[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11571-11574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 2681. A bill to provide for safe equestrian helmets, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Rhode 
Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce legislation to provide greater 
safety for children and adults who ride horses in the United States. 
Each year in our country, nearly 15 million people go horseback riding. 
Whether it be professionally or for pleasure, Americans of all ages and 
from all walks of life enjoy equestrian sports. And, while everyone 
acknowledges that horseback riding is a high-risk activity, there are 
serious safety issues related to equestrian sports that can and should 
be addressed.
  I first became aware of the problem of equestrian helmets when Kemi 
O'Donnell, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, called my office to 
relate her family's tragic experience. The story she shared opened my 
eyes to the danger posed by certain equestrian helmets. In 1998, Kemi's 
daughter, Christen O'Donnell, was a young 12-year-old resident of 
Darien, Connecticut, and a 7th-grader at New Canaan Country School. 
Active and sporty, Christen was a talented intermediate rider who had 5 
years of riding experience under her belt when she mounted her horse on 
the morning of August 11. As always, Christen wore a helmet and was 
accompanied by her trainer when she began a slow walk through the ring. 
Suddenly, without warning, the horse she was riding shook its head, and 
Christen was thrown off into 4 inches of sand. Even though her horse 
was only at a walk, and Christen was wearing a helmet, that helmet 
offered her little protection, and she sustained severe head injuries 
as a result of the fall. She was rushed to Stamford hospital where, 
despite efforts to save her, she died the next day. The magnitude of 
their loss has been compounded by the thought that, had Christen been 
wearing a better constructed helmet, it is possible she could have 
survived this accident.
  My colleagues may be shocked to learn, as Christen's parents were, 
that there are no government standards in existence for the 
manufacturing of equestrian helmets. Some helmets are voluntarily 
constructed to meet strict American Society of Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) testing requirements, but the vast majority of helmets sold in 
the U.S. offer little or no real protection and are merely cosmetic 
hats--a form of apparel. Frequently, parents of young riders like 
Christen--and even more mature riders--do not know that they are buying 
an untested and unapproved item when they purchase a riding helmet. 
Indeed, most riders believe that when they buy a helmet at the store, 
they are purchasing a product that meets standards designed to provide 
real and adequate head protection. Bike helmets are built to minimum 
safety requirements, as are motorcycle helmets.
  Apparel helmets, like the one worn by Christen, offer little or no 
head protection, while ASTM-approved helmets are designed to 
significantly reduce head injury. The difference in aesthetic design 
between the two is minimal, but the underlying support structures of 
these types of helmet are substantial. ASTM-approved helmets offer a 
high degree of head protection, increase the survivability of 
equestrian accidents and, in my view, should be the standard for all 
equestrian helmets.
  This lack of adequate safety standards in riding helmets is why USA 
Equestrian (USAEq), one of the largest equestrian organizations in the 
country, recently mandated that ASTM-approved helmets must be worn in 
all USAEq-sanctioned events. While this decision effectively eliminates 
the danger posed by ``apparel helmets'' at these events, each day many 
more students ride in lessons and in private shows that are not USAEq-
sanctioned. For their safety, I believe that Congress should establish 
minimum safety standards for all equestrian helmets sold in the United 
States, so that all riders can obtain headgear that offers actual 
protection against head injury. This is not an unprecedented 
suggestion. As I stated before, Congress has already acted to similarly 
ensure the safety of bike helmets. The legislation that I and Senator 
Chafee introduce in Christen's memory today is modeled on this 
successful bike helmet law and would go a long way toward reducing the 
mortality of equestrian accidents.
  The Christen O'Donnell Equestrian Helmet Safety Act would require 
that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish minimum 
requirements, based on the already proven ASTM standard, for all 
equestrian helmets in the United States. Thus, there would be a uniform 
standard for all equestrian helmets, and riders could be confident that 
the helmet they buy offers real head protection. Let me be clear. This 
modest legislation does not mandate that riders wear helmets. That is a 
matter better left to individual states. But, it would take a 
significant step toward improving the survivability of equestrian 
accidents and would bring the United States in line with other 
industrialized countries with sizable riding populations. Countries 
like Australia and New Zealand have enacted similar helmet safety 
legislation, and the European Union has set standards to make sure that 
helmets for equestrian activities meet continental standards. It is 
time for the United States to take similar steps.
  This bill is supported by a wide-ranging coalition of equestrian, 
child safety, and medial groups. This bill has received the endorsement 
of the National SAFEKIDS coalition, an organization dedicated to 
preventing accidental injury to children, and the Brian Trauma 
Foundation, a leading medical group dedicated to preventing and 
treating brain injury. Additionally, USAEq has passed a rule in support 
of the concept of the bill, requiring all children to wear ASTM 
approved helmets and strongly recommending that all adults do so as 
well. Further, in the ``Chronicle of the Horse,'' the trade publication 
for the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the U.S. Equestrian Team, the 
U.S. Pony Clubs, The National Riding Commission, the Foxhound Club of 
North America, the National Beagle Club, the U.S. Dressage Foundation, 
the American Vaulting Association, the North American Riding for the 
Handicapped Association, and the Intercollegiate House Show 
Association, an article was published endorsing the ASTM rule. Given 
the wide range of organizations that endorse this bill or have endorsed 
the ASTM rule, it is clear that riders, coaches, and medical 
professionals alike recognize the need for a standard, tested helmet 
design.
  I would like to draw my colleague's attention to some alarming 
statistics that further demonstrate the importance and expediency of 
this bill. Emergency rooms all across America have to deal with an 
influx of horse-related injuries each year. Nationwide in

[[Page 11572]]

1999, an estimated 15,000 horse-related emergency department visits 
were made by youths under 15 years old. Of these injuries, head 
injuries were by far the most numerous and accounted for around 60 
percent of equestrian-related deaths. These injuries occurred, and 
continue to occur, at all ages and at all levels of riding experience. 
That an inadequately protected fall from a horse can kill is not 
surprising when you examine the medical statistics. A human skull can 
be shattered by an impact of less than 6.2 miles per hour, while horses 
can gallop at approximately 40 miles per hour. A fall from 2 feet can 
cause permanent brain damage, and a horse elevates a rider to 8 feet or 
more above the ground. These statistics make it evident that horseback 
riding is a high-risk sport. While all riders acknowledge this fact, 
reducing the risk of serious injury while horseback riding is 
attainable through the use of appropriate head protection. We should 
pass this bill, and pass it soon, to ensure that head protection for 
equestrian events is safe and effective.
  Americans consumers deserve to be confident that their protective 
gear, should they choose to wear it, offers real protection. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill, and ask that the full text be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2681

       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 ``Christen O'Donnell 
     Equestrian Helmet Safety Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR EQUESTRIAN HELMETS.

       (a) In General.--Equestrian helmets manufactured 9 months 
     or more after the date of the enactment of this Act shall 
     conform to--
       (1) the interim standard specified in subsection (b), 
     pending the establishment of a final standard pursuant to 
     subsection (c); and
       (2) the final standard, once it has been established 
     pursuant to subsection (c).
       (b) Interim Standard.--The interim standard is the American 
     Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard designated 
     as F 1163.
       (c) Final Standard.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission shall begin a proceeding under section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to--
       (A) review the requirements of the interim standard 
     specified in subsection (b) and establish a final standard 
     based on such requirements;
       (B) include in the final standard a provision to protect 
     against the risk of helmets coming off the heads of 
     equestrian riders;
       (C) include in the final standard provisions that address 
     the risk of injury to children; and
       (D) include any additional provisions that the commission 
     considers appropriate.
       (2) Inapplicability of certain laws.--Sections 7, 9, and 
     30(d) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056, 
     2058, 2079(d)) shall not apply to the proceeding under this 
     subsection, and section 11 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2060) shall 
     not apply with respect to any standard issued under such 
     proceeding.
       (3) Effective date.--The final standard shall take effect 1 
     year after the date it is issued.
       (d) Failure To Meet Standards.--
       (1) Failure to meet interim standard.--Until the final 
     standard takes effect, an equestrian helmet that does not 
     conform to the interim standard as required under subsection 
     (a)(1) shall be considered in violation of a consumer product 
     safety standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety 
     Act.
       (2) Status of final standard.--The final standard developed 
     under subsection (c) shall be considered a consumer product 
     safety standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety 
     Act.
       9c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission to carry out activities under this section, 
     $700,000 for fiscal year 2003, with the amount to remain 
     available until expended.
       (f) Equestrian Helmet Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``equestrian helmet'' means a heard-shell head covering 
     intended to be worn while participating in an equestrian 
     event or activity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2685. A bill to amend the Black Lung Benefits Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, coalminers in this country have 
risked their lives and limbs, making enormous sacrifices to fuel our 
nation. We owe them the respect and benefits they have earned. Sadly, 
these miners' families are being abandoned in their time of greatest 
need: when they are coping with the devastating loss of a loved one 
from black lung disease. Current policy arbitrarily forces some widows 
of black lung victims to wade through bureaucracy to prove and reprove 
their spouse's illness, and this simply is not right.
  The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund was created to assist miners who 
were terminated prior to 1970, or who worked in mines where no mine 
operator can be assigned health care liabilities. The Black Lung 
Benefits Act, BLBA, was amended in 1981 to strengthen the finances of 
the Trust Fund, but it made it extremely difficult for those suffering 
from black lung to qualify for benefits.
  Currently, there are two very different standards governing 
entitlement to benefits for the spouses of deceased black lung victims. 
In the event that a Trust Fund beneficiary died prior to January 1, 
1982, benefits rightly continue uninterrupted to the surviving spouse. 
But if the beneficiary died or dies after January 1, 1982, the 
surviving spouse must file a new claim to benefits and must prove that 
the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits.
  This issue affects more than 11,000 West Virginia retirees and their 
survivors, as well as another 51,000 black lung families across the 
country. I have introduced legislation that would begin to rectify the 
failures of the Black Lung Benefits Act. It is a companion to 
legislation Representative Rahall introduced in the House. The Black 
Lung Benefits Survivors Equity Act of 2002 would give benefits to 
widows of black lung victims, benefits that these women rightfully 
deserve.
  Linda Chapman, one very strong and courageous woman from Spencer, WV, 
tragically lost her husband, Carson, to black lung disease last 
January. On top of this tragedy, she was denied survivor benefits 
simply because of the BLBA's double standards. But rather than giving 
up, Linda stood up.
  On behalf of the surviving widows of black lung victims, she walked 
several hundred miles from Charleston, WV, to Washington, DC, to 
generate public interest and to get the attention of lawmakers as well. 
I applaud Mrs. Chapman's efforts, and was pleased to meet her when she 
arrived in Washington.
  I hope this Senate will act quickly to remedy this problem for Mrs. 
Chapman and other black lung widows like her. After all that they have 
endured, these women should not have to fight against bureaucracy 
simply to obtain the survivors' benefits due them.
  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. 2685

       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 ``Black Lung Benefits 
     Survivors Equity Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. EQUITY FOR CERTAIN ELIGIBLE SURVIVORS.

       (a) Rebuttable Presumption.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     411(c) of the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 921(c)(4)) 
     is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Continuation of Benefits.--Section 422(l) of the Black 
     Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 932(l)) is amended by striking 
     ``, except with respect to a claim filed under this part on 
     or after the effective date of the Black Lung Benefits 
     Amendments of 1981''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2686. A bill to strengthen national security by providing 
whistleblower protections to certain employees at airports, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Levin, am pleased 
to introduce a bill, the Airport Employee Whistleblower Protection Act 
of 2002, that will enhance airport and air travel safety. It will do 
this by protecting all security screeners at all airports from reprisal 
for blowing the

[[Page 11573]]

whistle on security violations, not just the select few who are 
currently protected. As my colleagues know, I have long believed that a 
good government is an accountable government, and whistleblower 
protection laws go a long way toward making government accountable.
  This is particularly true when it involves our nation's security. 
Just recently we saw enlightening disclosures of massive systemic 
problems at the FBI by a whistleblower, Special Agent Rowley, that will 
no doubt lead to improvements and better security for Americans. 
Although Director Mueller has promised Special Agent Rowley that she 
will not be discriminated against because of her disclosures, 
whistleblower protection laws do not currently apply to the FBI, a 
problem that I'm trying to fix. Likewise, whistleblower protection laws 
do not currently protect many baggage screeners and x-ray technicians 
who witness security breaches.
  In the Spring of 2000, Congress passed a law known as Air 21 that 
provided whistleblower protection to employees and contract employers 
to air carriers. At that time, when baggage screening was usually the 
responsibility of the airlines, screeners with whistleblower protection 
could alert their bosses or the Federal Aviation Administration about 
security violations. But that legislation didn't go far enough. That's 
because only employees of air carriers were protected from retribution 
under the law.
  Under Air 21, security screeners employed by state or municipal 
governments, or regional airport authorities, had to rely on a 
patchwork of state whistleblower protection laws, or just the good 
sense of their employers, when they decided to blow the whistle on 
security breaches.
  Worse still, when Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation 
Security Act last Fall, it specifically denied whistleblower protection 
to the new Federal baggage screeners. During the debates, I called for 
whistleblower protection for airport screeners because the best way to 
make an effective workforce is by creating an accountable government. 
But when Congress federalized the baggage screeners, it took Federal 
screeners out of the Air 21 air carrier whistleblower protections, and 
created a class of Federal contractors that perform security screening 
services, but are not covered by any whistleblower protections.
  This legislation will fix these problems. First, the bill will ensure 
that until airport security screener personnel are fully federalized, 
all airport security screeners are given whistleblower protection, 
regardless of whether they're employed by air carriers, state or local 
governments, regional airport authorities, or contractors. Second, the 
bill will close the loophole in the law so that Federal baggage 
screeners receive protection under the same Whistleblower Protection 
Act that protects many other Federal employees, and so that contractors 
for the Federal government also will get whistleblower protection.
  I note that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation has 
taken a good step toward supplying whistleblower protection to Federal 
screeners by signing a memorandum of understanding with the Office of 
Special Counsel, the office that enforces the Whistleblower Protection 
Act. The idea is that the OSC will agree to investigate cases of 
alleged whistleblower retaliation by the Transportation Safety 
Administration. But this agreement is not enough because it does not 
afford a right of appeal, so the TSA is free to ignore any OSC 
recommendation. Further, it does not provide whistleblower protection 
for contract screeners. Finally, unlike legislation, the agreement can 
be cancelled by either the TSA or the OSC on 90 day's notice. So the 
administration's agreement to provide whistleblower protection, though 
an admirable effort, is just not enough. We need statutory 
whistleblower protection for airport screeners.
  In all my years of doing oversight, I have found that it's pretty 
rare for an agency to identify and fix its own problems, especially 
security problems. Most of the time, it takes a whistleblower or an 
Inspector General or a Congressional investigation to expose and fix 
security problems.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Airport Employee 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2002 to improve security at our 
nation's airports. Let's close the loophole and give all security 
screeners whistleblower protection so that our nation's aviation system 
is more safe and secure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2687. A bill to facilitate the extension of the Alaska Railroad 
for national defense purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to 
facilitate the construction of national defense facilities in Alaska.
  It is a given that the best way to move very large quantities of bulk 
goods between points is by sea or by train. This bill will allow the 
extension of the Alaska Railroad from Eielson Air Force Base, just 
south of Fairbanks, AK, to a point near the location on Fort Greely, AK 
that has been chosen for the national missile defense system. This will 
significantly reduce the cost of shipping construction materials and 
operational supplies to the site, and incidentally allow a considerable 
savings in the cost of wear and tear on the highway system that would 
otherwise be the only possible route for those goods.
  The extension will allow materials to be shipped to Alaska by sea to 
be transferred to the railroad and carried all the way to the vicinity 
of the defense project by rail. This is preferential to being loaded, 
unloaded, loaded on long-distance trucks, unloaded, and loaded again 
when they move to the actual work site.
  The bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior, working with 
other agencies as appropriate and necessary, to identify and acquire 
all of the lands necessary for this modest rail line extension of 
approximately 80 miles. Where those lands are held by other entities, 
there will be a fair exchange for lands held elsewhere. Once the entire 
route has been acquired, the lands will be transferred to the Alaska 
Railroad under the same circumstances that have been used previously 
under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act.
  This is a very important step toward ensuring the most economical 
possible approach to this major project, and I urge my colleagues 
support.
  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. 2687

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This act may be cited as the ``National Defense Rail 
     Connection Act of 2002."

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (a) A comprehensive rail transportation network is a key 
     element of an integrated transportation system for the North 
     American continent, and federal leadership is required to 
     address the needs of a reliable, safe, and secure rail 
     network, and to connect all areas of the United States for 
     national defense and economic development, as previously done 
     for the interstate highway system, the Federal aviation 
     network, and the transcontinental railroad;
       (b) The creation and use of joint use corridors for rail 
     transportation, fiber optics, pipelines, and utilities are an 
     efficient and appropriate approach to optimizing the nation's 
     interconnectivity and national security;
       (c) Government assistance and encouragement in the 
     development of the transcontinental rail system successfully 
     led to the growth of economically strong and socially stable 
     communities throughout the western United States;
       (d) Government assistance and encouragement in the 
     development of the Alaska Railroad between Seward, Alaska and 
     Fairbanks, Alaska successfully led to the growth of 
     economically strong and socially stable communities along the 
     route, which today provide homes for over 70% of Alaska's 
     total population;
       (e) While Alaska and the remainder of the continental 
     United States has been connected by highway and air 
     transportation, no rail connection exists despite the fact 
     that Alaska is accessible by land routes and is a logical 
     destination for the North American rail system:

[[Page 11574]]

       (f) Rail transportation in otherwise isolated areas is an 
     appropriate means of providing controlled access, reducing 
     overall impacts to environmentally sensitive areas over other 
     methods of land-based access;
       (g) Because Congress originally authorized 1,000 miles of 
     rail line to be built in Alaska, and because the system today 
     covers only approximately half that distance, substantially 
     limiting its beneficial effect on the economy of Alaska and 
     the nation, it is appropriate to support the expansion of the 
     Alaska system to ensure the originally planned benefits are 
     achieved;
       (h) Alaska has an abundance of natural resources, both 
     material and aesthetic, access to which would significantly 
     increase Alaska's contribution to the national economy;
       (i) Alaska contains many key national defense 
     installations, including sites chosen for the construction of 
     the first phase of the National Missile Defense system, the 
     cost of which could be significantly reduced if rail 
     transportation were available for the movement of materials 
     necessary for construction and for the secure movement of 
     launch vehicles, fuel and other operational supplies;
       (j) The 106th Congress recognized the potential benefits of 
     establishing a rail connection to Alaska by enacting 
     legislation to authorize a U.S. -Canada bilateral commission 
     to study the feasibility of linking the rail system in Alaska 
     to the nearest appropriate point in Canada of the North 
     American rail network; and
       (k) In support of pending bilateral activities between the 
     United States and Canada, it is appropriate for the United 
     States to undertake activities relating to elements within 
     the United States.

     SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE RAILROAD-UTILITY 
                   CORRIDOR.

       (a) Within one year from the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation, the State of Alaska and the 
     Alaska Railroad Corporation, shall identify a proposed 
     national defense railroad-utility corridor linking the 
     existing corridor of the Alaska Railroad to the vicinity of 
     the proposed National Missile Defense facilities at Fort 
     Greely, Alaska. The corridor shall be at least 500 feet wide 
     and shall also identify land for such terminals, stations, 
     maintenance facilities, switching yards, and material sites 
     as are considered necessary.
       (b) The identification of the corridor under paragraph (a) 
     shall include information providing a complete legal 
     description for and noting the current ownership of the 
     proposed corridor and associated land.
       (c) In identifying the corridor under paragraph (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, the following 
     factors:
       (a) The proximity of national defense installations and 
     national defense considerations;
       (2) The location of and access to natural resources that 
     could contribute to economic development of the region;
       (3) Grade and alignment standards that are commensurate 
     with rail and utility construction standards and that 
     minimize the prospect of at-grade railroad and highway 
     crossings;
       (4) Availability of construction materials;
       (5) Safety;
       (6) Effects on and service to adjacent communities and 
     potential intermodal transportation connections;
       (7) Environmental concerns;
       (8) Use of public land to the maximum degree possible;
       (9) Minimization of probable construction costs;
       (10) An estimate of probable construction costs and methods 
     of financing such costs through a combination of private, 
     state, and federal sources; and
       (11) Appropriate utility elements for the corridor, 
     including but not limited to petroleum product pipelines, 
     fiber-optic telecommunication facilities, and electrical 
     power transmission lines, and
       (12) Prior and established traditional uses.
       (d) the Secretary may, as part of the corridor 
     identification, include issues related to the further 
     extension of such corridor to a connection with the nearest 
     appropriate terminus of the North American rail network in 
     Canada.

     SEC. 4. NEGOTIATION AND LAND TRANSFER.

       (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) upon completion of the corridor identification in Sec. 
     3, negotiate the acquisition of any lands in the corridor 
     which are not federally owned through an exchange for lands 
     of equal or greater value held by the federal government 
     elsewhere in Alaska; and
       (2) upon completion of the acquisition of lands under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey to the Alaska 
     Railroad Corporation, subject to valid existing rights, title 
     to the lands identified under Section 3 as necessary to 
     complete the national defense railroad-utility corridor, on 
     condition that the Alaska Railroad Corporation construct in 
     the corridor an extension of the railroad system to the 
     vicinity of the proposed national missile defense 
     installation at Fort Greely, Alaska, together with such other 
     utilities, including but not limited to fiber-optic 
     transmission lines and electrical transmission lines, as it 
     considers necessary and appropriate. The Federal interest in 
     lands conveyed to the Alaska Railroad Corporation under this 
     Act shall be the same as in lands conveyed pursuant to the 
     Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (45 USC 1201 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.

       Actions authorized in this Act shall proceed immediately 
     and to conclusion not withstanding the land-use planning 
     provisions of Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-579.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

                          ____________________