[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2487-2500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 409. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the 
standards for compensation of Persian Gulf veterans suffering from 
certain undiagnosed illnesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Durbin of Illinois to offer legislation on a very important issue for 
those men and women who served during the Persian Gulf War. A companion 
bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Manzullo from Illinois. 
This bill will amend the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act, title 
I of Public Law 103-446. That law provides for the payment of 
compensation to Persian Gulf veterans suffering from a chronic 
disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness or a combination of 
undiagnosed illnesses. This bill will extend the presumptive period 
from December 31, 2001 to ``from December 31, 2011 or such a later date 
as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.'' Additionally, the bill 
further expands the definition of an undiagnosed illness and gives a 
comprehensive list of signs or symptoms that may be manifestation of an 
undiagnosed illness such as fatigue, muscle pain, joint pain, 
gastrointestinal signs and symptoms to name a few. Today, 10 years 
after the end of the Persian Gulf War many of our veterans are 
suffering from undiagnosed illnesses.
  President Bush in a speech titled ``Our Debt of Honor'' on November 
10, 1999, Veterans Day, said of our Persian

[[Page 2488]]

Gulf War Veterans, ``They should not have to go to elaborate lengths to 
prove that they are ill, just because their malady has yet to be fully 
explained. A 1994 law was passed to grant them the presumption of 
disability. Yet even now they are met with skeptical looks and paper-
shuffling excuses for withholding coverage. If I have anything to say 
about it, all that is going to end. In the military, when you are 
called to account for a mistake, you are expected to give one simple 
answer: ``No excuse, sir.'' And that should be the attitude of any 
government official who fails to make good on our public 
responsibilities to veterans. There are no excuses for it.
  Of the nearly 700,000 U.S. military personnel who served in the 
Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991, more than 100,000 have complained of an 
array of symptoms that have become known as the Gulf War Syndrome. 
These symptoms include chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory 
loss, sleep disorders, depression and concentration problems among 
others. Approximately 9,000 of those were denied claims under the 1994 
law.
  There are some who question whether or not such a syndrome actually 
exists and many continue to theorize that these symptoms are largely 
psychological and brought about by post-traumatic stress. I believe the 
evidence is increasingly clear that this is not stress related. We have 
an obligation to ensure Gulf War veterans are properly diagnosed and 
treated effectively and compensated for any service connected 
disabilities.
  What we do know is that our veterans were exposed to a host of 
pharmaceuticals, chemicals and environmental toxins. Indeed those who 
served were apparently exposed to some veritable witch's brew of known 
and potential hazards to health including blowing dust and sand 
particles, smoke from oil well fires, petroleum fuels and their 
combustion products, possible exposure to chemical warfare nerve agents 
and biological warfare agents, pyridostigmine bromide pills to protect 
against organophosphate nerve agents, insecticides, vaccinations, 
infectious diseases, depleted uranium, and psychological and 
physiological stress.
  This bill will be a step in the right direction and is the way to 
help repay our debt to these veterans. Not only is it the right thing 
and fair thing to do, but during these times of increased deployments 
and personnel shortages, it is in our national interest to continue to 
show our dedicated service members that we appreciate their sacrifice 
and commitment.
  I commend the Senator from Illinois for his support on this issue and 
urge other Senators to join us in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO:
  S. 410. A bill to amend the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 by 
expanding legal assistance for victims of violence grant program to 
include assistance for victims of dating violence; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
is an important step in continuing to recognize the victims of dating 
violence. The bill I am introducing today would allow victims of dating 
violence to qualify for federal legal assistance grants authorized 
under the Violence Against Women Act.
  Dating violence is a predominately little-known and misunderstood 
aspect of domestic violence. Historically, domestic violence laws have 
only been applied in cases where the victims have been married or 
cohabitating with the abuser, or where the couple shares a child 
together. Unfortunately, this criteria ignores the equally dangerous 
violence that can occur in dating relationships. Victims of domestic 
violence are victims regardless of their relationship to the abuser. 
These victims face the same trauma and the same manipulation as every 
other domestic violence victim. As Congress focuses its attention on 
providing necessary assistance to the states for prevention and 
treatment of domestic violence, we must not allow victims of dating 
violence to be left behind.
  The lack of recourse for victims of dating violence was brought to my 
attention through a tragic incident in my home State of Idaho. In 
December 1999, Cassie Dehl, a seventeen-year-old girl from Soda 
Springs, Idaho, was killed in an accident involving her abusive 
boyfriend. Despite documentation of years of vicious and life-
threatening abuse, Cassie's parents were unable to obtain legal 
protection for their daughter because neither Federal or Idaho domestic 
violence law applied to teenage dating relationships. Although the 
abuse was evident and the need for assistance was clear, no one was 
able to offer Cassie the help that was needed to prevent this senseless 
act.
  Last year, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized a number of important 
domestic violence programs under the Violence Against Women Act. In 
addition to continuing the existing programs, the VAWA reauthorization 
included two new provisions of particular importance. First, a legal 
definition of dating violence was created, the first such definition 
under federal law. Secondly, a new grant program to provide civil legal 
assistance to victims of domestic violence was authorized. 
Unfortunately, while many of the existing VAWA programs were expanded 
to include dating violence, the new legal assistance grant was not. My 
legislation will correct this discrepancy.
  The victims of dating violence require and deserve the same legal 
assistance given to other victims of domestic violence. The ability to 
obtain a legal protection order or pursue other legal remedies can be 
the difference in a victim being able to break the cycle of oppressive 
abuse and regain control of their life. Under my legislation, victims 
of dating violence will have the same legal standing as all other 
victims of domestic violence when seeking civil legal assistance.
  I applaud Congress for coming together last year to bring attention 
to the continuing problem of domestic violence. In order to build upon 
the advances we made last year, I urge my colleagues to support my 
legislation that takes another step toward achieving an equal status 
for victims of dating violence.
  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. 410

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

     SECTION 1. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 1201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796gg-6) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting before paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(1) Dating violence.--The term `dating violence' means 
     violence committed by a person--
       ``(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a 
     romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and
       ``(B) where the existence of such a relationship shall be 
     determined based on a consideration of the following factors:
       ``(i) the length of the relationship;
       ``(ii) the type of relationship; and
       ``(iii) the frequency of interaction between the persons 
     involved in the relationship.'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) respectively; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) 
     of this paragraph, by inserting ``dating violence,'' after 
     ``domestic violence,'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting--
       (i) ``, dating violence,'' after ``domestic violence''; and
       (ii) ``dating violence,'' after ``domestic violence,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,'';
       (5) in subsection (e), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,''; and
       (6) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by inserting ``dating 
     violence,'' after ``domestic violence,''.

[[Page 2489]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Biden, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Graham, and 
        Mr. Wyden):
  S. 411. A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge as wilderness; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce, along 
with 23 of my colleagues, legislation to protect forever the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge from oil exploration and other potentially 
harmful development. Our legislation will bequeath, undisturbed, the 
vital heart of America's greatest, most pristine wilderness ecosystem 
and wildlife sanctuary to future generations.
  Advocates of drilling offer the Refuge as a quick fix for our 
country's energy woes and a long-term solution to our debilitating 
dependence on foreign oil. It is neither.
  Proponents of drilling argue that there is a princely sum of black 
gold lying beneath the Refuge. But not according to the scientific 
experts of the U.S. Geological Survey, who in a 1998 study determined 
that a six to eight-month supply of oil would likely be recovered from 
the Refuge over its 50-year lifespan because most of the oil there is 
simply too expensive to extract. This is not the low end estimate; it 
is the most likely one. And not a drop of oil would emerge from ANWR 
for about 10 years. This is hardly the answer to our energy needs, now 
or in the future.
  In fact, the only thing we know for certain about drilling in the 
Refuge, as a result of years of analysis and experience, is that it 
would immeasurably and irreversibly damage one of the last preserves of 
its kind in the world. To drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge is like 
chopping down the California Redwoods for firewood, or capping Old 
Faithful for geothermal power, or damming the Grand Canyon for 
hydroelectric power, unthinkable acts because the cost in lost natural 
treasures is obviously too high.
  To judge the environmental threat, listen to the ecologists and 
biologists who have extensively studied the impact of drilling, not to 
the politicians. Scientific analyses by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service have concluded that drilling would severely harm the refuge's 
abundant populations of caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, and snow 
geese.
  Advocates of drilling claim that these concerns are grossly 
exaggerated because drilling would only impact an area the size of an 
airport. But what they don't tell you is that this ``airport'' has 
terminals outside that spread all over the Refuge. A spider web of 
infrastructure, including hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, 
production facilities, ports, and housing and services for thousands of 
people would be required. As was recently said on ``60 Minutes,'' it 
would be ``urban sprawl on the tundra.''
  The probable environmental consequences of drilling also go well 
beyond the animals of the North Slope. The Trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay 
oil fields have averaged more than 400 spills a year of everything from 
crude oil to acid, including an oil spill of approximately 9,000 
barrels just last week. Current oil operations on Alaska's North Slope 
emit tons of harmful pollutants every year which cause smog and acid 
rain and contribute to global warming.
  And that gets to the larger point. We have a long-term energy problem 
in America, but drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not help solve it. 
In fact, drilling in the Arctic deludes us into thinking we can oil-
produce our way out of our energy problem. We can't because nature has 
left us with too little oil within our control to meet our needs. We 
must draw what we can from our own resources in an environmentally-
protective way.
  But, in the end, that will not be enough. To become more energy 
independent and environmentally-protective, we must also conserve, we 
must be more efficient, use alternative energy sources and rapidly 
develop new technologies like fuel cells.
  That is why we want to protect the Arctic Refuge, and why we will 
fight all attempts to drill there for oil with any legislative weapon 
we possess, including a filibuster in the Senate.
  In short, for the sake of America's energy and environmental future, 
we are once again today drawing a line in the Arctic tundra. We will do 
everything necessary to protect it.
  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. 411

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE 
                   REFUGE AS WILDERNESS.

       Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Designation of Certain Land as Wilderness.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a portion of 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska comprising 
     approximately 1,559,538 acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled `Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--1002 Area. 
     Alternative E--Wilderness Designation, October 28, 1991' and 
     available for inspection in the offices of the Secretary, is 
     designated as a component of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 
     et seq.).''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have joined with the Senior Senator 
from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, as a co-sponsor of legislation he has 
introduced today to designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as 
a wilderness area. I have been a co-sponsor of this bill since I became 
a member of this body. I am concerned that Congress will be forced to 
consider whether or not to drill on the coastal plain of the Refuge 
before we take substantive action about whether or not the area should 
be designated as wilderness. Establishment of drilling on the coastal 
plain would be allowing a use on the coastal plain that is generally 
considered to be incompatible with areas designated as wilderness under 
the Wilderness Act. I want my colleagues to be aware that this is the 
situation, and that we are not going to increase the supply of oil in 
the near term, or reduce today's high gasoline or other high energy 
prices by drilling in the Refuge. I fear that drilling in the Refuge is 
being promoted not to help us address our current energy situation. As 
a member of Budget Committee I fear that this idea is again being 
proposed so that we can reaping the revenue from the leasing of the 
coastal plain so that we can entertain large tax cuts.
  Second, I oppose drilling in the Refuge because it does not advance 
our domestic energy security. I cannot believe that the American people 
want energy security at the expense of the protection of a substantial 
asset such as the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain. I stand ready to work 
to find other sources of energy, to use existing sources more 
efficiently, to address consumption and to promote sustainable sources.
  Third, I oppose drilling in the Refuge because of its potential 
impact upon existing wilderness, that's right, existing wilderness 
which has already been designated in the Arctic Refuge. East of the 
coastal plain are 8 million acres that have already been designated as 
wilderness. We have had very little discussion about the impact of 
drilling in the Refuge on areas we have already designated and I want 
colleagues to be aware that the drilling question threatens not only 
our ability to make future wilderness designations in the Refuge but 
also could endanger areas that we believed had already protected in the 
public trust.
  I want to speak today specifically to colleagues who may be 
considering the potential of possible oil discoveries in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge in light of current high oil prices. 
Colleagues should keep in mind that the Senate's consideration of the 
coastal

[[Page 2490]]

plain as a source of oil is not triggered by any new developments or 
changes in the geology or economics that affect potential development 
of Arctic resources. The United States Geological Survey has already 
re-considered those factors in its 1998 re-assessment of the Arctic 
Refuge coastal plain's oil potential. Rather, the current discussion, 
in my view, is prompted by the rhetoric and opportunistic efforts of 
those interests that have long advocated drilling in the Arctic Refuge, 
to exploit public concern about the current high prices of domestic 
heating oil, aviation gas and motor fuels.
  First, I want to address the issue, at the forefront of many of my 
colleagues' minds, of whether drilling in the Arctic Refuge constitutes 
a meaningful or appropriate response to the fact that the U.S. oil 
production is declining and exports are increasing. To answer that 
question, I want to review some import, export and consumption data 
compiled by two federal agencies, the Energy Information Agency and the 
Maritime Administration.
  I'm sure it will not surprise my colleagues that the last two decades 
have been marked by a steady decline in total domestic crude oil 
production, which includes crude oil plus natural gas liquids. 
Moreover, after a decline in petroleum consumption during the 1980s, 
oil use is again on the rise. In addition during the 1989-99 period, 
North Slope production declined from 1.885 million barrels per day to 
approximately 1.06 million barrels per day; the North Slope thus 
accounted for three quarters of the total domestic production decline 
which was a 1.105 million barrels per day decline in production during 
this period.
  At the same time that imports are increasing, U.S. export of oil 
products and crude oil totals nearly 1.0 million barrels per day. Of 
that total, most, approximately seven barrels out of eight, is refined 
product. As far as crude exports are concerned, Maritime Agency data 
indicate that export of Alaska North Slope crude in 1999 averaged about 
approximately 7.1 percent of total Alaska North Slope production.
  These data point to the complicated, transnational nature of the 
world petroleum market, a market in which the U.S. continues to export 
nearly a million barrels of petroleum products per day, nearly 5 
percent of total consumption. In light of the fact that we exist in a 
global economy, the United States is not likely to be able to produce 
its way out of the current petroleum shortages. When one looks at the 
fact that the Middle East possesses the preponderance of world oil 
reserves, it becomes clear that concerns about increasing use of 
imported oil might be better addressed by decreasing consumption 
through conservation and the switch to alternative energy sources.
  In addition, we have heard, over the course of several debates here 
on the floor, that the Arctic Refuge has the ``potential'' of yielding 
16 billion barrels of oil. I also wanted to address the issue of the 
likelihood that 16 billion barrels of oil will be discovered beneath 
the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. First of all, that figure 
represents the outside limit of probabilities for an assessment area 
that includes the area of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain currently 
barred from drilling, plus adjacent areas where exploration has taken 
place. When one just examines the area within the Arctic Refuge that is 
under consideration, the correct low-probability estimate of oil is 
11.8 billion barrels of undiscovered oil , 25 percent less than the 16 
billion barrel figure we have heard to date. A field capable of that 
production has been discovered only once on this continent, at Prudhoe 
Bay. Moreover, despite recent advances in exploration technology, the 
U.S. Geological Survey has abandoned the notion of finding a super-
giant field and looks instead to the possibility of discovering several 
much smaller fields beneath the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. 
Rather, the USGS assigns a probability of 5 percent or one chance in 
twenty, to the possibility that a field of that magnitude will be 
discovered. The mean estimate for technically recoverable oil is 
considerably lower and the figure for oil that is economically 
recoverable is lower still. In fact, the USGS concluded that it would 
expect to find four fields scattered across the refuge capable of 
producing, altogether, approximately 3.2 billion barrels of oil, one 
fifth the amount of oil that we have heard might be available.
  However, even if one accepts a higher number for the coastal plain's 
petroleum potential, members of this body need seriously to consider 
whether there is any connection between oil that might be found in the 
Arctic Refuge and the current high prices of petroleum products. I 
feel, simply, that the Arctic Refuge is not a solution to the current 
situation.
  For starters, it might take a decade to bring to market any oil that 
might be discovered in the Arctic Refuge. Exploration, discovery and 
assessment, field design and installation and pipeline design and 
construction are all time-consuming endeavors. The people of Wisconsin 
want lower gas prices now, not ten years from now.
  Moreover, the price of oil is determined by global supply and demand 
factors, not by the presence or absence of an individual oil field. 
Consider the case of Prudhoe Bay. In 1976, the year before the nation's 
largest oil field, the largest ever discovered in North America entered 
production, a barrel of West Texas intermediate crude oil sold for 
$12.65 and standard gasoline averaged $0.59 per gallon. Two years 
later, with Prudhoe Bay adding more than a million barrels per day to 
domestic supply in 1978, West Texas crude had increased by more than 15 
percent, to $14.85 per barrel, and gasoline averaged nearly $0.63 per 
gallon. During the next two years, as Prudhoe production increased, oil 
prices skyrocketed to $37.37 per barrel, while gasoline nearly doubled, 
to $1.19 per gallon. In 1985, with Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk both 
operating at full throttle, a barrel of West Texas crude sold for more 
than $28.00 per barrel and gasoline averaged $1.12 per gallon.
  So Mr. President, if drilling may impair our ability to make a 
decision about the wilderness-qualities of the Refuge in the future, if 
the Refuge does not contain as much oil as we thought, and if opening 
the coastal plain to drilling may do little to impact our current 
domestic prices, why are we considering doing so? The facts don't point 
toward drilling in the Refuge: the Refuge may not contain as much oil 
as we think, and opening the coastal plain to drilling may have only a 
minor impact on our current domestic prices.
  Finally, I have concerns about the arguments that I have heard in 
recent days that oil drilling and environmental protection are 
compatible. Only days ago I was traveling through the Niger Delta 
region of Nigeria by boat, where I observed firsthand the environmental 
devastation caused by the oil industry. The terrible stillness of an 
environment that should be teeming with life made a very powerful 
impression on me. These are the same multinational companies that have 
access to the same kinds of technologies, and though they are operating 
in a vastly different regulatory regime, I was profoundly struck by the 
environmental legacy of oil development in another ecologically rich 
coastal area.
  For these reasons, I support my colleague from Connecticut. I 
appreciate the fundamental concern that we need to develop a new energy 
strategy for this country. However, I disagree strongly when drilling 
would occur in this particular location which I feel is deserving of 
wilderness designation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 412. A bill to provide for a temporary Federal district judgeship 
for the southern district of Indiana; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Richard Lugar to 
introduce the Southern District of Indiana Temporary Judgeship Act. 
This legislation creates an additional temporary judgeship for the 
Southern District of Indiana to help ease the strain that has resulted 
from an extremely heavy caseload of civil and criminal litigation.
  The Southern District is in dire need of an additional judge. Last 
year, the District's caseload was much higher than the national average 
and greater

[[Page 2491]]

than any other court in the Seventh Circuit. In fact, there were 599 
filings per judge, a number almost twenty percent greater than the 
national average of 474.
  In addition to an increase in the number of criminal cases filed in 
recent years, the Federal Bureau of Prisons death row, located at the 
United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, IN, is in the Southern 
District and houses approximately twenty-one inmates currently under a 
federal sentence of death. Hence, the Southern District also must be 
able to manage the habeas corpus petitions that are typically filed by 
death row inmates.
  Further, our State capital of Indianapolis is located in this 
district, and as a growing urban center, is significantly contributing 
to the number and complexity of the cases before the Southern District. 
Federal and local law enforcement are aggressively prosecuting drug 
crimes, but if we expect them to succeed in making our communities 
safer, we must give them the tools they need. An additional judgeship 
for the Southern District would be one such tool.
  There is wide support for an additional judgeship in this district. 
As early as 1996, the Judicial Conference recommended to Congress that 
the Southern District of Indiana receive a new temporary judgeship. In 
1999, the Judicial Conference again urged Congress to create a 
temporary judgeship for this district. The legislation Senator Lugar 
and I introduce today follows this recommendation and aims to aid the 
Southern District in the timely and efficient adjudication of its 
cases. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious 
consideration and support.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Evan Bayh to 
introduce the Southern District of Indiana Temporary Judgeship Act. 
This legislation will help remedy the strain experienced by the Federal 
Court for the Southern District of Indiana from its extremely heavy 
caseload.
  The Southern District's caseload far exceeds the national average and 
is more than any other district court in the 7th Circuit. Indeed, the 
most recent report of the Judicial Business of the United States Courts 
indicates that the Southern District had 599 filings per judge, 
compared to a national average of 474. Over the last 10 years, the area 
of Indiana comprising the Southern District has seen explosive 
population growth, the designation of the penitentiary at Terre Haute, 
IN, as the place of confinement for those sentenced to death under 
federal law, and a large increase in the amount of multi-district 
litigation. Yet, despite these changes, Indiana has not had a new 
judgeship added since 1990. I am pleased, therefore, to join with 
Senator Bayh to help ensure that the delivery of justice is unimpeded.
  There is wide agreement about the need for this additional judgeship, 
and the Judicial Conference of the United States has called upon 
Congress since 1996 to add a temporary judge to the Southern District. 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 413. A bill to amend part F of title X of the Elementary Education 
Act of 1965 to improve and refocus civic education, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Education for 
Democracy Act. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, has joined me as a cosponsor to reauthorize and 
improve existing federally supported civic education programs.
  ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution,'' has proven 
to be a successful program for teaching the principles of the 
Constitution.
  Since 1985, the Center for Civic Education has administered the 
program. It is a rigorous course designed for high school civics 
classes that provides teacher training using a national network of 
professionals as well as community and business leaders.
  The most visible component of We the People, is the simulated 
Congressional hearings which are competitions at local, state and 
national levels. The final round of this annual competition is held in 
an actual United States Senate or House of Representatives hearing 
room, here in the Nation's Capital. I am proud that Ocean Springs High 
School will be representing Mississippi at this year's competition in 
April.
  The 32nd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of 2000 indicated that 
preparing students to become responsible citizens was one of the most 
important purposes of public schools. The popularity of We the People 
is demonstrated by the 82,000 teachers and the 26.5 million students 
who have participated since its beginning.
  Studies by the Education Testing Service have repeatedly indicated 
that We the People participants outperform other students in every area 
tested. In one, We the People high school students outscored university 
sophomore and junior political science students in every topic.
  A Stanford University study showed that these students develop a 
stronger attachment to political beliefs, attitudes and values 
essential to a functioning democracy than most adults and other 
students. Other studies reveal that We the People students are more 
likely to register to vote and more likely to assume roles of 
leadership, responsibility and demonstrate civic virtue.
  In addition to We the People, this bill reauthorizes the Civitas 
International Civic Education Exchange Program, which links American 
civic educators with counterparts in Eastern Europe and the states of 
the former Soviet Union. This program is highly effective in building a 
community with a common understanding of teaching and improving the 
state of democracy education, worldwide.
  Last year, Mississippi became the latest state to participate in this 
important international exchange program. Ms. Susie Burroughs, 
Mississippi's Civic Education program director, joined the exchange 
program to Hungary and helped train Hungarian teachers in lessons of 
democracy. Under Ms. Burroughs direction, more Mississippi teachers 
than ever began participation in the We the People program.
  We the People and Civitas are preparing America's students and 
teachers to live and lead in the world by the standards and ideals set 
by our Founding Fathers.
  I invite other Senators to cosponsor and support the Education for 
Democracy Act.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing the Education for 
Democracy Act.
  The Education for Democracy Act re-authorizes grants to The Center 
for Civic Education to provide a course of instruction on 
Constitutional principles and history and on the roles of State and 
local governments in the Federal system, and, in coordination with the 
National Council on Economic Education, curriculum and teacher training 
programs in civics, government, and economics for teachers from many 
foreign countries.
  The strength of our democracy comes from the informed participation 
of citizens, whether voting in an election, spending time on jury duty, 
volunteering for community service, or simply keeping aware of current 
affairs. The purpose of this bill is to improve the quality of civics 
and government education, and to educate students about the history and 
principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill 
of Rights.
  Thomas Jefferson said: ``I know of no safe depository of the ultimate 
powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not 
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome 
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their 
discretion.'' In addition to offering instruction in the core subject 
areas, it is essential that our schools prepare our children to be 
informed, effective, and responsible citizens.
  Comprehension of and commitment to democratic values is of particular 
consequence for every American. The values, principles, and beliefs 
that we

[[Page 2492]]

share not only have provided a foundation for the stability of our 
government, they have spurred efforts by individuals and groups which 
have brought us closer to realizing our goal of liberty and justice for 
all.
  College freshmen in 1999 demonstrated the lowest levels of political 
interest in the 22-year history of surveys conducted by the Higher 
Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los 
Angeles. That finding should serve as a warning to protect our 
democracy by ensuring that our children receive instruction in civic 
education.
  Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the 
Constitution, proclaim that ultimate political authority rests with the 
people, who have the power to create, alter, or abolish government. As 
wielders of such awesome power, it is imperative that the people, all 
the people, be educated to exercise their power judiciously.
  The programs for teachers from other countries also are of great 
importance. America's greatness and power flow from our democratic 
principles. Exporting those principles will promote human rights and 
ensure international stability.
  Senator Domenici and I recently introduced the Strong Character for 
Strong Schools Act to help expand States' and schools' ability to make 
character education, including civics education, a central part of 
every child's education. I think that good citizenship is an essential 
part of good character, and I ask my colleagues to join Senator Cochran 
and me in support of the Education for Democracy Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Inouye, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 414. A bill to amend the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration Organization Act to establish a digital 
network technology program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, last October the U.S. Department of 
Commerce published its latest report on Internet access in the United 
States. According to the Department's Falling Through the Net: Toward 
Digital Inclusion, more Americans than ever are connected to the 
Internet and groups that have traditionally been digital ``have nots'' 
are making significant gains. Although a record number of Americans 
have Internet access, the report concludes that a ``digital divide'' 
still exists ``between those with different levels of income and 
education, different racial and ethnic groups, old and young, single 
and dual-parent families, and those with and without disabilities.''
  Increasing numbers of Americans are using the Internet to vote, shop, 
pay bills, take education courses, and acquire new skills. Now more 
than ever it is critical that all Americans have the tools necessary 
for full participation in the Information Age economy. However, the 
Commerce report finds that in some cases, the digital divide has 
expanded over the last 20 months. For example, the gap in Internet 
access rates between African American households and the nation as a 
whole is now 18 percent, 3 percent more than in December 1998. And the 
gap in Internet access between Hispanic households and the national 
average is 17.9 percent, 4.3 percent more than it was 20 months ago.
  America's higher education institutions are demonstrating similar 
trends, persistent inequities in a generally improving picture. Last 
year the Department of Commerce teamed up with the National Association 
for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, NAFEO, to undertake, for the 
first time ever, an in-depth study of Internet access at Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, across America. The result was 
the landmark Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An 
Assessment of Networking and Connectivity. The report found that 98 
percent of the 80 HBCUs surveyed had basic access to the Internet, 
World Wide Web, and campus networks. At the same time, however, the 
report also found ``serious areas of digital divide in student access, 
high-speed connectivity and insufficient infrastructure.''
  In particular, the Commerce study reported that fewer than 25 percent 
of HBCU students, or only 1 out of every 4, personally own computers, 
compared to 49 percent of students in institutions of higher education 
as a whole. Further, only two HBCUs, or 3 percent, indicated that 
financial aid was available to help their students close the ``computer 
ownership gap.'' In addition, half of the HBCU campuses surveyed did 
not provide student access to computing resources at a critical 
location--the campus dormitory. And most of the campuses lacked high-
speed connectivity to the Internet and World Wide Web, a key area and 
one that the report speculated may ``restrict HBCUs from making the 
digital leap into the 21st Century.'' In regard to rural, private 
HBCUs, the Commerce report found ``a significant technology gap.''
  There have been to date no published studies of Internet-connectivity 
at either Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, or Tribal Colleges and 
Universities which are comparable to the October 2000 U.S. Department 
of Commerce report. Nevertheless, we have hard data which point to this 
alarming conclusion: Serious digital divide issues exist which affect 
the ability of Minority-Serving Institutions, MSIs, to be competitive 
with other institutions of higher learning in the Information Age. With 
their high level of poverty, and with only 8 percent of all American 
Indian households having Internet access, Jose C. de Baca, executive 
director of the American Indian Science and Technology Education 
Consortium, says that ``American Indians are the ethnic group most 
likely to be caught on the wrong side of the digital divide.'' Tribal 
Colleges offer an important technology opportunity for these isolated 
American Indian reservation communities. However, studies show that 
while most U.S. universities need access to T-3 lines for necessary 
research and data flow, only one Tribal College currently has access to 
that bandwidth. Moreover, less than half of the Tribal Colleges can 
access smaller T-1 lines and this access is sporadic. In fact, many 
Tribal Colleges are not even networked to provide intra-campus e-mail 
service (``Circle of Prosperity: A Vision for the Technological Future 
of Tribal Colleges and American Indians'').
  Similarly, Hispanic-Serving Institutions can have a powerful impact 
on the Digital Divide in the Hispanic community, but in testimony to 
the Congressional Web-based Education Commission, Dr. Antonio Perez, 
representing the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 
HACU, stated that there is an acute shortage of Hispanic faculty in the 
areas of information technology. According to the Computing Research 
Association Taulbee Survey of institutions granting doctoral degrees in 
computer science and computer engineering, only two percent of the 
Computer Science and one percent of the Computer Engineering Ph.D. 
recipients were Hispanics for 1998-1999. Dr. Perez stated that this 
proportion ``typifies Hispanic and minority professional participation 
in Information Technology in general,'' and in his testimony he 
underscored the need for federal assistance if Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions are to become ``equal partners'' in this new Information 
Age.
  In an effort to address the technology gap that exists at Minority-
Serving Institutions across the country, today I am joined by my 
distinguished colleagues, Senator Hollings, Senator Stevens, and 
Senator Inouye, in introducing the National Technology Instrumentation 
Challenge Act. This legislation would create a new grant program within 
the Department of Commerce, the center of technological expertise and 
innovation in the federal government. Our bill would provide up to $250 
million to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-
Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities bridge the 
Digital Divide. The grant money could be used for such activities as 
campus wiring, equipment upgrade, technology training, and hardware and 
software

[[Page 2493]]

acquisition. A Minority-Serving Institution, for example, could use 
funds provided under this legislation to offer its students universal 
access to campus networks and computing resources. Or they might choose 
to use their grant money to dramatically increase their connectivity 
speed rates beyond the T-1 level. In sum, this legislation offers a 
significant opportunity for those institutions serving the largest 
concentrations of the nation's minority students to keep pace with the 
advancing technologies of the 21st Century.
  In the ever expanding and always exciting world of the Information 
Highway, it should be our mandate to work to ensure that no one in this 
country is left behind, least of all our leaders of tomorrow. The 
National Technology Instrumentation Challenge Act is a positive step in 
creating digital opportunity for all students in America, in whose 
hands the future of this great nation rests. The legislation is 
endorsed by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher 
Education, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the 
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the Alliance for Equity in 
Higher Education, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the 
National Indian Education Association, the Native Hawaiian Education 
Association, the National Indian School Board Association, the United 
National Indian Tribal Youth, and the Atlanta University Center.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
the letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 414

       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 ``NTIA Digital Network 
     Technology Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       The National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

              ``PART D--DIGITAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 171. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary shall establish, within the NTIA's 
     Technology Opportunities Program a digital network 
     technologies program to strengthen the capacity of eligible 
     institutions to provide instruction in digital network 
     technologies by providing grants to, or executing contracts 
     or cooperative agreements with, those institutions to provide 
     such instruction.

     ``SEC. 172. ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.

       ``An eligible institution shall use a grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement awarded under this part--
       ``(1) to acquire the equipment, instrumentation, networking 
     capability, hardware and software, digital network 
     technology, and infrastructure necessary to teach students 
     and teachers about technology in the classroom;
       ``(2) to develop and provide educational services, 
     including faculty development, to prepare students or faculty 
     seeking a degree or certificate that is approved by the 
     State, or a regional accrediting body recognized by the 
     Secretary of Education;
       ``(3) to provide teacher education, library and media 
     specialist training, and preschool and teacher aid 
     certification to individuals who seek to acquire or enhance 
     technology skills in order to use technology in the classroom 
     or instructional process;
       ``(4) implement a joint project to provide education 
     regarding technology in the classroom with a State or State 
     education agency, local education agency, community-based 
     organization, national non-profit organization, or business, 
     including minority business or a business located in HUB 
     zones, as defined by the Small Business Administration; or
       ``(5) provide leadership development to administrators, 
     board members, and faculty of eligible institutions with 
     institutional responsibility for technology education.

     ``SEC. 173. APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURE.

       ``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under this part, an 
     eligible institution shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may reasonably require. The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the panel described in 
     subsection (b), shall establish a procedure by which to 
     accept such applications and publish an announcement of such 
     procedure, including a statement regarding the availability 
     of funds, in the Federal Register.
       ``(b) Peer Review Panel.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     peer review panel to aid the Secretary in establishing the 
     application procedure described in subsection (a) and 
     selecting applicants to receive grants, contracts, and 
     cooperative agreements under section 171. In selecting the 
     members for such panel, the Secretary may consult with 
     appropriate cabinet-level officials, representatives of non-
     Federal organizations, and representatives of eligible 
     institutions to ensure that the membership of such panel 
     reflects membership of the minority higher education 
     community, including Federal agency personnel and other 
     individuals who are knowledgeable about issues regarding 
     minority education institutions.

     ``SEC. 174. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       ``The Secretary may not award a grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement to an eligible institution under this 
     part unless such institution agrees that, with respect to the 
     costs to be incurred by the institution in carrying out the 
     program for which the grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement was awarded, such institution will make available 
     (directly or through donations from public or private 
     entities) non-Federal contributions in an amount equal to \1/
     4\ of the amount of the grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement awarded by the Secretary, or $500,000, whichever is 
     the lesser amount. The Secretary shall waive the matching 
     requirement for any institution or consortium with no 
     endowment, or an endowment that has a current dollar value 
     lower than $50,000,000.

     ``SEC. 175. LIMITATION.

       ``An eligible institution that receives a grant, contract, 
     or cooperative agreement under this part that exceeds 
     $2,500,000, shall not be eligible to receive another grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under this part until 
     every other eligible institution has received a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under this part.

     ``SEC. 176. ANNUAL REPORT AND EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Annual Report Required From Recipients.--Each 
     institution that receives a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement under this part shall provide an annual report to 
     the Secretary on its use of the grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement.
       ``(b) Evaluation by Secretary.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Education, shall--
       ``(1) review the reports provided under subsection (a) each 
     year;
       ``(2) evaluate the program authorized by section 171 on the 
     basis of those reports; and
       ``(3) conduct a final evaluation at the end of the third 
     year.
       ``(c) Contents of Evaluation.--The Secretary, in the 
     evaluation, shall describe the activities undertaken by those 
     institutions and shall assess the short-range and long-range 
     impact of activities carried out under the grant, contract, 
     or cooperative agreement on the students, faculty, and staff 
     of the institutions.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Congress based on the final evaluation within 1 
     year after conducting the final evaluation. In the report, 
     the Secretary shall include such recommendations, including 
     recommendations concerning the continuing need for Federal 
     support of the program, as may be appropriate.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 102(a) of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901(a) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Eligible institution defined.--The term ``eligible 
     institution'' means an institution that is--
       ``(A) a historically Black college or university that is a 
     part B institution, as defined in section 322(2) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)), an 
     institution described in section 326(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of 
     that Act (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of the Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C)), or a consortium of 
     institutions described in this subparagraph;
       ``(B) a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in section 
     502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1101a(a)(5));
       ``(C) a tribally controlled college or university, as 
     defined in section 316(b)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3));
       ``(D) an Alaska Native-serving institution under section 
     317(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1059d(b));
       ``(E) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution under section 
     317(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1059d(b)); or
       ``(F) an institution determined by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Education, to have 
     enrolled a substantial number of minority, low-income 
     students during the previous academic year who received 
     assistance under subpart I of part A of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.) for 
     that year.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce not more than $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2003 through 
     2007, to carry out part D of the National Telecommunications 
     and Information Administration Organization Act.

[[Page 2494]]

     
                                  ____
                                               Alliance for Equity


                                          in Higher Education,

                                Washington, DC, February 21, 2001.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the Alliance for Equity 
     in Higher Education--a national coalition of higher education 
     associations that serves over 320 member institutions and 
     educates more than one-third of all students of color in the 
     United States--we would like to extend our joint support and 
     appreciation for the ``National Technology Instrumentation 
     Challenge Act'' legislation.
       The Alliance for Equity in Higher Education, which was 
     established in July 1999 by the American Indian Higher 
     Education Consortium (AIHEC), the Hispanic Association of 
     Colleges and Universities (HACU), and the National 
     Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education 
     (NAFEO), has identified the technology gap facing Tribal 
     Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Hispanic-Serving 
     Institutions (HSIs), and Historically and Predominantly Black 
     Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as one of its primary 
     policy focuses. In fact, the Alliance is hosting an 
     interactive planning meeting at the end of this month to 
     explore the application of information technology at 
     minority-serving colleges and universities. Your legislation 
     will provide our students, faculty, and staff with the 
     essential skills and training in the use of technology, a 
     significant need on all our campuses.
       As you know, among minority groups, the need to increase 
     the capacities of students and faculty as active participants 
     in the world of technology is paramount. For example, 
     approximately 75 percent of students attending 80 NAFEO-
     member HBCUs indicated that they do not own their own 
     computers, and 85 percent of surveyed HBCUs do not offer 
     academic degrees through distance learning. Many TCUs cannot 
     even provide intra-campus email to students and faculty, and 
     only one TCU has access to a high speed bandwidth. In 
     addition, only 24 percent of Hispanic households had Internet 
     access in 2000, and HSIs serve a majority of Hispanic 
     students entering postsecondary education.
       The Alliance for Equity in Higher Education appreciates you 
     spearheading this effort and encouraging our students and 
     institutions to be competitive players in the higher 
     education community as well as the 21st Century workforce. We 
     welcome the opportunity of offer our assistance in 
     championing this important initiative.
           Sincerely,
     Antonio Flores,
       President, HACU.
     Gerald Gipp,
       Executive Director, AIHEC.
     Henry Ponder,
       President, NAFEO.
                                  ____

         National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher 
           Education,
                             Silver Spring, MD, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Dirksen Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cleland: On behalf of the National Association 
     for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), we want to 
     thank you for introducing legislation which will help address 
     one of the greatest challenges facing the American 
     educational system today--the emerging digital divide between 
     students who have access to the information highway and those 
     who do not. We strongly support your legislation, the 
     National Technology Instrumentation Challenge Act, which 
     would provide an essential tool in bridging the growing high-
     tech gap which exists for certain of this nation's 
     institutions of higher learning.
       As revealed in a recent survey of 80 Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) by the U.S. Department of 
     Commerce and NAFEO, fifty percent of these institutions do 
     not have computers available in the location most accessible 
     to students, their dormitories. Additionally, most HBCUs do 
     not have high-speed connectivity to the Internet and World 
     Wide Web, and only three percent of these colleges and 
     universities indicated that financial aid was available to 
     help their students close the ``computer ownership gap.''
       Making high tech grant money available to HBCUs, Hispanic-
     serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities 
     would help these institutions acquire computers, wire their 
     campuses and provide technology training. In doing so, your 
     bill would provide these institutions with the opportunity to 
     become competitive with other colleges and universities in 
     the Information Age. The National Technology Instrumentation 
     Challenge Act would make a significant contribution by 
     helping to place the tools of tomorrow's technology into the 
     hands of tomorrow's leaders. Once again, we commend you on 
     the introduction of this important piece of legislation.
       Thanks for all you do in ``keeping the doors of opportunity 
     open.''
           Sincerely,
                                                     Henry Ponder,
     CEO/President.
                                  ____

                                            American Indian Higher


                                         Education Consortium,

                                    Alexandria, VA, February 2001.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's 32 Tribal Colleges 
     and Universities that comprise the American Indian Higher 
     Education Consortium (AIHEC), we respectfully request your 
     support for legislation to be introduced by Senator Cleland 
     in the very near future. This legislation to be titled the 
     ``National Technology Instrumentation Challenge Act, will 
     establish a program within the Department of Commerce, 
     National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
     fund Tribal Colleges and Universities, as well as 
     Historically Black College and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
     Institutions of Higher Education and Alaska Native and Native 
     Hawaiian educational organizations in an effort to teach 
     technology skills to both teachers and students.
       Tribal Colleges serve remote, isolated American Indian 
     reservation communities, many of which are located on federal 
     trust lands, and therefore do not have the resources or tax 
     base to fully support a college. State governments provide 
     little or no funding, while the Federal government funds the 
     colleges at only slightly over half of the authorized level. 
     For many Tribal College students the next nearest college is 
     more than 100 miles away. With other priorities, such as 
     fixing leaky roofs and upgrading substandard wiring and 
     inadequate heating systems, it is nearly impossible to keep 
     pace with advancing technologies.
       Among American Indian households, only 9 percent have 
     computers compared to 23.2 percent of African American 
     households, 25.5 percent of Hispanic and about 47 percent of 
     White Americans. For necessary research and information flow, 
     most US universities need access to T-3 lines. Currently, 
     only one Tribal College has access to that bandwidth. Many 
     Tribal Colleges are not even networked to provide intra-
     campus e-mail service. Without financial help to secure the 
     proper facilities equipment and training, we will rapidly 
     fall behind in our ability to prepare our teachers and 
     students in uses of current and emerging technology systems.
       AIHEC's 32 member colleges, 26,000 students and the 250 
     tribal nations we serve are extremely grateful to Senator 
     Cleland for championing this effort and for your support. The 
     success of this legislation will be a tremendous step in 
     bringing the Tribal Colleges and other MSIs much needed 
     resources to prepare our students to compete in the workforce 
     of the 21st Century.
           Respectfully,
                                                Dr. James Shanley,
     President, Fort Peck Community College.
                                  ____

                                                   National Indian


                                        Education Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 13, 2001.
     Hon. Max Cleland,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Cleland: The National Indian Education Association 
     (NIEA) is pleased to offer its support for the proposed 
     ``National Technology Instrumentation Challenge Act'' you 
     intend to introduce before Congress today. As a national 
     advocate on behalf of the education concerns of American 
     Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, the National 
     Indian Education Association is pleased to see a legislative 
     proposal that targets one of the most pressing needs in 
     Indian and Native Hawaiian communities.
       As administered by the Secretary of Commerce, the program 
     would empower minority institutions, including tribal 
     colleges and Alaska Native organizations, to carry out 
     national technology instrumentation programs. These programs 
     will teach technology skills to teachers and students in 
     uniquely rural and urban settings. Indian communities will 
     stand to benefit greatly from this initiative as they 
     struggle to meet the ever-increasing needs of their tribal 
     members. Experience has shown that reservation communities 
     often are the last segment of the population to benefit from 
     the power that technology can offer. These dollars will allow 
     for an equal playing field as our Indian institutions prepare 
     students for the challenges of the new millennium.
       This legislation will also equip tribal and minority-
     serving institutions with the tools, services and 
     infrastructure needed to teach the latest advancements in 
     technology as they relate to the student in the classroom. 
     Students have the uncanny ability to grasp the meaning of 
     technology faster than many adults and this endeavor captures 
     that youthful ability to learn.
       We look forward to working with your office and the 
     Secretary of Commerce when this legislation becomes law. We 
     are also pleased to inform the Senator that we have gained 
     additional support for this legislation from three of our 
     national American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 
     partners. These include: The National Indian School Board 
     Association (NISBA); United National Indian Tribal Youth 
     (UNITY); and the Native Hawaiian Education Association 
     (NHEA).

[[Page 2495]]

       Again, on behalf of the three thousand members of NIEA and 
     our educational partners, we look forward to a fruitful and 
     productive 107th Congress. Thank you for your support.
           With Best Regards,
                                                    John W. Cheek,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. 
        Grassley):
  S. 415. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to require that 
air carriers meet public convenience and necessity requirements by 
ensuring competitive access by commercial air carriers to major cities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the time has come for the Congress to 
really understand what is going on in the airline industry. It is an 
industry that no longer competes. Passengers no longer matter. We are 
like cattle in a stockade.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to restore the public's interest 
in our aviation system, to reclaim it from the carriers. Senator McCain 
joins me in sponsoring this bill.
  We have spent countless hearings listening to various airline 
executives, government officials and expert witness talk about the 
problems confronting the traveling public. It is time we put all of 
that information and knowledge together to benefit the traveling 
public.
  Let's start with the hubs. There are twenty major airports, essential 
facilities, where 1 carrier has more than fifty percent of the total 
enplaned passengers. Study after study has told us, warned us, that 
concentrated hubs lead to higher fares, particularly for markets to 
those hubs with no competition. Average fares are higher by 41 percent 
according to DOT, and even higher for smaller, shorter haul markets, by 
as much as 54 percent. DOT estimates that for only 10 of the hubs, 24.7 
million people are overcharged, and another 25 to 50 million choose not 
to fly because of high fares.
  We have got to take a can opener and pry open the lids to the hubs, 
for without competition, whatever benefits deregulation has brought, 
will quickly fade away. Our legislation will ensure that other air 
carriers have the ability to compete, the ability to provide people 
with options, and the ability to threaten to serve every market out of 
the dominated hubs. Gates, facilities and other assets will need to be 
provided where they are unavailable, or where competition dictates a 
need for such facilities. Dominant air carriers have relied upon 
Federal dollars to expand these facilities, and they have taken 
advantage of those monies by establishing unregulated local monopolies. 
It is time to use the power and leverage of the Federal government to 
restore a balance to the marketplace.
  Right now, the air carriers are attempting to dictate what the 
industry will look like. If they are successful, all of the concerns 
raised by countless studies, will not only be realized, but they will 
be exacerbated. The public's needs, the public's convenience, are 
something that must be first and foremost as we watch this industry 
evolve.
  Airline deregulation forced the carriers to compete on price for a 
while, but not on service. Congress had to threaten legislation in 1999 
before the airlines even began to even understand the depth of consumer 
anger towards the airlines. Today though, they no longer compete on 
price. Instead, they seek to acquire one another to create massive 
systems, perhaps only three will survive, leaving us all far worse 
tomorrow than we are today. And clearly today, we are not getting what 
is needed.
  What are the facts: United wants to buy US Airways, and create DC 
Air. American wants to buy TWA, a failing company with a hub in St. 
Louis, and then American wants to buy a part of US Airways. Continental 
and Delta have a 25 year marketing relations, and Delta, Continental 
and Northwest are all eying other deals.
  Right now there are 20 major cities where one carrier effectively 
controls airline service. Department of Transportation, General 
Accounting Office, National Research Council and others have all 
documented abuses, high fares, market dominance, hoarding of facilities 
at airports so other carriers can not enter, and let's not forget poor 
service. It must stop. It is not enough for the antitrust laws to look 
at each transaction in a vacuum. The public's interest, its needs, and 
its convenience must be reasserted.
  DOT, in its January 2001 study, made three key observations:

       The facts are clear. Without the presence of effective 
     price competition, network carriers charge much higher prices 
     and curtail capacity available to price sensitive passengers 
     at the hubs. . . . With effective price competition, 
     consumers benefit from both better service and lower fares, 
     citing Atlanta and Salt Lake City as examples where a low 
     cost carrier is able to provide competition to a dominant hub 
     carrier.
       The key to eliminating market power and fare premiums is to 
     encourage entry into as many uncontested markets as possible.
       . . . barriers to entry at dominated hubs are most 
     difficult to surmount considering the operational and 
     marketing leverage a network carrier has in it hub markets.

  In its 1999 study, the Department stated most clearly what we are 
trying to achieve:

       Moreover, unless there is reasonable likelihood that a new 
     entrant's short term and long term needs for gates and other 
     facilities will be met, it may simply decide not to serve a 
     community.--FAA/OST Task Force Study, October 1999, at page 
     iii.

  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this 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. 415

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Aviation Competition 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The airline industry continues to evolve into a system 
     dominated by a few large air carriers and a handful of 
     smaller, niche air carriers. Absent Congressional action, 
     access to critical markets is likely to be foreclosed.
       (2) In testimony before the Commerce Committee in 1978, the 
     then-President of Eastern Airlines testified that the top 5 
     air carriers had 68.6 percent of the domestic market. If the 
     mergers and acquisitions proposed in 2000 and 2001 are 
     consummated, the 5 largest network airlines in the United 
     States will account for approximately 83 percent of the air 
     transportation business (based on revenue passenger miles 
     flown in 1999).
       (3) According to Department of Transportation statistics, 
     taking into account the proposed mergers of United Airlines 
     and US Airways, and of American Airlines and TWA, there will 
     be at least 20 large hub airports in the United States where 
     a single airline and its affiliate air carriers would carry 
     more than 50 percent of the passenger traffic.
       (4) The continued consolidation of the airline industry may 
     inure to the detriment of public convenience and need, and 
     the further concentration of market power in the hands of 
     even fewer large competitors may lead to unfair methods of 
     competition.
       (5) A more concentrated airline industry would be likely to 
     result in less competition and higher fares, giving consumers 
     fewer choices and decreased customer service.
       (6) The Department of Transportation has documented that 
     air fares are relatively higher at those main hub airports 
     where a single airline carries more than 50 percent of the 
     passenger traffic, and studies indicate that unfair methods 
     of competition are more likely to occur at such airports, 
     thus inhibiting competitive responses from other carriers 
     when fares are raised or capacity reduced.
       (7) The General Accounting Office has conducted a number of 
     studies that document the presence of both high fares and 
     problems with competition in the airline industry at 
     dominated hub airports.
       (8) The National Research Council of the Transportation 
     Research Board has recognized that higher fares exist in 
     short haul markets connected to concentrated hub airports.
       (9) A Department of Transportation study indicates that the 
     entry and existence of low fare airline competitors in the 
     marketplace has resulted in a reported $6.3 billion in annual 
     savings to airline passengers.
       (10) While the antitrust rules generally govern mergers and 
     acquisitions in the air carrier industry, and will continue 
     to do so, the public concern about the importance of air 
     transportation, the impact of over scheduling, increasing 
     flight delays and cancellations, poor service, and continued 
     hub domination requires the Department of Transportation to 
     assert its authority in analyzing

[[Page 2496]]

     proposed transactions among air carriers that affect 
     consumers.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW OF AIR CARRIER ACQUISITIONS 
                   AND MERGERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 41722. Mergers and acquisitions

       ``(a) Protection of Public Interest; Competition Test.--
       ``(1) In general.--An air carrier may not acquire, directly 
     or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of another air 
     carrier if, after the acquisition, the air carrier resulting 
     from the acquisition would have more than 10 percent of the 
     passenger enplanements in the United States (based on 
     projections from the most recent annual data available to the 
     Secretary of Transportation) if the Secretary determines that 
     the effect of the acquisition--
       ``(A) would be substantially to lessen competition, or
       ``(B) would result in reasonable industry concentration, 
     excessive market domination, monopoly powers, or other 
     conditions that would tend to allow at least 1 air carrier 
     unreasonably to increase prices, reduce services, or exclude 
     competition in air transportation at any large hub airport 
     (as defined in section 47134(d)(2)) or in at least 10 percent 
     of the top 500 markets for passenger air transportation in 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Exception.---Notwithstanding paragraph (1), such an 
     acquisition may proceed if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(A) the anticompetitive effects of the proposed 
     transaction are outweighed in the public interest by the 
     probable effect of the acquisition in meeting significant 
     transportation conveniences and needs of the public; and
       ``(B) those significant transportation conveniences and 
     needs of the public may not be satisfied by a reasonably 
     available alternative having materially less anticompetitive 
     effects.




       ``(b) Dominant Carriers Required To Relinquish Some Gates, 
     Facilities, and Assets at Hub Airport.--
       ``(1) In general.--An air carrier may not acquire, directly 
     or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of another air 
     carrier if, after the acquisition, the air carrier resulting 
     from the acquisition would be a dominant air carrier at any 
     large hub airport (as defined in section 47134(d)(2)) unless 
     the Secretary of Transportation finds that--
       ``(A) the air carrier resulting from the acquisition will 
     provide gates, facilities, and other assets at the hub 
     airport on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis to 
     another air carrier that--
       ``(i) holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 
     authorizing it to provide air transportation for passengers;
       ``(ii) has fewer than 15 percent of the average daily 
     passenger enplanements at that airport; and
       ``(iii) is able, or will be able, to utilize the gate, 
     facility, or other asset provided to it at a reasonable level 
     of utilization; or
       ``(B) gates, facilities, and other assets are available, or 
     will be made available in a timely manner, on a fair, 
     reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis to accommodate 
     competitive access to that airport by other air carriers.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Paragraph (1) does not require an air 
     carrier to relinquish control, or otherwise dispose, of more 
     than 10 percent of the gates, facilities, and other assets 
     controlled by that air carrier at any airport, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Plan required.--Before the Secretary may make a 
     finding under paragraph (1), the acquiring air carrier and 
     the air carrier being acquired shall file a joint plan in 
     writing with the Secretary that states with such specificity 
     as the Secretary may require exactly how the air carrier 
     resulting from the acquisition will comply with the 
     requirements of paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Enforcement of plan.--If the Secretary determines, 
     more than 90 days after the date on which an acquisition 
     described in paragraph (1) is completed, that the air carrier 
     has failed substantially to carry out the plan submitted 
     under paragraph (3), the Secretary may--
       ``(A) withdraw approval of the acquisition;
       ``(B) withdraw authority for the air carrier to serve 
     international markets; or
       ``(C) take such other action as may be necessary to compel 
     compliance with the plan.
       ``(c) Notification; Waiting Period; Final Rule.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order for the Secretary to be able to 
     make the determination required by subsection (a)--
       ``(A) each air carrier (or in the case of a tender offer, 
     the acquiring air carrier) shall submit a notification to the 
     Secretary, in such form and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require; and
       ``(B) wait until the waiting period described in paragraph 
     (2) has expired before effecting the acquisition.
       ``(2) Waiting period.--
       ``(A) In general.--The waiting period begins on the date of 
     receipt by the Secretary of a completed notification required 
     by paragraph (1)(A) and ends on the thirtieth day after that 
     date, or (in the case of a cash tender offer) the fifteenth 
     day after that date.
       ``(B) Waiver; modification.--The Secretary may waive the 
     notification requirement, shorten the waiting period, or 
     extend the waiting period (by not more than 180 days), in 
     order to coordinate action under this subsection with the 
     Department of Justice under the antitrust laws of the United 
     States.
       ``(3) Coordination with doj.--The Secretary and the 
     Attorney General may enter into a memorandum of understanding 
     to ensure that the determination required by subsection (a) 
     is made within the same time frame as any Department of 
     Justice review of a proposed acquisition under section 7A of 
     the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a).
       ``(4) Final action within 180 days.--The Secretary shall 
     take final action with respect to any acquisition requiring a 
     determination under subsection (a) within 180 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives the notification 
     required by paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(d) AIR 21 Competition Plan Review.--The Secretary shall 
     examine any hub airport affected by a proposed acquisition 
     described in subsection (a) to determine whether that airport 
     has complied with the competition plan requirement of 
     sections 47106(f) or 40117(k) of title 49, United States 
     Code, and whether gates and other facilities are being made 
     available at costs that are fair and reasonable to air 
     carriers in accordance with the requirements of section 
     41712(c)(3). The sponsor (as defined in section 47102(19)) of 
     any hub airport shall cooperate fully with the Secretary in 
     carrying out an examination under this subsection.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Dominated hub airport.--The term `dominated hub 
     airport' means an airport--
       ``(A) that each year has at least .25 percent of the total 
     annual boardings in the United States; and
       ``(B) at which 1 air carrier accounts for more than 50 
     percent of the enplaned passengers.
       ``(2) Dominant air carrier.--The term `dominant air 
     carrier' means an air carrier that accounts for more than 50 
     percent of the enplaned passengers at an airport.
       ``(3) Control.--With respect to whether a corporation or 
     other entity is considered to be controlled by another 
     corporation or other entity, the term `control' means that 
     more than 10 percent of the ownership, voting rights, capital 
     stock, or other pecuniary interest in that corporation or 
     entity is owned, held, or controlled, directly or indirectly, 
     by such other corporation or entity.
       ``(4) Enplanements.--The term `passenger enplanements' 
     means the annual number of passenger enplanements, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Transportation, based on the 
     most recent data available.
       ``(5) Asset.--The term `asset' includes slots (as defined 
     in section 41714(h)(4)) and slot exemptions (within the 
     meaning of section 41714(a)(2)).''.
       (b) Special Rule.--For the purpose of applying section 
     41722 of title 49, United States Code, to an acquisition or 
     merger involving major air carriers proposed after January 1, 
     2000, that has not been consummated before February 15, 
     2001--
       (1) subsection (c) of that section shall not apply; but
       (2) the Secretary of Transportation shall require such 
     information from the acquiring air carrier and the acquired 
     air carrier, or the merging air carriers, as may be necessary 
     to carry out that section, and shall complete the review 
     required by that section within a reasonable period that is 
     not to exceed 180 days from the date on which the Secretary 
     receives the requested information from all parties.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following;

``41722. Mergers and acquisitions''.

     SEC. 4. COMPETITIVE ACCESS TO GATES, FACILITIES, AND OTHER 
                   ASSETS.

       (a) Subchapter I of chapter 417, as amended by section 3, 
     is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 41723. Competitive access to gates, facilities, and 
       other assets

       ``(a) DOT Review of Gates, Facilities, and Assets.--Within 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of Aviation 
     Competition Restoration Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall investigate the assignment and usage of gates, 
     facilities, and other assets by major air carriers at the 
     largest 35 airports in the United States in terms of air 
     passenger traffic. The investigation shall include an 
     assessment of--
       ``(1) whether, and to what extent, gates, facilities, and 
     other assets are being fully utilized by major air carriers 
     at those airports;
       ``(2) whether gates, facilities, and other assets are 
     available for competitive access to enhance competition; and
       ``(3) whether the reassignment of gates, facilities, and 
     other assets to, or other means of increasing access to 
     gates, facilities, and other assets for, air carriers (other 
     than dominant air carriers (as defined in section 
     41722(e)(2)) would improve competition among air carriers at 
     any such airport or provide other benefits to the flying 
     public without compromising safety or creating scheduling, 
     efficiency, or other problems at airports providing service 
     to or from those airports.
       ``(b) Authority of Secretary To Make Gates, Etc., 
     Available.--The Secretary

[[Page 2497]]

     shall require a major air carrier, upon application by 
     another air carrier or on the Secretary's own motion to make 
     gates, facilities, and other assets available to other air 
     carriers on terms that are fair, reasonable, and 
     nondiscriminatory to ensure competitive access to those 
     airports if the Secretary determines, on the basis of the 
     investigation conducted under subsection (a), that such 
     gates, facilities, and other assets are not available and 
     that competition would be enhanced thereby at those airports.
       ``(c) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Major air carrier.--In this section the term `major 
     air carrier' means an air carrier certificated under section 
     41102 that accounted for at least 1 percent of domestic 
     scheduled-passenger revenues in the 12 months ending March 31 
     of each year, as reported to the Department of Transportation 
     pursuant to part 241 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, and identified as a reporting carrier 
     periodically in accounting and reporting directives issued by 
     the Office of Airline Information.
       ``(2) Asset.--The term `asset' includes slots (as defined 
     in section 41714(h)(4)) and slot exemptions (within the 
     meaning of section 41714(a)(2)).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 41722 the following:

``41723. Competitive access to gates, facilities, and other assets''.

     SEC. 5. UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN AIR TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Unfair Competition Through Use of Gates, Facilities, 
     and Other Assets.--Section 41712 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Underutilization of Gates, Facilities, or Other 
     Assets.--
       ``(1) In general.--It is an unfair method of competition in 
     air transportation under subsection (a) for a dominant air 
     carrier at a dominated hub airport--
       ``(A) to fail to utilize gates, facilities, and other 
     assets fully at that airport; and
       ``(B) to refuse, deny, or fail to provide a gate, facility, 
     or other asset at such an airport that is underutilized by 
     it, or that will not be fully utilized by it within 1 year, 
     to another carrier on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory 
     terms upon request of the airport, the other air carrier, or 
     the Secretary.
       ``(2) Requesting carrier must file with dot.--An air 
     carrier making a request for a gate, facility, or other asset 
     under paragraph (1) shall file a copy of the request with the 
     Secretary when it is submitted to the dominant air carrier.
       ``(3) Availability of gates and other essential services.--
     The Secretary shall ensure that gates and other facilities 
     are made available at costs that are fair and reasonable to 
     air carriers at covered airports where a `majority-in-
     interest clause' of a contract or other agreement or 
     arrangement inhibits the ability of the local airport 
     authority to provide or build new gates or other essential 
     facilities.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Dominant air carrier.--The term `dominant air 
     carrier' has the meaning given that term by section 
     41722(e)(2).
       ``(B) Dominated hub airport.--The term `dominated hub 
     airport' has the meaning given that term by section 
     41722(e)(1).
       ``(C) Covered airport.--The term `covered airport' has the 
     meaning given that term by section 47106(f)(3).
       ``(D) Asset.--The term `asset' includes slots (as defined 
     in section 41714(h)(4)) and slot exemptions (within the 
     meaning of section 41714(a)(2)).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 155 of the Wendell H. 
     Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st Century 
     (49 U.S.C. 47101 nt) is amended by striking subsection (d).

     SEC. 6. AIP COMPETITION FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 471 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 47138. Competition enhancement program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     make project grants under this subchapter from the Airport 
     and Airway Trust Fund for gates, related facilities, and 
     other assets to enhance and increase competition among air 
     carriers for passenger air transportation.
       ``(b) Secretary May Incur Obligations.--The Secretary may 
     incur obligations to make grants under this section.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, such amount to 
     remain available until expended.''.
       (b) AIP Grants.--Section 47107 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Gates, Facilities, and Other Assets.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     approve an application under this subchapter for an airport 
     development project grant at a dominated hub airport only if 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) receives appropriate assurances that the airport will 
     provide gates, facilities, and other assets on fair, 
     reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms to air carriers, 
     other than a dominant air carrier, to ensure competitive 
     access to essential facilities; or
       ``(B) determines that gates, facilities, and other assets 
     are available at that airport on a fair, reasonable, and 
     nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers other than a dominant 
     air carrier.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Dominant air carrier.--The term `dominant air 
     carrier' has the meaning given that term by section 
     41722(e)(2).
       ``(B) Dominated hub airport.--The term `dominated hub 
     airport' has the meaning given that term by section 
     41722(e)(1).
       ``(C) Asset.--The term `asset' includes slots (as defined 
     in section 41714(h)(4)) and slot exemptions (within the 
     meaning of section 41714(a)(2)).''.
       (c) PFC Funds.--Seciton 40117 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Facilities for Competitive Access.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     under subsection (c) for a project at a dominated hub airport 
     only if the Secretary--
       ``(A) receives appropriate assurances that the airport will 
     provide gates, facilities, and other assets on fair, 
     reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms to air carriers, 
     other than a dominant air carrier, to ensure competitive 
     access to essential facilities; or
       ``(B) determines that gates, facilities, and other assets 
     are available at that airport on a fair, reasonable, and 
     nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers other than a dominant 
     air carrier.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Dominant air carrier.--The term `dominant air 
     carrier' has the meaning given that term by section 
     41722(e)(2).
       ``(B) Dominated hub airport.--The term `dominated hub 
     airport' has the meaning given that term by section 
     41722(e)(1).
       ``(C) Asset.--The term `asset' includes slots (as defined 
     in section 41714(h)(4)) and slot exemptions (within the 
     meaning of section 41714(a)(2)).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for 
     subchapter I of chapter 471 of such title is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 47137 the 
     following:

``47138. Competition enhancement program''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator 
Hollings, in introducing the Aviation Competition Restoration Act. This 
legislation would give the Department of Transportation additional 
authority to review airline industry mergers and to enhance competition 
and access at dominated hub airports. If Congress does not act quickly 
to address the problems of industry consolidation and the reduction in 
meaningful competition, consumers will suffer as air fares inevitably 
increase and choices decline.
  Not since deregulation of the airline industry have we faced such a 
critical point in the history of air transportation in this country. We 
are closer than ever to seeing an industry totally dominated by three 
mega-airlines. Last year, United proposed purchasing US Airways. 
Earlier this year, American Airlines announced that it would purchase a 
faltering TWA and join with United to carve up US Airways. Since then, 
Delta and Continental have talked about some type of combination if the 
other mergers occur. These developments do not bode well for consumers.
  I recognize that there may be some benefits to these mergers. But the 
harm that will be inflicted on consumers far outweighs any gains. As 
the number of competitors dwindles, air travelers are almost certain to 
get squeezed. The Commerce Committee has held numerous hearings since 
the first deal was announced. I continue to believe that these 
proposals are not good for the consumer.
  Last year, the Commerce Committee approved a Senate Resolution 
expressing deep concern about the proposed United-US Airways deal. 
Expressions of concern are no longer enough. We must act to ensure that 
the Executive Branch has the tools to thoroughly evaluate these 
proposals and their effect on competition. We must also give them the 
tools to effectuate a more competitive environment. The Airline 
Competition Restoration Act would give the Department the authority to 
ensure that carriers have competitive access to critical airport 
markets by reallocating gates, facilities and other assets used or 
controlled by an air carrier prior to approving a merger or in other 
non-competitive circumstances.
  This bill is just one piece of a potential solution to the tremendous 
problems that air travelers face on a daily basis. More people are 
flying now than

[[Page 2498]]

ever before. That means that more people are affected by the lack of 
capacity, antiquated air traffic control, and over scheduling that 
continue to plague aviation travel. We had 674 million people fly last 
year. That number is expected to reach one billion within 10 years. One 
billion air travelers in a system that has basically reached gridlock 
today should be of great concern to all of us.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is not a rural or urban issue. 
This is an issue that affects the business traveler and the leisure 
traveler. We must act to enhance competition and prevent further 
gridlock and delay in our aviation system. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to try and address these issues in the coming 
months.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 416. A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to confirm 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission's jurisdiction over child safety 
devices for handguns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along 
with Senator DeWine, Senator Boxer, and Senator Kohl, that will set 
minimum standards for gun safety locks. Discussion is swirling around 
the U.S. Congress, in state legislatures throughout the country, and in 
our cities and towns about the use of handgun safety locks to prevent 
children from gaining access to dangerous weapons. To date, eighteen 
states have Child Access Protection, or CAP laws in place, which permit 
prosecution of adults if their firearm is left unsecured and a child 
uses that firearm to harm themselves or others.
  An important element that is largely missing from the debate over the 
voluntary or required use of gun safety locks is the quality and 
performance of these locks. Mr. President, a gun lock will only keep a 
gun out of a child's hands if the lock works. There are many cheap, 
flimsy locks on the market that are easily overcome by a child. There 
are 12 safety standards for every toy, but there is not even a single 
safety standard for a gun lock.
  Earlier this month the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, and 
the National Sport Shooting Foundation announced a voluntary recall of 
400,000 gun safety locks that were distributed by Project HomeSafe, a 
nationwide program whose purpose is to promote safe firearms handling 
and storage practices through distribution of gun locks and safety 
education messages. And last July the CPSC and MasterLock joined 
together in another voluntary recall of 752,000 gun locks. Both of the 
gun locks recalled could be easily opened with paper clips, tweezers, 
or by banging it on a table. When testing gun locks to replace the 
recalled locks, the CPSC found that all but two of the 32 locks tested 
could be opened without a key. I find this astonishing. Millions of 
Americans have come to depend on gun locks as a way to prevent their 
children from gaining access to a handgun, and it is extremely 
disturbing to learn that so many locks could be overcome.
  The legislation that we are introducing today requires the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission to set minimum regulations for safety locks 
and to remove unsafe locks from the market. Our legislation empowers 
consumers by ensuring that they will only purchase high-quality lock 
boxes and trigger locks. The legislation does not require the use of 
gun safety locks. It only requires that gun safety locks meet minimum 
standards. The legislation does not regulate handguns. It applies only 
to after-market, external gun locks.
  Storing firearms safely is an effective and inexpensive way to 
prevent the needless tragedies associated with unintentional firearm-
related death and injury. And I am pleased that several states, 
including my home state of Massachusetts, have required the use of gun 
safety locks. During the 106th Congress, the Senate passed an amendment 
that would require the use of gun safety locks by a vote of 78-20.
  While I am encouraged by this trend of increasing the use of gun 
safety locks, I am genuinely concerned that with the hundreds of 
different types of gun locks on the market today it is difficult, 
probably impossible, for consumers to be assured that the lock they 
purchase will be effective. In early February President Bush announced 
the Administration's support for a five-year, $75 million-a-year 
federal program to distribute free gun locks to every gun owner. I 
commend the President's proposal to distribute free gun locks, but 
believe that it is critically important that the locks function as 
intended.
  The latest data released by the Centers for Disease Control in 1999 
revealed that accidental shootings accounted for 7 percent of child 
deaths and that more than 300 children died in gun accidents, almost 
one child every day. A study in the Archives of Pediatric and 
Adolescent Medicine found that 25 percent of 3- to 4- year olds and 70 
percent of 5- to 6- year olds had sufficient finger strength to fire 
59, or 92 percent, of the 64 commonly available handguns examined in 
the study. Accidental shootings can be prevented by simple safety 
measures, one of which is the use of an effective gun safety lock.
  The Senate has been gridlocked over the issue of gun control. And you 
can be sure that young lives have been needlessly lost due to our 
inaction. This legislation, which I truly believe every Senator can 
support, would make storing a gun in the home safer by ensuring safety 
devices are effective. It would empower consumers. And most importantly 
it would protect children and decrease the numbers of accidental 
shootings in this country.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the Gun Lock Consumer Protection Act being introduced by my friend from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I support this bill because I believe it 
will save lives.
  Recently, we have all borne witness to a disturbing trend. 
Increasingly, we are hearing shocking news reports that another child 
has died because of his or her access to a loaded, unlocked firearm. In 
1999 alone, this was an almost daily occurrence. Last year, more than 
300 children died in gun accidents. Most of these accidents occurred in 
a child's own home, or the home of a close friend or relative. Places 
where these children should feel the safest.
  The mixture of children and loaded firearms is certainly extremely 
combustible. An estimated 3.3 million children in the United States 
live in homes with firearms that are always or sometimes kept loaded 
and unlocked. Now, I believe that the majority of parents with firearms 
believe they are being responsible about gun storage and other safety 
measures dealing with firearms. But, the fact is that, some parents 
have a fundamental misunderstanding of a child's ability to gain access 
to and fire a gun, distinguish between real and toy guns, make good 
judgements about handling a gun, and consistently following rules about 
gun safety. In fact, nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age 
children who keep a gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe 
from their children. However, one study found that when a gun was in 
the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the 
gun was kept.
  Many gun owners, State and local governments, as well as this Senate, 
have begun to recognize the combustible relationship between children 
and loaded, accessible firearms. This recognition has led many gun 
owners to purchase gun safety locks to ensure safe storage of their 
handguns and to prevent children from gaining access to weapons. In 
some States, gun locks are required at the time handguns are purchased. 
At least seventeen States have laws that require or encourage the use 
of gun locks that deter child access to handguns. And, finally, the 
Senate passed an amendment to the juvenile justice bill last Congress 
that would require the use of gun safety locks.
  Despite the facts that gun owners are buying more firearm safety 
devices and governments are rushing to mandate their use, there are no 
minimal safety standards for these devices. There are many different 
types of trigger locks,

[[Page 2499]]

safety locks, lock boxes, and other devices available. There is a wide 
range in the quality and effectiveness of these devices. Some are 
inadequate to prevent the accidental discharge of the firearm or to 
prevent a child access to the firearm.
  As governments move toward mandated safety devices, I believe it is 
important that consumers know that the device they are buying is 
actually adequate to serve its intended purpose. If States are going to 
prosecute adults when a child uses a firearm, these gun owners should 
have at least some peace of mind that their gun storage or safety lock 
device is adequate.
  Many of the safety lock devices currently on the market will not 
provide that peace of mind. Over the past year, the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission has tested thirty-two different lock devices. Thirty 
did not work as they were intended to work. In other words, 90 percent 
of the lock devices tested by the CPSC do not work! To date, CPSC has 
worked with two organizations to recall faulty locks. Because of the 
organizations' willingness to work with the CPSC, over 1.1 million 
safety locks have been recalled and replaced.
  The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Kerry would help 
responsible gun owners and parents know that the safety device they are 
buying is at least minimally adequate. This legislation is just common 
sense. It simply requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, 
to formulate minimum safety standards for gun safety locks and to 
ensure that only adequate locks meeting that standard are available for 
purchase by consumers. The standard to be used by the Commission 
requires that gun safety locks are sufficiently difficult for children 
to deactivate or remove and that the safety locks prevent the discharge 
of the handgun unless the lock has been deactivated or removed.
  It is important to note what this bill does not do. First of all, it 
does not give CPSC any say in standards of firearms or ammunition. In 
other words, it is not intended to regulate firearms themselves in any 
way whatsoever. Second, it will not have the effect of mandating what 
gun lock device is used. As I said earlier, there are many different 
types of gun locks currently available. Some of these allow for easy 
access and use of firearms for adults should they decide that is 
important to them. Other devices are more cumbersome and do not provide 
quick and easy access. Gun owners would be free to decide what device 
is best for them. This legislation would have no effect on that issue. 
Finally, this legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. 
While the Senate has already passed legislation to do this, if that 
language is removed in conference, this legislation will not affect 
that.
  As I said earlier, I support this legislation because I believe it 
will save lives. But, more than that, this legislation will empower 
parents who decide that they want to have a gun safety lock but are 
awash in a sea of different devices, to purchase only gun safety locks 
that provide adequate protection for their children. I urge my 
colleagues to join Senator Kerry and I in support of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 418. A bill to repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of 
expenses for business meals and entertainment, to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal 
the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and 
entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent 
gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is 
essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well 
as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries 
throughout the United States. These industries are being economically 
harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.
  The business meals and entertainment expenses deduction was reduced 
from 80 percent to 50 percent, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Its results have been 
detrimental to small businesses, the self-employed, and independent and 
traveling sales representatives. These groups rely on one-on-one 
meetings, usually during meals, for their marketing strategy, and the 
reduction of the business meals and entertainment deduction has 
impacted their marketing efforts.
  Many small business organizations have shown their support for an 
increase in this deduction. The National Restaurant Association, 
National Federation of Independent Business, National Employees and 
Restaurant Employees International Union, National Association of the 
Self-Employed, and the American Hotel and Motel Association, have all 
spoken of the need for the reestablishment of the 80 percent deduction 
for business meal and entertainment expenses.
  For example, traveling and independent sales representatives incur 
substantial travel and entertainment expenses from spending, annually, 
an average of 150 nights on the road. Home-based businesses also rely 
heavily on meeting with clients outside of the home and over meals. 
Such businesses have been harmed by the reduction of this deduction to 
50 percent.
  Currently, there are approximately 23.2 million persons who spend 
money on business meals in the U.S., down from 25.3 million in 1989. 
The total economic impact on small businesses of restoring the business 
meal deduction from 50 percent to 80 percent ranges from $5 to $690 
million, depending on the state. In the state of Hawaii, the estimated 
economic impact ranges from $32 to $43 million.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 418

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND 
                   ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
     entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``the applicable 
     percentage''.
       (b) Applicable Percentage.--Section 274(n) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the term `applicable percentage' means the percentage 
     determined under the following table:

``For taxable years beginning
  in calendar year--                                     The applicable
                                                        percentage is--
  2001..........................................................68 ....

  2002..........................................................74 ....

  2003 or thereafter.........................................80.''.....

       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``Only 50 percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 419. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Abel and Mary 
Nicholson House, Elsinboro Township, Salem County, New Jersey, as a 
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to recognize the historical significance of the Abel and Mary Nicholson 
House, located in Salem County New Jersey. I am pleased to have Senator 
Corzine join me in this important effort, and would like to announce 
that Congressman LoBiondo will introduce companion legislation in the 
House of Representatives.
  The Nicholson House was built in 1722 and is a rare surviving example 
of an early 18th century patterned brick building. It is a classic 
example of architecture of this period. The original portion of the 
house has survived for over 280 years with only routine maintenance. It 
is a unique resource which

[[Page 2500]]

can provide significant opportunities for studying our nation's history 
and culture. As one of the most significant ``first period'' houses 
surviving in the Delaware Valley, the Nicholson House represents a 
piece of history from both Southern New Jersey and early American life.
  In addition, it is situated in an area known for its early American 
economy. Delaware Bay schooners patrolled the waters of the Delaware 
River throughout the 18th and 19th centuries harvesting clams and 
oysters. This industry was an integral part of the region's economy, 
and contribute to the culture and history of New Jersey.
  The site is listed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, as 
well as the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the 
National Park Service recognized the importance and historical value of 
the this site by designating the Nicholson House and a National 
Historic Landmark.
  The Salem County Historical society and the Salem County Department 
of Economic Development both endorse the establishment of a national 
park at this site. A national park would encourage ecotourism in the 
area and spur economic growth. In addition, the site is located at the 
southern end of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. This theme trail 
runs along the New Jersey coastline and introduces visitors to the 
region and encourages them to take full advantage of the many natural 
and cultural attractions. The Nicholson House National Park would be 
the southern anchor of this interpretive trail and would enhance 
tourism and understanding of the culture and history of the region.
  This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I 
feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire 
nation by establishing the Nicholson House as a unit of the National 
Park Service, (NPS).
  The Federal Government has already acknowledge the significance of 
the Nicholson House, by designating the area a national historic 
landmark. Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the 
presence the site, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow 
for a better, more educational interpretation.
  My legislation would take the first step towards this important 
designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of 
establishing a national park at the Nicholson House. I ask that my 
colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that an 
important element of our culture may be preserved for future 
generations.

                          ____________________