[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1999-2002]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Barrasso, 
        and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 3038. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent the 
enforcement of certain national primary drinking water regulations 
unless sufficient funding is available; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System 
Drinking Water Act of 2009. This is the third Congress that I have 
introduced this bill which would assist water systems throughout the 
country comply with the ever growing number of federal drinking water 
standards. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mike Crapo, James 
Risch, John Barrasso and David Vitter as cosponsors of this 
legislation. My bill will require the Federal Government to live up to 
its obligations and require the EPA to use the tools it was given in 
the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, SDWA.
  My goal here is to ensure that small towns across the country have 
safe, affordable drinking water and that the laws are fair to small and 
rural communities. Currently EPA assumes that families can afford water 
rates of 2.5 percent of their annual median household income, or $1,000 
per household. For some families, paying $83 a month for water may not 
be a hardship but for so many more, it is nearly impossible. There must 
be some flexibility inserted into the calculation that factors in the 
ability of the truly disadvantaged to pay these costs. Forcing systems 
to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more 
damage than good.
  EPA needs to look more closely at how it determines affordability. My 
bill directs EPA to take additional factors into consideration when 
making this determination. These include ensuring that the 
affordability criteria are not more costly on a per-capita basis to a 
small water system than to a large water system.
  In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified 
a total of over $4.1 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 
years. $2.4 billion of that need is for community water systems that 
serve fewer than 10,000 people. The $4.1 billion does not include the 
total costs imposed on Oklahoma communities to meet federal clean water 
requirements, the new Groundwater rule, the DBP II rule or the Long 
Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Oklahoma continues to 
have municipalities struggling with the 2002 arsenic rule. Many of our 
small systems are having difficulty with the Disinfection Byproducts, 
DBP, Stage I rule, and small systems who purchase water from other 
systems and did not have to test, treat or monitor their water must now 
comply with DBP II. EPA estimates that over the next 20 years, the 
entire country will need $52.0 billion to come into compliance with 
existing, proposed or recently promulgated regulations.
  My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with all 
these rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The DBP rules are very complex and involve 
a lot of monitoring and testing. If we are going to impose complicated 
requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement 
those requirements.
  The bill creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and 
approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated 
rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the 
science behind the rules in order to compare new developments since 
each rule's publication.
  Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the 
use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package 
plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to 
date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My 
legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify 
barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the 
recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document 
that states can use to create their own programs.
  Most importantly this bill requires the federal government to pay for 
these unfunded mandates created by laws and regulations. In 1995, 
Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ensure that the 
Federal Government pays the costs incurred by State and local 
governments in complying with Federal laws. My bill is designed to 
ensure that EPA cannot take an enforcement action against a system 
serving less than 10,000 people, without first ensuring that it has 
sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the regulation.
  Since the 108th Congress, I have coauthored and cosponsored 
legislation to provide additional resources to communities through the 
State Revolving Loan Funds. Unfortunately, not much

[[Page 2000]]

has changed. We still have too many regulations and not enough money to 
pay for them. Funding legislation is important but until that money 
becomes available, it is unreasonable to penalize and fine local 
communities because they cannot afford to pay for regulations we 
imposed on them. I thank my colleagues and look forward to their 
support of this commonsense proposal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL, of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. Corker):
  S. 3039. A bill to prevent drunk driving injuries and fatalities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS 
SAFE Act of 2010. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this 
legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Bob 
Corker.
  This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight 
drunk driving and has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year.
  Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to do more to 
prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico 
back in 1992, when a drunk driver killed a mother and her three girls 
on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway 90 miles an hour, 
going the wrong way down an interstate highway. This crash helped 
change attitudes in my State. But it should not take a tragedy for us 
to do more to prevent drunk driving.
  In 2008, drunk driving killed about 12,000 Americans, including 143 
people in New Mexico. That is an average of 32 people killed every day 
by drunk driving. This unacceptable death toll is all the more shocking 
when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.
  The United States has already made significant progress. Compared to 
20 years ago, our roads are much safer today. Yet even as the overall 
number of people killed on our highways has declined, drunk driving 
still accounts for about one-third of all traffic fatalities.
  It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2-percent 
chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time 
drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before 
being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. This is unacceptable. Something must 
be done to prevent these drivers from getting on the road in the first 
place.
  The good news is, there are potential technologies out there that 
could do that. That is why Senator Corker and I are introducing the 
ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed the 
automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and antilock 
brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These safety devices 
are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the driver. Such 
technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic fatalities 
today.
  Imagine a future with vehicles that could detect whether a driver is 
drunk when he or she gets behind the wheel--before he or she even 
starts their vehicle. That would be no drunk driving crashes if it were 
impossible for drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely 
deployed in cars, an estimated 8,000 lives could be saved every year.
  I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. Yet consider that 
vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS 
satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park 
themselves. New Mexico and other States require convicted drunk drivers 
to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into 
before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition 
interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a 
better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.
  In 2006, Mothers Against Drunk Driving convened an international 
technology symposium in Albuquerque, NM. The goal of the meeting was to 
review efforts to develop advanced ignition interlocks technology.
  In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered 
with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle 
technologies to prevent drunk driving. The recent progress of this 
cooperative effort fuels optimism that such technology could be 
deployed within 5 to 10 years.
  Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public 
acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced, 
absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.
  The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social 
drinking. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found 
that 64 percent of Americans believe advanced alcohol detection 
technology is a good idea and that it is reliable.
  What would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would authorize 
$12 million in annual funding for 5 years for the Driver Alcohol 
Detection System for Safety Program, also known as DADSS.
  DADSS is a public-private partnership between NHTSA and the 
Automobile Coalition for Traffic Safety. The goal is to explore the 
feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges 
associated with using in-
vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.
  This increased Federal funding to combat drunk driving is a smart 
investment in public safety. Drunk driving has direct and indirect 
economic costs in terms of damaged property, medical bills, and lost 
productivity. In economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion per 
year. Of course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of 
saving 8,000 lives every year.
  Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already 
support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the 
Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all support the 
ROADS SAFE Act.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these 
important organizations in the fight against drunk driving by 
supporting the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our 
efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kaufman):
  S. 3042. A bill to provide for a study by the National Academy of 
Sciences on the technical policy decisions and technical personnel at 
the Federal Communications Commission; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kaufman, 
to introduce legislation that puts a greater focus on efforts to 
improve the technical resources and decision-making process at the 
Federal Communications Commission. The bill proposes a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making 
process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC.
  Over the past several years, there have been concerns voiced by the 
technical community and even Commissioners themselves about the lack of 
technical resources and expertise at the Federal Communications 
Commission, FCC. It is for good reason: in 1948, the FCC had 720 
engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 300--an astonishing 62 
percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face technical issues 
concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, and 
broadband. Also, FCC officials have recently acknowledged a shortage of 
network engineers and that a large number of experienced engineers are 
eligible to retire within the next few years.
  Yet, communications technologies are becoming increasingly complex--
evolving from the traditional circuit-switched phone networks to 
packet-based dynamic-routing high-bandwidth data networks. The need to 
thoroughly address these issues challenges staff and leads to delays or 
even inaction in technical rulemakings since the Commission doesn't 
have the appropriate resources for timely technical evaluation and 
decisionmaking.
  Technical proceedings, including those to authorize new technologies,

[[Page 2001]]

have been dismally slow--typically taking 2-5 years for approval--
creating a bottleneck for innovation and competition.
  A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO-
10-10-79, reaffirms these concerns and provides additional evidence of 
the need for such a study. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's 
processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns 
regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decisionmaking 
process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in 
ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing 
marketplace.''
  With the rapid advancement of technologies and innovation within the 
telecommunications industry, the FCC must be better equipped and more 
agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a 
regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our Nation's technical leadership 
in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult 
to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future 
telecommunications needs.
  To better examine these significant issues and make tangible 
recommendations toward a comprehensive solution, this legislation 
proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical 
policy decisionmaking process and the availability of technical 
personnel at FCC. Specifically, the study would include an examination 
of the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, current technical 
personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes 
of technical staff and engineers, and recommendations to improve these 
areas. The study would provide tangible and specific proposals to 
streamline processes and rulemakings as well as how the FCC can be more 
competitive in hiring the required technical personnel to make it more 
effective. The bill authorizes $1 million over a 2-year period to 
conduct this comprehensive technical study.
  This bill takes a step towards ensuring the Commission has the 
adequate resources and proper technical decisionmaking processes in 
place to be a more effective agency. This is absolutely critical given 
how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that 
regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of 
innovation. It is also critical to overall reform at the Commission 
because in order to properly regulate communications, the FCC must be 
deeply knowledgeable of both the legal and technical aspects of the 
issues before it. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join 
Senator Kaufman and me in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor a bill Senator 
Snowe introduced today to conduct a study on the technical policy 
decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at 
the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.
  Professionals in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics have always been our Nation's problem solvers. They 
help us solve great challenges in energy, health, security, and 
transportation. Their innovation creates jobs, jobs that will continue 
to lead us on the path to economic recovery.
  Still, the number of STEM professionals in some of our government's 
most critical agencies has been declining. In 1948, the FCC had 720 
engineers on staff. Today, while communications technologies have 
become increasingly complex, it has fewer than 300 engineers. Over the 
years, there has been a shift in the FCC from hiring engineers to 
hiring professional staff, resulting in a shortage of network 
engineers. What is more, a high proportion of these experienced 
engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years. That means 
that, as communications technology continues to change the way we 
engage our world, the FCC may face a critical shortage.
  This legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences 
to address these issues. Specifically, the study will examine the FCC's 
technical policy decisionmaking, including if the FCC has the adequate 
resources, processes, and personnel in place to evaluate properly and 
to account for the technical aspects of the Commission's rulemaking 
process. It will also examine the current technical personnel staffing 
levels and FCC recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and 
engineers. Finally, the study will provide recommendations to improve 
each of these areas.
  It is critical that we include engineers in our Nation's technical 
policy and decision making, at the FCC and across the government. I am 
pleased that this study will explore the implications and offer 
recommendations for the decline of engineers in this important agency 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Snowe's 
efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. Kaufman, Ms. Snowe, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 3043. A bill to award planning grants and implementation grants to 
State educational agencies to enable the State educational agencies to 
complete comprehensive planning to carry out activities designed to 
integrate engineering education into K-12 instruction and curriculum 
and to provide evaluation grants to measure efficacy of K-12 
engineering education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to lead a bipartisan 
group of Senators today to introduce the Engineering Education for 
Innovation Act, also called the E\2\ for Innovation Act. Joining me in 
leading this are Senator Kaufman, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, 
Senator Cantwell, and Senator Klobuchar. The intent of this legislation 
is to competitively award planning and implementation grants for State 
educational agencies to integrate engineering education into K-12 
curriculum and instruction to spark student interest in engineering 
through comprehensive K-12 engineering education including hands-on 
design and engineering components.
  The bill increases the availability of K-12 engineering education 
curriculum and teacher professional development programs, encourages 
broader participation of girls and underrepresented minorities in K-12 
engineering education, invests in afterschool engineering education 
programs, and the legislation also funds the research and evaluation of 
such efforts.
  Our Nation today faces pressing technological challenges in renewable 
energy, biotechnology, health care technology, material science, and 
information technology. According to the National Science Board's 2010 
Science and Engineering Indicators, only 5 percent of college graduates 
in the United States major in engineering, compared with 12 percent of 
European students, 20 percent of those in Asia and one-third in China. 
In addition, while women earn 58 percent of all bachelor's degrees, 
they constitute only 18.5 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in 
engineering. African Americans hold only 4.6 percent and Hispanics hold 
only 7.2 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering.
  As a woman, I am a strong proponent of programs that support girls 
and underrepresented minorities. Many K-12 students, especially girls 
and students from underrepresented groups or who are economically 
disadvantaged, and their teachers have little knowledge about the 
engineering design process or the many career possibilities in 
engineering. Today, we continue to have an untapped pool of potential 
technical workers, and we must leverage the diversity of these 
individuals to fuel the innovation necessary for our future global 
competitiveness.
  I am committed to initiatives that enhance student participation in 
STEM, diversify the STEM pipeline and promote competence and confidence 
to teach engineering for preparing the next generation of our Nation's 
high tech workforce for a sustainable and competitive economy. Long 
term investments in STEM education will pay rich dividends to our 
future economy by building capacity to innovate.
  The introduction of engineering education has the potential to 
improve student learning and achievement in

[[Page 2002]]

science and mathematics, increase awareness about what engineers do and 
of engineering as a potential career, and boost students' technological 
literacy. I want to thank all my colleagues for joining together to 
address the critical needs of our Nation in a bipartisan manner. I look 
forward to working together to move this legislation through this 
Congress.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Engineering 
Education for Innovation Act, or E-squared for Innovation Act. I am 
proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Gillibrand, introduced today, 
along with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Klobuchar, and Murray. This bill 
will help us meet the engineering education challenges I have often 
spoken about on the Senate floor by awarding, planning, and 
implementation grants to States to integrate engineering education into 
their K-12 curriculum and instruction. It also funds the research and 
evaluation of all such efforts.
  I believe we are at a crucial moment for science, technology, 
engineering, and math, or STEM education. Today's engineers have a 
central role to play in developing the innovative technologies that 
will help our economy recover and promote real job growth. In turn, we 
must promote policies and programs that help to generate greater 
interest in STEM and actually lead to the production of a greater 
number of engineers.
  Last year, the National Academy of Engineering and National Research 
Council released their seminal report on engineering in K-12 education. 
According to their report, K-12 engineering education can improve 
student learning and performance in science and math and increases 
students' technological literacy. It can also increase awareness of the 
engineering profession and boost student interest in pursuing a career 
in the field.
  The report stressed the need for greater coordination among key 
stakeholders to develop common definitions and grade level appropriate 
goals for engineering education. It also emphasized the need for more 
research on the impacts of engineering education and potential models 
for implementation. The E-squared for Innovation Act seeks to address 
these recommendations in three ways.
  First, the legislation awards planning grants to State educational 
agencies to review any existing engineering education resources in the 
State and to develop implementation plans to integrate K-12 engineering 
education into curriculum and instruction. Grantees must coordinate 
these activities with a number of partners, including the Governor's 
office, institutions of higher education, teachers and administrators 
at public elementary and secondary schools, and other relevant players 
in the State.
  Second, the E-squared for Innovation Act provides implementation 
grants to State educational agencies to carry out a number of 
activities, including developing academic standards, curricula, and 
assessments that include engineering; recruiting and training qualified 
teachers to deliver engineering education; and investing in afterschool 
engineering education programs. Priority will be given to applicants 
who serve a significant percentage of student populations 
underrepresented in engineering.
  Third, the bill charges the Institute of Education Sciences with 
conducting research and evaluation on the grants awarded. These studies 
will determine the effectiveness of the programs and activities at 
improving student achievement in STEM education and assess how 
successful programs can be replicated.
  The E-squared for Innovation Act is supported by a diverse list of 77 
organizations. To name a few, supporters include the National Center 
for Technological Literacy, the American Society for Engineering 
Education, the Delaware Foundation for Science and Mathematics 
Education, IBM, Intel, the University of California, the National 
Society of Black Engineers, and the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers--just to name a few. I am truly amazed but genuinely pleased 
at the wide-reaching support for this bill.
  Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, expressed strong 
support for the E-squared for Innovation Act, adding:

       One of the many reasons our nation does not seem to attract 
     young people into engineering is that many seem to have no 
     idea what an engineer does. Although we attempt to teach math 
     and science in K-12, seldom do we expose students to 
     engineering.

  Many in my home State recognize this problem and, consequently, 
support for STEM programs is growing in Delaware. Governor Jack Markell 
recently launched a STEM education council in Delaware to bring 
together teachers, business leaders, curriculum specialists, higher 
education representatives, and others to focus on innovative STEM 
programs and curricula that engage young people in Delaware in STEM 
education. The council will assist in Federal grant applications for 
STEM-related programs and support effective professional development 
programs in STEM areas.
  In STEM-focused schools across Delaware, students are learning how to 
extract DNA from fruit, build robots that can throw balls, perform 
forensic investigations, make ``slime'' and lip balm, and more. It is 
through these types of comprehensive, hands-on activities that we will 
get young people interested in tackling and learning STEM subjects and 
eventually pursuing engineering jobs. The E-squared for Innovation Act 
is just the kind of program we need to bolster these activities in 
Delaware and ensure more students nationwide have access to these 
exciting engineering opportunities.
  I cannot stress enough how much I believe this Nation is at a 
crossroads in STEM education and that this is our opportunity to push 
forward and create an environment that will cultivate and encourage our 
next generation of engineers. They will foster the research and 
innovation that will help us solve challenges such as clean drinking 
water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, renewable energy, 
affordable health care, and environmental sustainability.
  Our country is counting on these future engineers, and the E-squared 
for Innovation Act is a step in the right direction to support and 
encourage them.

                          ____________________