Estate Tax Repeal Acceleration (ExTRA) for Family-Owned Businesses and Farms Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the TANF Financial Education Promotion Act of 2005 in order to call attention to an important issue for low-income families financial literacy. I am proud to be reintroducing this bill during the month of April, which is Financial Literacy Month.

One of the goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is to help low-income families transition from welfare to work. However, there is more to leaving poverty than just finding a job. Welfare recipients must learn the skills that will help them build savings and establish good credit so that they can stay off welfare. Currently, TANF does not offer financial education to low-income individuals, leaving welfare recipients at risk of dependence upon public assistance.

Furthermore, millions of low-income families, including families receiving TANF, are unbanked. These households tend to do their banking at check-cashing outlets that charge exorbitant fees for such services. A lack of basic consumer finance education, including lack of familiarity with how a checking or savings account works, has been cited as a major reason why millions of Americans do not set up such accounts.

Not only are low-income people more likely to be unbanked than other individuals, but they are also the most vulnerable to abusive lending practices and hostile credit arrangements. Those with the fewest financial resources end up paying the most to obtain financing. Financial education that addresses predatory lending will help prevent low-income families from becoming victims of unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure.

Burdened by significant financial needs, welfare recipients need practical information on the fundamentals of saving, household budgeting, taxes, and credit. With this knowledge, individuals will be better equipped to move toward self-sufficiency and maintain financial independence.

The TANF Financial Education Promotion Act makes strides in financial literacy for welfare recipients by requiring states to use TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work.

I am not alone in advocating financial literacy for TANF recipients. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of lower-income households to accumulate assets.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in helping the most vulnerable families in the United States get access to the tools they will need to successfully make the transition from welfare to work.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to speak today about an issue that I believe should be a lifelong goal for all Americans-- financial literacy.

More specifically, I want to highlight the necessity of financial literacy for men and women who are close to retirement. Senior citizens are too often the victims of predatory mortgage and lending abuses and other financial scams. AARP surveys show that over half of telemarketing fraud victims are age 50 or older. In fact, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older persons. It is clear that the vulnerability of this population stems from a lack of financial knowledge, so it is more important than ever that this Congress take steps to increase the availability of financial education for midlife and senior citizens.

Not only does poor financial literacy leave older Americans vulnerable to financial fraud, but it also leads to poor retirement planning. In the next thirty years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double. For many of these Americans, Social Security alone will be insufficient to cover all their expenses, particularly as health care costs rise. Only about half of American workers are currently participating in any pension plan, leaving more than 75 million Americans without an employer-sponsored pension. Even worse is the fact that fifty million Americans have no retirement savings whatsoever. These statistics are frightening. As our population lives longer, we must focus on retirement education for mid-life and aging Americans as well as consumer education for seniors.

My legislation, the Education for Retirement Security Act will address the need for financial literacy among seniors by creating a $100 million competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging, and nonprofit community based organizations, to provide financial education to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of this education is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. The bill also creates a national technical assistance program that will designate at least one national grantee to provide financial education materials and training to local grantees.

I am proud to be reintroducing this legislation during the month of April, which is Financial Literacy Month.

We must offer those individuals who are close to or in retirement the tools they will need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for their retirement. The Education for Retirement Security Act will help older Americans learn how to avoid scams and invest well. With savvy financial planning and smart consumer skills, senior citizens will be more empowered to protect themselves and ultimately be better able to enjoy a more secure retirement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Youth Financial Education Act. I am pleased to introduce this bill during the month of April--Financial Literacy Month.

It is hard to underestimate the importance of financial literacy for our youth. As credit, banking, and financial systems in this country become more and more complex, it is time to make sure that our education system teaches our children the fundamental principles of earning, spending, saving and investing, so that they can be successful citizens. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said himself that ``Improving basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.'' It is crucial not only for the well-being of our children, but for the future of our society as a whole that all citizens understand how to manage a checking account, use a credit card, and estimate their taxes.

According to the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy's Survey of High School Seniors, which measures students' aptitude and ability to manage financial resources such as credit cards, insurance, retirement funds and savings accounts, only 52.3 percent of students answered the survey questions correctly. In less than a year, 54 percent of these students who go onto college will carry a credit card. These statistics make it evident that we must do more to arm our youth with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the fiscal realities they will face upon entering college or the workforce.

In 2004, only 7 states required students to complete a course that includes personal finance before graduating from high school. In my home State of New Jersey, New Egypt High School is the only school that requires a course financial education. Several years ago I had the pleasure of teaching a class of these students, and came away impressed with their knowledge and competency in financial matters.

While awareness of the importance of financial literacy is improving, it is still not being addressed appropriately in schools. Our schools must prepare our children to succeed in every way, including in their financial decisions.

I am pleased that I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act giving elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. Although this was an important step in the right direction, Congress can and should do more to address this Issue.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide grants to States to help them develop and implement financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools. These programs will offer professional development for teachers and prepare them to provide financial education. It would also establish a national clearinghouse for instructional materials and information regarding model financial education programs.

Earlier this year, the Senate debated the Bankruptcy Reform Bill that seeks to change the rules governing bankruptcy. While I agree that bankruptcy reform should provide an incentive for capable individuals to honor their financial obligations, this legislation will make it that much more difficult for people who have fallen into debt to declare bankruptcy. With these reforms imminent, it will be all the more critical to take a proactive approach to the problem of personal debt in this country and make sure that the next generation learns how to better manage their money.

I ask for my colleagues to join me in support of the Youth Financial Education Act, which will equip our nation's youth with skills to become responsible consumers and enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005.

Our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--our elderly and disabled population--have limited access to mental health services. Medicare restricts the types of mental health services available to beneficiaries and the types of providers who are allowed to offer such care. It also charges higher copayments for mental health services than it does for all other health care. In order to receive mental health care, seniors and the disabled must pay 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, as opposed to the 20 percent that they pay for other services. Medicare also limits the number of days a beneficiary can receive mental health care in a hospital setting to 190 days over an individual's lifetime.

We must address this problem. The need is glaring. Almost 20 percent of Americans over age 65 have a serious mental disorder. They suffer from depression, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia and, all too often, substance abuse. These are serious illnesses that must be treated. Unfortunately, they are often unidentified by primary care physicians, or the appropriate services are simply out of reach. Americans age 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any other population in the United States. An alarming 70 percent of elderly suicide victims have visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to committing suicide.

Medicare is also the primary source of health insurance for millions of nonelderly disabled. More than 20 percent of these individuals suffer from mental illness and/or addiction. This very needy population faces the same discrimination in their mental health coverage.

As our population ages, the burden of mental illness on seniors, their families, and the health care system will only continue increase. Experts estimate that by the year 2030, 15 million people over 65 will have psychiatric disorders, with the number of individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease doubling. If we do not reform the Medicare program to provide greater access to detection and treatment of mental illness, the cost of not treating these diseases will rapidly escalate. Without the appropriate outpatient mental health services, too many of our seniors are forced into nursing homes and hospitals. If We truly want to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient, we must provide access to these services. Not only will they likely reduce costs in the long term, but they will also increase Medicare beneficiaries' quality of life.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act takes critical steps to address these issues. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health services to 20 percent. The proposed 20 percent copayment is the same as the copayment for all other outpatient services in Medicare. Second, the bill would provide access to intensive residential services for those who are suffering from severe mental illness. This will give people with Alzheimer's disease and other serious mental illness the opportunity to be cared for in their homes or in community-based settings. Third, the bill expands the number of qualified mental health professionals eligible to provide services through the Medicare program. This includes licensed professional mental health counselors, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists. This expansion of qualified providers is critical to ensuring that seniors throughout the nation, particularly those in rural areas, are able to receive the services they need.

In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to step forward to support the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. It is time for the Medicare program to stop discriminating against seniors and the disabled who are suffering from mental illness.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Domenici today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. It is with great pleasure we are today introducing the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2005.

The purpose of our bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's leaders in bridge research and I believe worthy of being designated as one of the Nation's university transportation centers.

Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network.

One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another.

Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the new Zakim Charles River Bridge in Boston, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, NM. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, NM, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with almost 49,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges.

A little known and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 78,000, or 13 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 states. For example, this chart shows the top ten states with the highest percentage of deficient bridges.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent of structurally deficient bridges

State Number of bridges Number of structurally deficient bridges (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma..................................................... 23,312 7,307 31.3 Rhode Island................................................. 749 193 25.8 Pennsylvania................................................. 22,253 5,464 24.6 Missouri..................................................... 23,791 5,028 21.1 Iowa......................................................... 24,902 5,259 21.1 Mississippi.................................................. 16,838 3,379 20.1 Vermont...................................................... 2,690 484 18.0 South Dakota................................................. 5,961 1,072 18.0 North Dakota................................................. 4,507 803 17.8 Nebraska..................................................... 15,455 2,550 16.5 Michigan..................................................... 10,818 1,764 16.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The source is the FHWA National Bridge Inventory System, December 2004

Florida and Arizona have the lowest percentages of structurally deficient bridges at less than 3 percent each.

Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent or rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average costs required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year.

Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. Almost one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and over 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,200 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient.

I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation.

To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. Sensors embedded in the concrete monitor the stresses on the bridge as the weather changes or under the weight of vehicles and show how the materials change with age. The information can then be used by engineers to help design more durable and economical bridges. Eventually NMSU's methods could be used to help design better buildings.

In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces and converted it into a ``smart bridge.'' This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. In 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. A third smart bridge, on I10 over University Avenue in Las Cruces, opened in July 2004.

In February 2003 I had an opportunity to tour the facilities at NMSU and to see firsthand the fine facilities and work being conducted on bridge technology. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection.

I will ask unanimous consent that two recent articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

New Mexico State is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. The university has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition.

This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at New Mexico Sate University. The university is widely recognized as national leader in

all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for NMSU to be recognized as the university technology bridge research center.

The bill we are introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I do believe NMSU has earned this honor. The bill mirrors the language for University Transportation Centers in the Senate-passed SAFETEA from the 108th Congress and provides $40 million in funding over 6 years from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the bridge technology center.

The Federal Highway Administration has long recognized the quality of the work at NMSU and has provided grants to support their outstanding work. In November 2004, NMSU's bridge center was awarded a $400,000 grant to install fiber-sensors in a new bridge over Interstate 10 in Dona Ana, NM. The sensors will relay information about the effects of stress on the bridge long before any signs of aging are visible. This is the fourth bridge in New Mexico to be equipped with the smart bridge technology. NMSU's Dr. Rola Idriss is the principal investigator of these projects.

NMSU's work is also being recognized internationally. Highway departments in Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan are experimenting with the smart bridge technology. In October 2004, NMSU's Dr. David Jauregui and Dr. Ken White were invited speakers for the International Conference on Bridge Inspection and Bridge Management in Beijing, China. Dr. White delivered the keynote address for the conference. NMSU is currently developing a memorandum of agreement with the Chinese bridge community to develop a bridge inspection and management training program.

Congress has also already recognized the fine work at NMSU. For example, at my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University, $250,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and $125,000 for the current fiscal year.

The specific purpose of NMSU's Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the Nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. Improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. Developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. Developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. Providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation.

Building on NMSU's research work, the University Technology Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities.

The engineers at New Mexico State University have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation.

I ask all senators to support the designation of the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill.

I now ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that I reintroduced today with a number of my Senate colleagues--the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2005.

The spirit of volunteerism is indelibly rooted in our Nation's history. From when early settlers landed in Jamestown in 1607 to when our citizen soldiers took up arms against the British Crown in the Revolutionary War, volunteerism has always been a part of American culture.

But that unwavering spirit did not stop there, it has continued and thrived in many individuals and charitable organizations today. One such group of organizations that has selflessly given back so much to Virginians and Americans are charitable medical transportation systems operated by volunteer pilot organizations, VPOs.

The mission and purpose of public benefit and non-profit volunteer pilot organizations involved in patient transport is to ensure that no financially needy patient is denied access to distant specialized medical evaluation, diagnosis or treatment for lack of a means of long- distance medical air transportation. The principal goal is to remove the geographical and financial burdens that would deny access to specialized care.

Last year public benefit flying non-profit volunteer pilot organizations provided long-distance, no-cost transportation for over 40,000 patients and their escorts in times of special need. Mr. President, this year, that figure will likely grow to roughly 54,000 people.

One such organization that has played an intricate part in this mission is Angel Flight. Angel Flight is a not-for-profit grassroots organization with a volunteer corps of more than 6,200 volunteer pilots/plane owners--divided into six regions across the United States--who fly under the banner of Angel Flight America. Angel Flight provides flights of hope and healing by transporting patients and their families in private planes, free of charge, to hospitals for medical treatment.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Transportation and the FAA closed airports and grounded commercial air traffic, but the FAA allowed Angel Flight volunteers to fly. Angel Flight pilots flew firefighters, families of victims of the bombings, Red Cross personnel, medical and other supplies including the protective booties for the Search and Rescue dogs to New York and Washington, DC.

In my years of public service, I have always maintained that we must provide access to care to all Virginians and Americans. Medical care should be available to all individuals. Sadly, our Nation is facing a medical crisis. Medical malpractice insurance costs and Medicare physician reimbursement are forcing many of our doctors to stop seeing ``high-risk'' patients or Medicare beneficiaries and in some cases forcing our doctors to give up practice altogether and retire. As a result, patients have to travel great distances to receive the medical care that they need to live happy, healthy and productive lives. Unfortunately, a number of these patients do not have the financial means to travel long distances, thus, ultimately denying patients access to life-saving or quality of life improving specialized treatment.

We can say the same with patients who rely on volunteer pilot organizations such as Angel Flight or one of its subsidiary groups like Mercy Medical Airlift in my home Commonwealth of Virginia. Unfortunately, due to the public's apparent notion that organizations that use airplanes are financially well-off and have deep pockets, many of the volunteer pilot organizations are open to frivolous and junk lawsuits. This leads to an access to care issue.

Also, aviation insurance has skyrocketed up in price and non-owned aircraft liability insurance is no longer reasonably available to volunteer pilot organizations. Many insurance companies had always provided this type of insurance but post September 11, 2001, this insurance is scarcely found and if found, the costs have increased greatly, to the astronomical sums of $5 million a year. Because of the exorbitant costs of insurance, volunteer pilot organizations have a difficult time recruiting and retaining pilots and professional persons.

I would like to submit an editorial written by the Virginian Pilot. This editorial correctly identifies the obstacles that these volunteer pilot organizations have to go through. I would like that editorial inserted here.

That is why I decided to introduce the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. In 1997, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which handled much of the liability issue for volunteer endeavors in the country; however, this legislation did not adequately address aviation-related matters.

My bill amends the highly regarded Good Samaritan Act to provide necessary liability protections in the area of charitable medical air transportation and promote volunteer pilot organizations. More specifically, this legislation will protect volunteer pilot organizations, their boards and small paid staff and nonflying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. The VPOs are simply the ``match-makers'' between the volunteer pilot willing to help a neighbor and the needy patient family. The pilot has full and sole responsibility for conducting the flight in a safe manner in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations. In addition, this legislation will provide liability protection for the individual volunteer pilot over and above the liability insurance that they are required to carry.

Furthermore, the Volunteer Pilot Protection Act will provide liability protection for ``referring agencies'' who tell their patients that the charitable flight service is available. Referring hospitals and clinics are becoming unwilling to inform their patients that charitable medical air transportation help is available for fear of a liability against them should something happen in a subsequent volunteer pilot flight. Hence, organizations like the Shriners Hospital System and the American Cancer Society would be able to make known available volunteer pilot services to transport their patients to Shriners or other hospitals where they receive care.

I know a few people have concerns that this bill would provide blanket immunity to Volunteer Pilot Organizations but I want to stress that my bill requires insurance on the part of the pilot and if there is negligence on behalf of the pilot, the injured party does have legal recourse. This bill does not provide blanket immunity to VPOs, but has been carefully worded to allow

legal action to be brought against the insurance policy of the pilot in event of negligence.

By providing volunteer pilots with liability protection, insurance rates for these pilots will ultimately be reduced. Therefore, more pilots will be able to afford insurance and fly for the public good. With less-costly insurance available, I am confident that more pilots will generously give their time to fly for and help the medically needy.

This bill enjoys the support of a number of charitable organizations, including the Children's Organ Transplant Association, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the Air Care Alliance, the Independent Charities of America, the Health and Medical Research Charities of America, the National Association of Hospital Hospitality Houses, and many others.

Not only does this legislation enjoy the support of numerous charitable organizations, it also enjoyed the support of the United States House of Representatives. On September 14, 2004, the House of Representatives passed the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of2004 by a vote of 385-12. Mr. President, this is a clear indication that this bill has broad bipartisan support in the House and I know the House will once again pass this commonsense legislation.

I am confident that this legislation will start a trend to help curb the large amounts of counterproductive lawsuits, lower insurance costs, and promote the spirit of volunteerism that has been rooted in the framework of our country's storied history. I, along with the volunteer pilots and organizations, and with the thousands of families who rely and may rely on the help of volunteer pilot organizations, urge the Senate to quickly and finally pass this legislation in the 109th Congress.

I would like to thank Congresswoman Thelma Drake, our newest member to the Virginia team, for taking over this legislation for former Congressman Ed Schrock and introducing the companion bill on the House side. In addition, I would also like to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Chambliss, Inhofe, Coburn, Talent, Cornyn, and Isakson for their support as we work to pass this vitally necessary legislation.

[From the (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot,

Mar. 11, 2003]

Shield Helpful Pilots From Frivolous Lawsuits

In the realm of volunteers, few outshine the generous folks

at Angel Flight.

This nonprofit organization flies patients for whom air

transport would be otherwise unaffordable to medical

facilities around the country. Private pilots spirit

individuals to dialysis, chemotherapy sessions, organ

transplants and other surgeries by donating their aircraft

and their valuable time. The goal is a noble one: to ensure

that no one in need is denied medical care for lack of long-

distance transportation.

But in our lawsuit-happy society, even these warmhearted

souls can't escape the possibility of landing in court. While

a law known as the Volunteer Protection Act shields most

people who give their time to worthy causes from frivolous

suits, it doesn't cover volunteer pilots or flight

organizers. Liability insurance costs for Angel Flight and

similar nonprofits have skyrocketed from $1,000 to more than

$25,000 annually.

This prohibitive price tag threatens the future of Angel

Flight, which is funded solely through donations. A

spokeswoman for Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic, headquartered in

Virginia Beach, said the burden will ultimately fall on sick

and needy patients. And with 600 volunteer pilots

transporting an average of 100 medical cases a month,

literally thousands of lives may be affected by this

oversight in the law.

Fortunately, lawmakers are paying attention. U.S. Rep. Ed

Schrock recently introduced bipartisan legislation to add

volunteer-pilot organizations to the ranks of those covered

by the Volunteer Protection Act. U.S. Sen. George Allen is

expected to introduce a similar measure in the Senate.

Congress should pass these bills, the sooner the better.

Keeping Angel Flight aloft is literally a life-and-death

matter.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my colleagues Senator Burns, Senator Dorgan, Senator Craig, Senator Dayton, Senator Vitter, Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, Senator Coleman, and Senator Baucus to introduce the Railroad Competition Act of 2005. This legislation encourages the competition and consumer protection in the freight railroad market that Congress intended when it partially deregulated the industry in 1980 with the passage of the Staggers Act.

Introduction of legislation in this vein is a bit of a ritual for this Senator. West Virginia industries depend on efficient and dependable rail service at fair prices to move their products to market. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. However, for shippers without competitive rail access--referred to as captive shippers--it is a cruel and impossible dream. I have tried for years, with partners from both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country, to change the status quo, and improve the economic situation for rail shippers and retail shoppers. This is the seventh time since 1985 I have sponsored legislation to address this issue, and the fifth congress in a row in which I have worked closely with my good friends Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan to help shippers and their customers. And I won't give up until I actually succeed.

Predictably, the railroads will overreact to this bill with scathing accusations of what we are doing. In truth, we intend nothing more radical than helping shippers, consumers, and the railroads themselves, reap the benefits of the basic principles of capitalism--the ability of sophisticated actors to conduct arms-length negotiations for competition, service, and fair prices. Currently, Class I railroads overcharge and underserve captive shippers with impunity, and with an antitrust exemption preventing meaningful oversight by Congress. Customers have no power. This means higher prices for electricity, food, medicine, paper products; the chemicals to protect our water supply and crops, and the basic ingredients of the plastics in many of the goods we purchase. This is crucial to protecting commerce in the United States. So far, we have been thwarted, though we remain undeterred in our efforts and confident of the validity of our objectives.

In the 1970s, Congress observed a bloated freight rail network, unprofitable railroads, and service was anything but efficient and dependable. When the Staggers Act was passed in 1980, Congress gave a green light to deregulation of the railroad industry. But, as with the deregulation of every other industry that Congress has allowed, there were to be constraints on the ability of railroads to abuse shippers left captive to just one railroad. The Staggers Act left it to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to watch over a partially deregulated industry carrying out Staggers' dual goals: Improving the financial health and viability of the railroads; and improving and maintaining service for shippers. The ICC was responsible for ensuring fair treatment and reasonable rates for those shippers made captive by mergers or business decisions allowed under Staggers.

The success of Staggers has been completely one-sided. Captive rail shippers in my state of West Virginia have told me--since before I came to the United States Senate--that service was horrible and rates being charged were too high. That is still true today. When I was first running for the Senate, the country was served by about 40 ``Class I'' railroads. After Staggers the railroad industry ``rationalized'' its routes--meaning it dropped unprofitable lines and left more and more shippers captive to just one railroad.

A virtually unimpeded string of rail mergers during the last 25 years has only compounded the problem. The number of Class I railroads has dropped to seven. Four of these--CSX and Norfolk Southern in the East and Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union Pacific in the West-- completely dominate the industry, accounting for about 90 percent of the freight rail traffic in the nation.

This is simple. Fewer market participants mean less competition, and less competition opens up the possibility of the abuse of local monopoly power. Under the misadministration of the Staggers Act, first by the ICC, and later by its successor agency the Surface Transportation Board (STB), abuse of captive shippers has not only gotten worse, but it has been unjustly bestowed a veneer of propriety by a series of unwise administrative decisions and at least one court case that gave grudging deference to an agency, the STB, that has failed to carry out the clear directions of Congress. The STB, to which shippers have looked for a solution, has become a facilitator of the problem.

The goals of the Railroad Competition Act are really quite mundane. My colleagues and I hope only to give life to a freight rail system originally envisioned by the drafters of the Staggers Act. We hope to send to the President a bill that will allow captive shippers the most basic right in business negotiations: They will be able to get the railroads that ship their products simply to quote a rate for the service.

My colleagues may be amazed to find out that the STB's current reading of the Staggers Act allows shippers no such right. Our legislation will simply require railroads to tell their customers the cost of moving a certain quantity of product from their manufacturing facility to their customer. Point A to Point B. Nothing in business is more basic, but it is a basic of business negotiations captive shippers do not currently enjoy. Additionally, our legislation also would do the following: clarifies that the STB shall promote competition among rail carriers, helping to maintain both reasonable freight rail rates and consistent and efficient rail service; creates a system of ``final offer'' arbitration for matters before the STB; authorizes the STB to remove so-called ``paper barriers'' that prevent short-line and regional railroads from providing improved service to shippers; requires STB to act in the public interest and removes required showing of railroads' anti-competitive conduct; caps filing fees for STB rate cases at the level of federal district courts (reducing filing fee from the current fee $65,000, which is to be doubled in 2005); calls for a Department of Transportation (DOT) study of rail competition; allows elected officials and state railroad regulators to petition the STB for declarations of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' with appropriate remedies; creates position of Rail Customer Advocate at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); and expands infrastructure modernization loan guarantee program.

In closing I would suggest that, rather than the highly charged arguments we have engaged in over the years, my colleagues encourage the railroads to take shippers' concerns seriously, and that we all work to create a freight rail marketplace made up of companies hungry, in the best capitalist sense of that word, to do business. That is the goal of the Railroad Competition Act, and I look forward to its consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the United States. I am pleased to have three members of the Environment and Public Works Committee--the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--as original cosponsors of this bill. I also thank Senators Dayton, Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-

navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other bodies of water.

This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds.

In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands.

In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimated 60 percent of the wetlands in my home State of Wisconsin lost Federal protection. Wisconsin is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers has been collecting data from States across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates that it will lose protection for more than 40 percent of its wetlands. Indiana estimates it will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of protection for 33 percent or more of its freshwater wetlands.

These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the Nation's ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment.

In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to state and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide are unclear and confusing, jeopardizing the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands.

Since 2001, the confusion over the interpretation of the SWANCC decision has grown. On January 15, 2003, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously, they released a guidance memo to their field staff regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The agencies claim these actions are necessary because of the SWANCC case. But both the guidance memo and the proposed rulemaking go far beyond the holding in SWANCC. The guidance took effect right away and has had an immediate impact. It tells the Corps and EPA staff to stop asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters without first obtaining permission from headquarters. Based on this guidance, waters that the EPA and Corps judge to be outside the Clean Water Act can be filled, dredged, and polluted without a permit or any other long-standing Clean Water Act safeguard.

The rulemaking announced the Administration's intention to consider even broader changes to Clean Water Act coverage for our waters. Specifically, the agencies are questioning whether there is any basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over additional waters, like intermittent streams. The possibility for a redefinition of our waters is troubling because there is only one definition of the term ``water'' in the Clean Water Act. The wetlands program, the point source program which stops the dumping of pollution, and the non-point program governing polluted runoff all depend on this definition. Even though the Administration rescinded this proposed rulemaking in December 2003, the policy guidance remains in effect.

If we don't protect a category of waters from being filled under the wetlands program, we also fail to protect them from having trash or raw sewage dumped in them, or having other activities that violate the Clean Water Act conducted in them as well.

Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.--the understanding that Congress held when the Act was adopted in 1972--as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision.

The proposed legislation is very simple. It does three things. First, it adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the EPA and Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands on all relevant constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, as well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands, such as: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Izaac Walton League, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal Government's role in protecting our water. This legislation is a first step in doing just that.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.