[Pages S1701-S1713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 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.

[[Page S1702]]

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,''.
______

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:

[[Page S1703]]

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 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

[[Page S1704]]

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 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.

[[Page S1705]]

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 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

[[Page S1706]]

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 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

[[Page S1707]]

``(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.
____

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

[[Page S1708]]

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).
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 want 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

[[Page S1709]]

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 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:

[[Page S1710]]

``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 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 gages, 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

[[Page S1711]]

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 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

[[Page S1712]]

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, 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 rate 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 S1713]]

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.

____________________