Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 762, S. 763, and S. 764, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southwestern Australia and

that have plagued much of our country for years.

California has seen unprecedented devastation from wildfires in the last 5 years.

Over 10,000 families have lost their homes.

Over 4 million acres have been burned.

In 2007, wildfires in Southern California caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history.

In these fires alone, more than a million acres burned, and more than 2,000 homes were destroyed.

These fires killed nine people, and injured 130. Mostly firefighters.

The financial damage is estimated to be in the billions.

Simply put, this was a disaster of epic proportions.

It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 5 years ago.

We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other States.

Experts predict that things are only going to get worse in the years to come.

Global warming, extended droughts, dangerous invasive species outbreaks, and years of poor forest and fuel management have all contributed to the explosive conditions that we now face.

The reality is that California and much of the West is tinder-dry. Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity.

In early February we saw the tragic consequences of catastrophic wildfire in Australia. Two hundred are dead, a million acres burned, and whole communities were wiped out in a matter of hours.

Here in the U.S. we face that very same possibility, and we must do everything we can to stop a similar tragedy from devastating our neighborhoods.

The problem is that more and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high-threat ``wildland-urban interface.'' Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes located in the wildland urban interface.

So the question comes: What can be done?

There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires.

But I believe that we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid.

The three bills that I am introducing today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Communities Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt responsible building codes and mitigation practices.

The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, are able to make their mortgage and rental payments.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage.

The Fire Safe Communities Act will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires.

Most importantly, it does three key things.

It gives incentives to local communities that have adopted responsible fire-mitigation plans by allowing for greater federal reimbursement of firefighting costs during major fires.

It creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet wildland-urban interface code guidelines.

It allows for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to collaboratively work on mitigation projects that will protect homes on State and private lands

In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner of local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe.

As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important steps to make these fires less destructive.

This bill starts with the first step, by putting a reliable, unambiguous definition to ``Fire Safe'' communities.

Current Wildland fire codes, such as those produced by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, compile a comprehensive set of best practices that can be adopted by communities that are looking to protect themselves from fire damage. If properly implemented, these codes can greatly improve the fire resistance of these communities and their residents.

The fire code guidelines address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards.

The target mitigation measures in fire codes have been proven to be effective. Firefighter groups, insurance companies, and blue ribbon panels have all come to the same conclusions. It is time that we take their advice and start making this important investment.

The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, Office of Grants, and Training.

It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods.

This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--these responsible firesafe measures.

As further incentive, this bill makes the existing Fire Management Assistance Grants program contingent on the implementation of Firesafe codes, standards and ordinances.

Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the federal government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires.

Under this bill, communities that adopt the firesafe codes would be eligible for Federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs.

It is important to note that firesafe building codes, standards and ordinances are not mandatory. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling local governments how and where to build their buildings.

Instead these are voluntary codes; communities can choose to adopt, or not to adopt, at their discretion.

The bill does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, helps all of us reach a common goal.

I come from local government--I am 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government.

But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, and it is making fires more costly.

We need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas.

This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared.

Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes.

The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act will provide much-needed relief to working families hit hard by disasters.

It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated as disaster areas by the President under the Stafford Act.

It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements.

In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out.

This burden is too much for many working families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster.

FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But these types of assistance were eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

This bill would re-authorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss.

The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your

employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster.

To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster.

They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure.

Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps.

Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost states such as California, would be eligible.

Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000.

In today's market conditions, the federal government needs to make sure that we do everything we can to help families stay in their homes.

The Mortgage and Rental Assistance Act will prevent foreclosures in disaster areas by helping families make their payments on time. Given the state of the housing market, this bill is of the utmost importance and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high- cost states such as California.

It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. Or for low income earners who have no insurance.

Sadly, many Californians hit by wildfires or other disasters learn too late that their insurance coverage is insufficient.

This is a real problem in California. In fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the 2007 wildfires were underinsured.

Let me be clear: this bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding.

But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas.

Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase this amount to $50,000 for individuals who earn less than $100,000 per year. By increasing the amount of assistance, and targeting the program toward lower-income homeowners, the FEMA Disaster Assistance program will more efficiently help homeowners recover from disasters.

The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost states.

I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster.

Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity.

But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer.

To strengthen our firefighting capabilities.

To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible.

These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will authorize a right-of-way for Construction of an in-state natural gas pipeline to run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage. This bill would provide a right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline near the shoulder of the Parks Highway for the roughly 7 miles that the highway runs through Denali National Park.

I wish to explain I am introducing the bill now, and why, rather than being an infringement on Alaska's most visited Interior national park, the measure is actually the favored route by many in the environmental community to bring natural gas from the foothills of Alaska's North Slope to Southcentral Alaska.

While many in this body have heard about plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48--the project for which many in this body voted to approve a loan guarantee, tax credits and permitting improvements in 2004--there is concern that the big pipeline will not be finished in time to get gas to Southcentral Alaska. That is gas that is vital for electric generation in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough and Kenai Peninsula. Currently electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is called, is often generated by burning natural gas that has been produced since the 1960s from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. But production from Cook Inlet, while the province theoretically holds far more gas, has been falling for years. A major fertilizer plant near Kenai, for example, had to close in 2007 because there was not enough natural gas being produced to allow it to obtain the raw product it needed for urea production.

While there are contract issues involving problems with getting sufficient gas quantities for Railbelt utilities starting as early as next year, there are serious concerns about the ability of the region to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as 2014.

To provide a new, reliable natural gas supply, one proposal, the so- called ``bullet'' gas pipeline, is to construct a small diameter natural gas line, 24 inches in size, to run from Alaska's North slope region, pass Fairbanks along the Parks Highway, and terminate near Wasilla, Alaska. This pipeline would tie into existing transmission systems and would bring about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project would be completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets. Given the pace of planning for construction of the main line, it is unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas now until 2018 or 2019, perhaps four or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Further, any delays in solidifying a new gas supply could permanently end chances to reopen the Agrium fertilizer plant and to continue operations of the Kenai LNG export terminal, both key components of local Kenai Peninsula industry.

There are two potentially competing proposals for a small diameter, in-state gas pipeline. I have just described the ``bullet'' line proposal. The second proposal it to run a similarly sized pipeline along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, also tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska. There are advantages to both routes, the Parks route delivering gas to communities along the Parks Highway and providing clean natural gas to Denali National Park, while the Richardson/Glenn project would help provide economic activity to differing towns, such as Delta and Glennallen to the east.

It is not my desire to prejudge the outcome of which project or route should be selected, since that decision will be made by Alaska state regulators and financial markets. It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear the lone legal impediment to planning for the Parks route, that being how to get the gas economically through the mountainous central region of the State past Denali National Park and Preserve.

According to a recent analysis of routing options through this area, there are two feasible routes for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve. The shortest and most logical route follows the existing highway through this entire area, 7 miles of which passes through Denali National

Park. This route causes the least environmental and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline maintenance. The other feasible pipeline route diverts from the highway to stay outside of the national park boundaries, but in so doing skirts across a steep hillside that dominates a park visitor's view to the east. Furthermore, the route that avoids the park will create a new disturbed corridor in a remote location, and will cause pipeline operations and reliability challenges due to the remoteness and the ruggedness of the route. The route that avoids the park is estimated to cost twice as much as the route along the highway and through the park.

Besides being less expensive to construct and operate, the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right-of-way, also permits electric generation for the park facilities at Denali to come from natural gas. And for the first time reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles--another environmental benefit of the Parks Highway route. Currently National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually. Converting the buses to operate on CNG would significantly reduce air emissions in the park. A third benefit is that for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, not far from the park's entrance, will require a new bridge to be built that could carry not just the pipe, but provide a new pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors that today need to walk along the heavily traveled highway rather than on a separated, pedestrian path toward visitors attractions and hotels located just outside of the park's entrance. In all probability the installation work will be conducted in the shoulder seasons to make sure there are no visitor dislocations for tourists visiting the park.

For those reasons and others, a group of eight environmental groups: The National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance have formally endorsed the granting of a gas line right-of-way through Denali Park, along the existing highway right of way.

The granting of a permanent 20-foot easement, and probably a 100-foot construction easement, is not precedent setting. The National Park Service already has granted a permit for an installed fiber-optic cable along the same basic alignment for an Alaska communications company. Obviously the exact right-of-way will have to be delineated to avoid the existing cable and to accommodate park goals, such as routing around a vernal pond viewing area located along the general right-of- way.

I am proposing this bill simply to authorize the right-of-way for a Parks Highway route soon so that the decision on which route is best for the state and its citizens--if the ``bullet'' line option is chosen--can be made based on greater certainty in the cost estimates for a Parks Highway project. Removing the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will at least permit the Parks Highway route to be on a level playing field with the Richardson and Glenn Highway route when a routing decision is made. Then the decision on which project makes the most sense for all Alaskans can be made without fear that right-of- way acquisition delays could inflate project costs.

If the Parks route is chosen and the project proceeds, then the national park will benefit from the environmental benefits of natural gas and compressed natural gas being available for park activities, cutting air quality concerns, and improving pedestrian access. I truly believe there are no environmental issues with this legislation. I think anyone who has ever traveled on the Parks Highway in Alaska near the park would agree, and I hope it can be considered by Congress relatively soon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Udall, Kyl, and Hatch to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-third of these roads are paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the 3 States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw

upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses do not get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in SAFETEA through 2009. Under this provision, $1.8 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For the last 12 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2010 through 2015, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the 3 States.

I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation by far the nation's largest and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I do not believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Voinovich of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation programs.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Udall, Kyl, and Hatch to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-third of these roads are paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the 3 States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw

upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses do not get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in SAFETEA through 2009. Under this provision, $1.8 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For the last 12 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2010 through 2015, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the 3 States.

I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation by far the nation's largest and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I do not believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Voinovich of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation programs.

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

Mr. President, tobacco is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S.--that is 438,000 deaths every year. Sadly, another 50,000 Americans die each year from exposure to second hand smoke. Just this year, scientists discovered another danger in ``third hand smoke'' which describes the chemicals that cling to smokers'' hair and clothing, and linger in cushions and carpeting long after smoke has cleared a room. This residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they are crawling or playing on the floor.

Despite the known dangers of tobacco use, more than 45 million adults in the U.S. smoke cigarettes. Approximately 90 percent of those adults started smoking before the age of 14. Every day over 3,500 kids under age 18 try smoking for the first time, and of these, 1,100 will become regular, daily smokers. Between \1/3\ and \1/2\ will eventually die as a result of their addiction.

The likelihood of being a smoker varies depending on your ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and even where you live. African-Americans are twice as likely as the general population to smoke, and communities in the South are more likely to be smoker-friendly than other communities in the country. While 22.5 percent of the general adult population in the U.S. currently smokes, the percentage is about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.

The costs to our Nation of tobacco use are staggering. Total health costs attributable to tobacco approach $100 billion annually, and comprise an estimated 14 percent of all Medicaid costs. Our Federal Government pays $17.6 billion through Medicaid and $27.4 billion through Medicare for smoking related illnesses. Tobacco use is a leading cause of pregnancy complications, premature birth, and low birth weight.

Despite the fact that nicotine is a highly addictive drug, research has confirmed that smoking cessation strategies that include evidence based counseling and FDA-approved pharmacotherapies are effective. More than 4 in 5 smokers say they want to quit, and each year about 1.3 million smokers do quit. Overcoming an addiction to tobacco is arguably one of the single most important lifestyle changes that a person can make to improve and extend his or her health and life.

Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco cessation treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health improvements and cost savings. Shortly after quitting smoking, blood circulation improves, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease, the risk of heart attack decreases, lung function and breathing are improved, and coughing decreases. Pregnant women who quit smoking before their second trimester decrease the chances that they will give birth to a low-birth-weight baby. Over the long term, quitting will reduce a person's risk of heart disease and stroke, improve symptoms of COPD, reduce the risk of developing smoking-caused cancer, and extend life expectancy. Breaking an addition to nicotine is a very difficult process, and that is why we should make a variety of treatment options available to tobacco users.

I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Kennedy in introducing the Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2009. This legislation would make it easier for people to access tobacco cessation treatment therapies in three meaningful ways.

First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat tobacco- related diseases over the next 20 years.

Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows states to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under Medicaid. Despite the fact that the states have received payments from their successful federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less than half the states provide coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over seven years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save $572 million in direct medical costs.

Finally, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered part of quality maternal and child health services.

As Congress examines more closely the impact of tobacco on our country--considering regulation by the FDA or raising taxes to pay for public health priorities--we must make sure we assist those fighting this deadly addiction. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and taking a stand for the public health of our Nation.

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