyoming review team noted would require specific 
legislative fixes. First, the bill increases allocation flexibility by 
defining the phrase ``maximize environmental benefits per dollar 
expended'' in a way that gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability 
to consult with local working groups in deciding what are the best ways 
to guarantee that limited EQIP funds can be directed to those ranchers 
and farmers who can provide the most effective use of the program's 
cost share program. The bill would simplify and streamline the current 
process to make the program less time consuming to field office staff, 
and less frustrating to producers.
  The bill also would allow farmers and ranchers the flexibility to use 
EQIP funds when they are needed most. Too often weather conditions or 
other unrelated reasons make it impossible for eligible applicants to 
conform to Federal fiscal calendars. By allowing funds to be available 
until expended, this bill would keep program dollars available on a 
real-world schedule and would allow producers to receive cost share 
dollars at current costs and not at the rate in effect when the 
contract was written.
  The third change this bill would make is to adjust the program to 
allow contracts from three to ten years. Current EQIP requirements 
allow five to ten year contracts only. EQIP payments are limited 
generally to $10,000 per person annually, and $50,000 over the 5 to 10 
year life of the contract. This is often much more than is required by 
farmers and could place an undue hardship on producers who do not have 
the ability or the desire to enter into long-term contracts. Three to 
ten year contracts, based on the producer's conservation plan, would 
allow

[[Page 19194]]

greater flexibility to implement resource management systems.
  Finally, the bill would allow producers who are ready to begin work 
in the first year of the contract to immediately receive contract 
payments. Many producers who apply for EQIP are ready to install 
practices as soon as the contract is approved. Under current law, if 
practices are installed in the same year the contract is written, the 
producer must wait until the next fiscal year for their first payment. 
This delay can cause undue financial hardship, especially in an 
industry where cash flow is severely limited.
  I am proud of the efforts of the people in my State to make this 
program better and more efficient. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill and to support our farmers in their work to feed the world.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 1528. a bill to improve the safety and security of rail 
transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rail Safety and 
Security Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator 
Gordon Smith, the ranking Republican of the Commerce Committee's 
Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee.
  This legislation would authorize funding to improve rail passenger 
safety and security, while assuring accountability and oversight of all 
associated expenditures. It would also amend current law and allow for 
rail police officers to enforce laws on the properties of other 
railroads and would establish criminal sanctions for attacks against 
our Nation's rail system. And, it would also require a comprehensive 
assessment of the security risks surrounding rail transportation in 
order for the Congress to then take appropriate action based on the 
conclusions of the assessment. I believe this legislation is a much 
needed step in protecting our rail transportation system against 
security threats and vulnerabilities.
  During the past four weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan 
manner to address the nation's most pressing needs in the wake of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. We have worked with the administration 
to provide necessary emergency funding to aid in the aftermath of the 
attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
  Part of that effort has focused on the survival of the aviation 
industry, and rightly so. Our Nation, our citizens, and our economy 
cannot afford further deterioration of this critical segment of the 
transportation industry. It is equally important that we approve 
aviation security legislation and send it to the President.
  Transportation systems are the target of 40 percent of terrorist 
attacks worldwide. That is why it is necessary for the government to 
play a key role in assessing potential security threats in our Nation's 
transportation system. We must ensure that we have taken every 
precaution to safeguard critical infrastructure and that procedures are 
in place to protect people and property in the event of actual 
terrorist attacks. In that effort, the Senate Commerce Committee has 
been conducting a series of hearings to gain the information we need to 
help us evaluate potential security risks and determine how best to 
respond to those potential risks.
  In addition to aviation security legislation, the Commerce Committee 
has approved legislation to address security at our Nation's ports. I 
am hopeful the full Senate will have the opportunity to consider that 
bill in the near future.
  Given the hundreds of thousands of miles of rail track, highways, and 
pipelines, hundreds of ports and terminals throughout the U.S., and the 
ease of access to public transportation, it is impossible to fully 
secure our transportation system against all deliberate acts of 
destruction. Efforts to reduce vulnerability, however, are essential 
and each industry has a responsibility to assess and respond to 
identified problems. Federal, State, and local governments also play an 
important role in this effort.
  The legislation I am introducing today is designed to address the 
safety and security of our Nation's rail transportation network, both 
passenger and freight. Unlike other passenger rail funding proposals 
that have been suggested, this legislation would only fund legitimate 
safety and security initiatives. It would also assure the highest 
degree of accountability of all expenditures. I note my proposal would 
not provide a handout directly to Amtrak to fund long-planned capacity 
projects that it has been unable to accomplish. Therefore, some will 
likely object to my approach from the outset. But, I hope members 
interested in addressing legitimate rail safety and security concerns 
will join me in supporting this alternative approach.
  Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Rail and 
Maritime security. We learned from that hearing that certain actions 
that can be taken immediately to address security vulnerabilities. 
Therefore, this legislation is designed to address the needs we 
currently know exist and, at the same time, provide for an assessment 
of rail security that would enable us to act on matters identified 
through a more comprehensive review than has yet occurred.
  First, the bill would authorize funding for security upgrades for 
rail transportation provided by Amtrak. However, the funding would be 
made available to Amtrak only after the Secretary establishes 
appropriate funding procedure safeguards and after approving a system 
wide security plan submitted by Amtrak.
  Second, the bill would authorize funding for the Tunnel Life Safety 
projects in New York, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The DOT 
Inspector General has confirmed the need to bring existing systems up 
to par with modern safety standards, including the replacement of 
narrow, winding spiral staircases, the installation of modern 
ventilation fans, and the rehabilitation of benchwalls. The IG further 
has expressed concerns that an extended schedule of repairs as would 
occur without federal assistance places the public at prolonged and 
unnecessary risk.
  Based on the findings of the DOT-IG, this legislation includes 
provisions to fully fund these projects in order to reduce the risk to 
public safety. It would fund these projects, however, only after the 
Secretary approves engineering and financial plans submitted by Amtrak 
and conditions the release of funding by entering into proper funding 
procedures. In other words, the funding will not just be handed to 
Amtrak with no questions asked. It ensures proper federal oversight of 
the federal assistance.
  Furthermore, the legislation would direct the DOT Inspector General 
to review the obligation and expenditure of funds provided under this 
legislation to ensure that the funds are used solely for the purposes 
intended by Congress.
  Third, the bill would permit rail police officers to enforce laws on 
the properties of other railroads. Current law only permits officers to 
enforce laws on the properties of the rail carrier that employs the 
police officer. This provision would allow for flexibility and the 
sharing of enforcement resources among all rail carriers as may be 
necessary to address safety and security threats directed at a 
particular carrier.
  Fourth, this legislation includes provisions to address potential 
security threats to our nation's rail transportation system. While the 
vulnerabilities of air travel may be most prevalent in our memory, our 
rail system has been and continues to be vulnerable to security 
threats. Five years ago, Arizonans and citizens throughout the country 
were saddened to learn of an Amtrak derailment near Hyder, AZ, which 
claimed the life of one individual and injured seventy-eight others. 
Shortly after the accident, the sadness turned to shock as we learned 
that the derailment may have been caused by someone who intentionally 
sabotaged the track. The Arizona accident is not unique. There have 
been other examples of acts against railroads.
  Following that occurrence, the Senate passed legislation requested by 
the

[[Page 19195]]

previous Administration addressing some of these vulnerabilities. 
Unfortunately, we failed to reach an agreement with the House during 
conference deliberations on the multi-year highway funding legislation. 
Therefore, I am including those provisions as part of this bill today. 
Now, more than ever, these provisions are essential.
  The legislation would establish criminal sanctions for violent 
attacks against railroads, railroad employees and railroad passengers 
similar to sanctions currently afforded for attacks against airlines, 
vessels on the high seas, motor carriers, and pipelines. I strongly 
believe the rail industry and its employees and customers deserve the 
same protections afforded the other methods.
  Finally, the legislation would direct the Secretary to assess the 
security risks associated with rail transportation and to develop 
recommendations for target hardening those areas identified as posing 
significant risk to public safety. As I previously mentioned, there has 
not yet been a comprehensive analysis of the security risks of the rail 
industry. This provision would direct that such an assessment be 
carried out and at the conclusion of the assessment, it would provide 
us with the information Congress needs in order to make future 
decisions on how to further address rail security matters.
  I believe this legislation is a credible proposal that could do a 
great deal to improve the safety and security of our rail network. I 
stand ready to work with my colleagues, the Administration, industry, 
and public safety advocates in an effort to address the safety and 
security of our nation's rail system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 1529. A bill to direct the Assistant to the President for Homeland 
Security to establish the National Energy Infrastructure Security 
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we consider the issue of national 
security in the weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, one 
sector in particular that deserves our undivided attention is the 
security of our national energy infrastructure. The vulnerability of 
our country's energy infrastructure became more clear last week when an 
individual was able to cause about 150,000 gallons of oil to spill from 
the 800 mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline with a bullet from a high powered 
rifle.
  I believe the events of September 11 have proven that Congress has a 
responsibility to make sure our Nation's energy infrastructure is 
adequately protected from both hostile and natural attacks.
  We are now engaged in an operation to combat terrorism which will 
take considerable time and resources. Some of the emergency measures 
put in place at energy facilities throughout the country in response to 
the September 11 attacks can only be maintained for so long. For 
example, off the coast of my State of Louisiana the Nation's largest 
port for offloading crude oil was being patrolled by a military vessel. 
While a kind of safety zone around such areas makes sense, should we 
expend our military's resources in order to do so? Merely using our 
present available resources to operate at such high levels of alert for 
the duration of what all indications are will be a long term effort 
does not seem realistic. There is a need for a substantial commitment 
to the protection of our country's energy infrastructure both in scope 
and duration.
  Although 90 percent of the infrastructure in this country is 
privately owned and operated and industry does have an obligation to 
provide security, there is sufficient evidence to suggest the Federal 
Government should make a more significant contribution. First, our 
country is now experiencing an economic downturn. It is imperative for 
our government to continue to focus its attention on measures to 
increase and shore up production while keeping our domestic supply of 
energy steady.
  Second, energy infrastructure is by nature not contained within the 
borders of one State or region. For example, three of the country's top 
ten gasoline consuming States are in the Midwest. The Midwest imports 
25 percent of its total demand from the Gulf Coast. While the Gulf 
Coast refining centers handle half of the total barrels processed in 
the U.S. today, there are only two pipeline systems in place to move 
the product from the South to the Midwest. This is a tremendous amount 
of pressure on Gulf Coast refineries to meet demand in the Midwest. 
What happens if one or both of these systems are disrupted? In 
addition, the only offshore oil terminal in the United States, the 
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, LOOP, is estimated to take in 13 percent 
of the United States' imported oil and refining capacity and is 
connected by five pipelines to over 30 percent of the United States 
refining capacity. Imagine the impact its disruption from natural or 
hostile threats would have on the Nation's refining capacity.
  So, whether we are talking about pipelines, transmission lines, 
electric generators, refineries, nuclear power plants, ports, rigs or 
platforms, the Federal Government has a clear and compelling interest 
in providing the necessary resources to ensure that our energy 
infrastructure is sufficiently protected. Since the disruption of a 
particular facility or transmission line has economic consequences and 
could pose a significant threat to the safety of the surrounding 
population, as well as the effect on our economy, environment, state 
and local authorities must also play a role. This would require a 
partnership among the federal, state and local governments and 
industry.
  Today, I am introducing legislation, the National Energy 
Infrastructure Security Program Establishment Act, which would: 
Establish a multi-year national energy infrastructure program overseen 
by the newly appointed Assistant to the President for Homeland 
Security, to provide funding annually to all 50 States in order to make 
sure that all appropriate measures from the monitoring and detection of 
potential threats to mitigation, response and recovery are in place 
against hostile and natural threats; create two funds, one for the 
protection of energy infrastructure located in the coastal zones of oil 
and gas producing States, the other for the energy infrastructure of 
all fifty States excluding those areas in the oil and gas producing 
States that would be provided for in the first fund; provide funding 
based on a formula related to the amount of energy infrastructure a 
State has as well as to the contribution of the State's infrastructure 
to the rest of the country; the Governor of each State would consult 
with Federal, State and local law enforcement, public safety, 
officials, industry and other relevant persons or agencies to put 
together a security plan to submit to the Assistant to the President 
for Homeland Security as well as the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy 
and Interior detailing what measures were necessary provide adequate 
protection of that particular State's infrastructure; and in order to 
pay for this program we would use a percentage of offshore revenues 
from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  If we are truly serious about protecting our country's energy 
infrastructure from present and future threats, it is necessary for us 
to provide a commitment of significant Federal resources as soon as 
possible.

                          ____________________