Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

Will my friend from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. President, I appreciate very much my distinguished copartner on the Transportation Subcommittee talking about the need to get this bill through quickly. He was discussing the difference between the bill we have now and the original bill.

I was wondering if it is correct that the original highway bill really didn't have any formulas; it was what one would have to call pork because it had various projects in it. It was an effort by the Congress to outline where money is needed. Is that not basically the form of the original highway bill?

Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada will yield for another question, isn't it true that the scope of this bill, the size of it, reflects programs that Congresses in previous years decided are good for the national transportation policy? In other words, we are not creating a new formula; we have taken the formula, the apportionment that existed. Is it not true that we have attempted to construct this bill so that, working with the formula, every State gets up to 95 cents?

My State of Missouri was one of those States, when I got here in 1987, that was only getting back 77 cents. Every State will get up to 95 cents on the dollar. Every State, at a minimum, will get a 10- percent increase. Some States that would be getting much more money will only get a 40-percent or 40-plus-percent increase, which some may object to and say is not enough. But in this day and age, with a tight budget, it seems to me a 40-percent increase is not bad to take home from a compromise bill. Is that a fair assessment?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield about a matter.

We have a number of technical amendments. There is a question about whether we want to move to that. We are preparing a technical amendment. I have discussed this with both sides. Basically, this is a technical amendment that accomplishes a number of things. In essence, it achieves the original goal of an amendment offered by Senator Warner, which was to increase the metropolitan planning share or takedown from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. We are getting a technical amendment copied, and as soon as we get the copies, if there is no objection from the managers, I thought we would do that.

Mr. President, might we inquire of the managers on the Democratic side if they are ready to take this up?

I will be happy to withhold on that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce there is an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid. This is one small step for mankind toward a highway bill.

There had been some concern about offering amendments. This is a technical amendment. This changes a number of items that, when crafting the bill, were erroneous. Normally we would adopt these technical amendments without objection. But there may be some discussion on it. I wish to explain the one perhaps significant change in this technical amendment so everybody knows what we are doing.

In the previous bill, TEA-21, the metropolitan planning organizations received 1 percent from the Surface Transportation Program to do the work that these agencies are required to do in approving transportation plans, conforming them to air quality plans. This 1 percent takedown, as it is called, amounted to about $1.7 billion over the life of the bill.

In drafting the underlying bill, we increased spending on planning for metropolitan planning organizations by $800 million, almost a 50 percent increase.

When Senator Warner proposed making the takedown of the share for the metropolitan planning organizations 1.5 percent rather than 1 percent,

it was on the assumption that the total of the previous amount plus what we did in committee would amount to 1.5 percent. But as it was drafted and printed in the committee report, it wound up adding what we had previously put in the equity bonus on top of the 1.5 percent.

I believe this amendment restores the MPO portion to that originally proposed and adopted, i.e., a 1.5 percent share, which is what we have all agreed is needed for metropolitan planning organizations.

We have a letter that I will submit, signed by the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users Alliance, the chief executive officer of Associated General Contractors of America, the executive director of American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The letter says, in substance--and I will submit the full letter-- that we write on behalf of the organizations to express concerns over the size of the total, the 1.5 percent-plus, the additional equity bonus. Their point is that the large increase results from a combination of adjustments, growth in the overall highway program, an increase in the percentage set-aside, and broadening of the program base subject to the metropolitan planning set-aside.

They believed that adding an additional $2.2 billion for planning would make that much less available for improving, constructing, maintaining, and operating a safe and efficient highway system.

They come out strongly in support--as we all are--of increasing the metropolitan planning funds. The number of MPOs has increased 340 to 378, and many more are looking at the prospect of being designated as nonattainment for the new ozone and fine particulate standards. They recommend an increase more comparable to the growth in MPOs, but they do not think tripling it is wise. So they have asked us to reconsider.

The purpose of this technical amendment, among other things, is to bring it back to the 1.5 percent increase, upon which we have previously agreed.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the majority leader is in the Chamber. We will not act on this amendment at this time. If somebody wishes to object to it after the majority leader speaks, we would ask that they come to the floor and make an objection. Otherwise, I propose that at 3 o'clock we ask that the amendment be adopted or, if we need a recorded vote, we will be happy to do that. One way or another, I hope we can have action on this by 3 o'clock.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from New Hampshire what his substitute does?

Mr. President, this obviously is a very important issue the Senator has raised. Having this as an amendment to a technical amendment raises questions that I think perhaps should be answered.

First, I point out to my friends who are concerned about it that the number we have chosen for the highway portion of the bill was a number adopted by a 79-21 vote on the floor of this body. In addition, we understand the need to provide funding for highways. The Finance Committee has worked very hard to come up with the funding measures. I don't serve on the Finance Committee, but they have adopted fuel tax compliance measures. They have reformed the provisions for the ethanol exemption. It is a very valuable agricultural fuel that improves the environment. They will not charge the highway trust fund with that. They will pay down the existing interest owed to the highway trust fund and spend down the balance. They will clarify mobile machinery exemptions and transportation taxes, and discontinue refunds going from the trust fund into the general revenue fund for fuel tax exemptions. These are generally related to the highway trust fund.

Further, I will point out for those of us who said we want the trust fund used for highways, the trust fund right now is being used for other things that are not highway related, such as automobile, bus, and truck drivers. Some $36 billion will go to mass transit, a very valuable adjunct to the transportation system but not something that

people who pay highway trust fund taxes are using because they are putting the gas and diesel in their own vehicles.

There are also valuable environmental benefits in there such as CMAQ--congestion mitigation for air quality. There are also rails and trails and other easements in there that are a significant diversion of highway trust fund dollars from the direct highway trust fund purposes.

I hope my colleagues who have problems with strict application of highway funds being raised on highway uses deal with that in an amendment that is directly related to the highway bill transportation which is before us.

Obviously, one of the things one can do in the Senate is to offer amendments that are more properly the jurisdiction of other committees, which certainly collective bargaining is, I would say, such an effort. But this bill is so important to the United States, to our economy, and the safety and well-being of the people who use our highways and use our bridges in the United States that I hope we can get back to the main purpose of this measure, which is to continue the highway program, which builds better roads, better bridges, and provides jobs--47,000 jobs for each $1 billion of highway contracts--and provides the future for economic growth in our States.

As I have said on many occasions on this floor, I can tell you jobs are going to be located in the States where they have good transportation systems, and good highways are essential for that.

Finally, in my State it is a matter of saving lives. So I hope we can get back to dealing with the important measures in this bill. I hope we can deal with the specific needs, make the technical amendments that are normally permitted on such a bill, and debate the major provisions.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, picking up with the description of this bill, which we think is extremely important, I am going to share some other views. But I want to continue with this description of the bill.

Under the current law, there is a general prohibition against placing commercial establishments in recreation and safety rest areas on interstate rights-of-way. This bill creates a small exception to this prohibition by allowing States to place either electrification or other idling facilities that can be used for heating, air-conditioning, electricity, and communication. This will enable truck operators to receive services without continuing to run their engines, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. States, other public agencies, and private entities are already allowed to operate on the interstate system and may charge for the services provided under this new authority.

Why is this important? This is tremendously important. If you travel in your State along an interstate, you will find now that the new hours-of-service regulations require truckers to take more frequent breaks. There are rest areas in my State which are crowded with trucks. There are entrances to and exits from interstate highways where significant numbers of trucks are parked. This is to make sure that the drivers get the rest they need. There has been some controversy over it, but this is the rule and they are abiding by that rule. But when they are shut down and idling, particularly in bitter cold weather so they can get heat in their cab while they get the necessary rest, No. 1, it is causing dangerous situations along the roadway, on the exit and entrance ramps to interstate highways, and they are needlessly burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, and causing excessive use of imported petroleum at a time when we face a real energy crisis.

So while this is a small part of the bill, it is one which responds to very significant needs to maintain safety for the traveling public, especially the truckers, and also to eliminate air pollution that comes from idling trucks.

Another program that I think is vitally important to empower the improvements in tolling, section 1609, deals with tools for toll programs. One of the effective things that has been used in many highway locations for raising revenue and regulating the flow of traffic is tolling. This bill modifies the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program, the ISRRP, and establishes a new variable toll pricing program. This variable pricing program replaces the pilot program which was authorized in the previous TEA-21.

The new variable toll pricing program enables the use of variable toll pricing on congested facilities in order to increase mobility and improve air quality. This says that the Secretary can permit a State or public authority to toll any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including facilities on the interstate system, to manage high levels of congestion or reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or maintenance area.

This is extremely important when you look at the kinds of congestion we have in many areas during high traffic time. If there are tolls imposed when there would otherwise be heavy congestion, then those who must necessarily travel at that time can continue to do so by paying a toll. This is the ultimate market-based system for assuring that people who do not have to travel at high congestion times will not. Obviously, this means better traffic flow, this means less congestion, and therefore less pollution. So I think this is extremely important.

The Secretary may permit a State or public authority to manage the levels. The States must provide the Secretary with a description of the congestion and air quality problems, and the goals. Any State or public authority already operating under a cooperative agreement under the existing pricing pilot program of TEA-21 can continue under the existing laws.

We also have included some changes in the tolling requirements because in some States there are interstates which are badly out of date and in need of substantial rehabilitation. In the current laws, the provision for establishing tolls on existing interstates has been limited to replacement. If you have ever traveled I-70 in the State of Missouri, which is the lifeline for our State and for much of the Nation for east-west traffic going from coast to coast, certainly traveling between Kansas City and St. Louis, you will find that there are tremendous delays occasioned because the roads are inadequate. They are two-lane roads that are like driving in city traffic, they are so filled with cars and congestion.

In addition, when there are accidents on these roads, it is not uncommon for us to experience an hour or 2-hour delay. In one instance, I managed to miss a 7-hour delay by taking some back roads which I knew about to get around a major disaster.

This measure expands the ability to say if it is substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction, the State, if it chooses, could use tolls to improve an interstate.

Right now, Interstate 70 has the distinction of being the first toll road in the United States. But it also means it is a half a century old and it is at least 20 years out of date. The total cost for repairing it and replacing it is about $3 billion.

Some of my colleagues will be surprised to know that I have not asked in this bill for $3 billion to replace this vital national link. But I do believe we need to provide options for States to deal with problems such as this one. Whether they do it is going to be up to them. In the State of Missouri, there would have to be a vote of the people.

They would have to authorize the issuance of bonds and a tolling authority. This does not by any means say we are going to put tolls on it. It provides an option for the legislature, the Governor, the Department of Transportation to consider as they look at how they want to deal with one of these very significant highway corridors, which has become far too often a parking lot rather than a means of facilitating transportation between our two major cities and for people traveling from far beyond, going east to west through the heartland of the Nation, through the State of Missouri.

I think this is a very important provision and one which will provide States reasonable flexibility, not allowing them, willy-nilly, to take roads already financed through the interstate program, to impose tolls on them to finance other activities, but to make sure that we continue to realize the dream of those who initially formulated the interstate highway program to make sure that we can see traffic continue to proceed.

Let me move to another provision in the bill. It is section 1610, which merely directs the EPA to study the ability to monitor differentiation between fine and coarse particulate matter.

As we find out more about the dangers of pollutants, we find they are greater risks in the fine particulates in many instances which can cause far more significant harm than a coarse particulate because of the impact on the lungs.

Section 1611 adds particulate matter areas to the Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Program. The funds under this provision are apportioned on the basis of a ratio of total weighted population of a State's nonattainment or maintenance areas to the total weighted population of all nonattainment or maintenance areas in the Nation.

If you didn't follow me on that, if a State has air quality problems in an area which is one-twentieth of all of the areas in the Nation, then they would get one-twentieth of the total funds available.

It sounds convoluted, but it really targets the CMAQ funds to the areas with greatest needs. Since many areas will need assistance to meet the new 8-hour ozone standard and the new fine particulate matter standard, the CMAQ formula is modified to include those areas. Adjustment factors are used to account for the number of pollutants for areas in nonattainment or maintenance. Section 1611 says CMAQ funds can be used for alternative fuel infrastructure under TEA-21. This bill goes further and encourages the use of CMAQ funds by listing the purchase of alternative fuel and the purchase of biodiesel fuel as eligible activities under CMAQ.

Due to some confusion in some DOT and EPA field and regional offices, we have also clarified that projects to control the extended idling of vehicles are indeed eligible for funding under the CMAQ program.

The bill also fixes oversight under current law that prevents States that do not have any nonattainment or maintenance areas from using CMAQ funds for CMAQ projects. Frankly, this allows us to get more homegrown clean fuels used with the assistance of CMAQ funds.

I happen to know something about soy diesel and about biodiesel. I am a great champion of it, because if you have followed a bus or a truck down the road that is burning straight diesel, you know what an unpleasant smell that can cause and what damage that can do to the environment. Biodiesel is a soybean-based or other biomass-based fuel which operates in a much cleaner burning environment. Several years ago we started a pilot project at the great training facility at Fort Leonard Wood, MO that needed to train soldiers to fight in smoke conditions on the battlefield. They had been burning diesel to provide that smoke. We felt that was not necessarily a good idea to be burning diesel and exposing our finest troops to the diesel pollution and the smoke that was caused. We worked with the Department of Defense to switch that to soy diesel. There was smoke. I asked them after they implemented what the byproducts were. They said, Obviously, we are not polluting the environment with petroleum-based diesel. We are burning a much cleaner soy-based fuel. It is much less harmful to the soldiers. The only problem is it smells like French fries and they get hungry. But given the alternative, that seems to be a good idea.

To the extent we get more buses and trucks using biodiesel, we are going to have greater benefits.

Let me give you two areas where soy diesel or any biodiesel can be a great improvement.

No. 1, firehouses: The fire men and women who live and stay in firehouses have complained for years. When they fire up the firetrucks, they get the diesel fumes coming up into the rest area. Sometimes, our valiant firefighters have to live and sleep in heavily polluted diesel- fuel-soaked areas. This is not only unhealthy, but it is very unpleasant. Fire stations have been some of the first places where we have used biodiesel. It has been extremely popular. Certainly when we are trying to talk about taking care of our first responders and the valiant firefighters who are on the line making sure the engines and the firetrucks below them are burning a clean-burning feel, it is a step in the right direction.

Another important area we have talked a lot about is school bus safety. When you have kids on school buses, the fumes from petroleum- based diesel come into that school bus. Do you know where they are the most dangerous? They are most dangerous when they are at low levels-- where the small children are. The smallest children are likely to be exposed to petroleum-based diesel fumes.

We are working to encourage more and more school buses to use soy diesel, and put aside the fact that kids are going to get hungry when they smell something that smells like french fries. But it is vitally important that we lessen the danger to our schoolchildren as well as lessening the use of diesel fuel and providing a significant benefit to those who produce soybean and other biomass.

I see a couple of our colleagues are here. Senator Thomas wishes to speak. We have lots more to talk about, but I will discontinue at this point and thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for coming to the floor.

Mr. President, we are checking with our colleagues on the possibility of setting a judicial nomination. As soon as we find out whether that is acceptable, we will ask consent.

Mr. President, we have heard lots of reasons why this bill is not a good bill, why we don't want to go to this bill, why we shouldn't be moving a highway bill. I have talked about some of those reasons, but let me share with you some information that indicates how the people of America think.

The Zogby International Survey Group did a broad-based survey of American voters. Nearly 70 percent of the voters contacted, in February 2003, said they believe America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, that our Nation's roads, airports, and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population and economy.

Fifty-six percent overall and 79 percent of young women with children said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with their families or for leisure activities today than just 5 years ago.

I don't think these answers should surprise any of us.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown by almost 19 percent, the number of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and the vehicle miles traveled has ballooned by 72 percent. And--surprise-- over the past 20 years we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity, and even less than that to public transit.

What are the conditions of roads in local communities?

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby said they were either fair or poor. When you move to Hispanic Americans, 75 percent said their communities have either fair or poor road conditions.

This is a problem in communities. This is a problem particularly for citizens who are maybe at a disadvantage in their community.

This survey's results come from a poll of over 1,000 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

I think some of the other findings are pretty important.

Eighty percent of the people polled think the Nation's highways and public transit networks are extremely important or very important to the U.S. economy. That is why we are here. Eighty percent of our constituents think highways and transportation networks are important. That is what this bill is all about. That is why we want to get everybody together to move this bill.

I urge my colleagues, if you have problems with particular portions of the bill, offer amendments. That is how this body functions. We would like to have good-faith amendments that seek to make changes which are necessary so we can move forward in a reasonable manner.

I think the people of America, particularly the 80 percent who say it is important, deserve to see us vote on issues that are of importance to them.

Eight in 10 of the people surveyed agree that an investment in highways, bridges, and public transit should be considered an important element in homeland security and national defense.

Ninety percent believe it is important that their representatives in Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal

funding for transportation improvement projects in their local areas. I think some States must be lower than that because I think in my State it is higher than 90 percent. So some may have only 80 percent who think it is important.

Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit play a vitally important role in their life.

These are scientific surveys that merely confirm what I and many of my colleagues already know: If you go back to your home State and have a meeting about highway and transportation funding, you better get a big hall. I have had people come out to fill any hall that I have scheduled a meeting in to talk about it because they want to know more. They know it is important. I think this is vitally important.

I know there are some who may take a different view. Some people claim building more roads just causes more traffic. They even say you can't build your way out of traffic congestion. They are the zero sum game people, the ones who say there will just be more congestion.

Well, congestion is getting worse at a frightening pace in America. I believe the primary reason is a lack of adequate highway and public transportation capacity, not only in our major urban and suburban areas but in rural areas as well. As I have said several times, that is why we are killing people in Missouri. We don't have adequate highway transportation, particularly in rural areas.

Even as we spend more wasted time sitting in gridlocked traffic, many well-intentioned Americans, spurred on by the rhetoric of some of the extreme advocacy groups who want us all to ride bicycles--and I love to ride bicycles, but those won't get me to work and back, particularly when we have icy roads, as we do here, or when we have to take more people with us--are convinced that adding road capacity only causes more traffic congestion, more air pollution, more waste of precious fuels.

I think the answer to that is very clear: Research data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Texas Transportation Institute and common sense, if you and I just sit back and think about it, proves just about the opposite. The real problem is our lack of resolve to provide meaningful solutions to traffic congestion through new capital and operational investments. The failure to do so actually results in tons of unnecessary air pollution and billions of gallons of wasted motor fuel.

The Zogby poll found that 70 percent of America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, and all of these people realize we need, as a nation, the investment in transportation.

Talk about a drag on the economy, according to the Texas Transportation Urban Mobility Report, absent substantial new investments in highway and public transportation capacity, transportation operations across the Nation, the economic cost of traffic congestion in the Nation, lost productivity, wasted motor fuel will grow from about $67.5 billion in 2000 to almost $100 billion by 2009. That is one of the reasons we seek to have the investment. Yes, $255 billion is a large amount. It is not all going to highways. It comes from highway user taxes, but it goes to mass transit; it goes to congestion mitigation; it goes to scenic easements, to other things that improve the environment in which we live.

If we don't make these investments, the Texas Transportation Institute forecasts that over this period the average road speed in America's 675 largest urban communities will fall from about 42.3 miles per hour to 40.3 miles per hour. If you believe, as I do, that time is money, that reduction will continue to grow what is really a hidden tax levied on American consumers as transportation labor productivity decreases and costs increase.

Another one of the problems we have with congestion is pollution. The good news, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, is that motor vehicle emissions have declined dramatically since the 1970s, thanks in part to the developments in new automotive and motor fuels technology. Emissions of carbon monoxide are down 45 percent since 1970, volatile organic compound emissions are down 60 percent, particulate matter emissions are down 47 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions are down 5 percent, and lead emissions have been eliminated.

The bad stuff is being reduced. We are getting the bad stuff out. This remarkable environmental achievement, which is responsible for most of the air quality improvement in the United States over the past three decades, was accomplished at the same time the number of licensed motor vehicles in the United States grew 87 percent and total vehicle miles traveled soared by 125 percent. Unfortunately, traffic congestion is retarding clean air progress just as it is retarding American productivity and economic growth.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:55 today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 457, the nomination of Mark Filip to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

I further ask unanimous consent that following 5 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination; further, that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Reserving the right to object, there is some question on this side about the amendment being an amendment to the commerce title, and at this point we are not prepared to give consent to that. We want to work with the Senator who has been working in good faith, but I have been asked, since this is a matter that relates to a different section of the bill, to hold off. We can work through this if we can go with the original consent.

Mr. President, on this side I am not authorized to enter into that type of UC. I assure the Senator and my colleagues on the other side we will work with them. There is a concern about moving into the commerce title. We will work with him if we can move forward on the consent for the judge vote; then we will work on this, if we can get consent for that.

I believe at this point it is necessary to revise the unanimous consent. First, I say to my friend from North Dakota that the title he wants to amend has not been offered. That is a problem on which we are going to have to work. We have only offered the EPW portion.

I asked unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member and, thereafter, there be a vote on the nomination of Mark R. Filip, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

I renew my request. Following the 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation and, following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate return to legislative session.

Yesterday, we had several occasions where we were trying to stay on the bill, and we kept saying: All right, one more person, one more person, one more person.

As manager of the bill, I am going to do everything I can parliamentarily to stay on the bill and not get into other subjects.

At 2:30.

To do everything to accommodate the Senator from Florida, what I would like to do is stay on the bill until later on this afternoon, and at that time I am sure we are going to come to a point where, because of other things that are happening, there are not going to be Senators who want to speak on the bill, and then we could go to this so the Senator would have the time he requested.

I have no objection if he changes his 3:30 to 5 o'clock. There are some things happening that affect every Senator in here tonight having to do with the National Prayer Breakfast, and I would like to accommodate them as well.

The majority leader will have to get in on this, but I would say even earlier than that. We are going to have amendments. In fact, we have some amendments that will be ready today. We need to get to those and get this bill moving.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Yes. I have a letter I read yesterday. It is dated February 2, 2004. I have not heard anything either way about whether or not they are supporting this legislation. But they outlined a set of principles yesterday to which our bill complies. I think the minority leader covered the three criteria that were used that would keep them from opposing the bill, and I believe they have been met. We talked about it yesterday. One is to not increase gas taxes. Second, it would not have any kind of bonding arrangement. Third, that it would not get in the general fund.

The third one is where there is some debate. I trust the Senate Finance Committee. I talked to both sides, Democrats and Republicans, and they came up with something I think meets the criteria. I am satisfied it does.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me make an observation. We talked about this bill for several hours. Almost everyone who came down was objecting to what their State would get from this formula. When you compare this, starting with the same basic structure of a formula as we did in TEA-21--and remember, in TEA-21, we had the minimum guarantee.

What that did was take arbitrary political percentages and apply them in order to get votes. We have done far more. This takes into consideration the streamlining provisions about which we haven't even talked. We spent months on this in the committee, as our committee members know.

Safety and freight areas have not really been addressed before. This is something of which we can be proud. I have to say, when we put together the charts of all 50 States, there isn't one State that is not treated fairly, doesn't have an increase and doesn't have some kind of logic balancing the donee-donor, balancing the fast-growing States and the low-population States.

All these points are considered, and I think it is a very good bill. I agree with all on the committee.

Mr. President, yesterday we started through this bill. It is a rather lengthy bill. It covers a lot of provisions that haven't even been discussed, and I think a lot of Members are not really aware of some parts of this bill.

As the chairman of the committee, I thought it an obligation to go through this section by section, and I did go through sections 1104 through 1204, where we talked about how this was put together, how the formulas were put together. I also spent about an hour talking about the environmental improvements that are made in this bill.

I confess there are many things in this bill that I would rather have done in a different way, and I am sure Senator Reid and Senator Jeffords would say the same thing. In fact, they have said the same thing. Since we will have to get through this today at some point, I would like to go ahead and start with section 1205 and finish what we started yesterday. I hope any Members who are interested in making comments or offering amendments will come and do so, because I will be doing this in order to get through the bill.

Section 1205 is one in which I was particularly interested. Senator Reid yesterday talked about Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the contributions he made over the years. I felt compelled to stand up and remind him that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Tulsa boy. He was from Tulsa, OK, and was one of my very favorite people.

I think it is very appropriate that section 1205 is the designation of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway as a part of the bill. Interstate Highway 86 in the State of New York is specifically designated as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway in memory of our late colleague.

There are several others who have said good things about him. In fact, in the years I have been in the Senate, Senator Moynihan is the only Senator

about whom I have never heard one negative thing.

Section 1301 is the Federal share section. It continues the statutory provisions that lay out what the Federal share for the highway project will be for different States based on the amount of Federal land within their State. The Federal share provisions of current law use a sliding scale. This scale permits States with large portions of Federal land to match Federal funds with fewer State dollars. That is only reasonable because they are not collecting taxes off of these lands and they should not have to pay the same match.

Due to the decreased taxing ability of the States with a higher percentage of Federal lands, these States are given access to a higher Federal contribution for highway projects within their State. The bill before us today modifies this provision slightly to simplify the calculation used to determine the Federal share rates that apply to each individual State.

I might add that in this bill there are certain things my colleagues will see consistently throughout. One is simplification. One is to put it in language that we can all understand, that the public can understand, that our people back home can understand, and so that the departments of transportation in the various States will have a clear understanding as well, and they will take all of these complicated interpretations.

Another thing my colleagues will find all the way through is a streamlining effort to try to get more roads for the dollar. I think we have successfully done that, reaching a lot of compromises. So this is what my colleagues will see as we go through the bill section by section.

Section 1302 is the transfer of highway and transit funds. There is a technical fix that was requested by the Federal Highway Administration that clarifies that title 23 funds, that is the highway dollars, can be transferred to the transit administration from State to State or from State to another Federal agency as long as the project to be funded is eligible under title 23. I think that is a very reasonable approach.

An example of when this authority could be used is a State that has a congestion problem at or near a border crossing. They may determine that the problem is caused in part by inadequate parking facilities for the Customs Service to conduct truck inspections. To solve their larger congestion problem, it makes sense to provide money to the Customs Service to build parking lot facilities for truck inspections. This has been done administratively in the past, but section 1302 provides very clear guidance so they do not have to sit around and guess what in fact is going to come up.

Section 1303, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which is referred to as TIFIA, was established for the first time in TEA-21 to provide Federal credit assistance to major transportation investments. The TIFIA program has proven to be an innovative and successful addition to the conventional grant and reimbursement highway program.

After watching the TIFIA program succeed as a funding device for a few large projects during TEA-21 and after receiving input from stakeholders and recommendations from the administration, the committee bill has made a few changes to the TIFIA program to expand its scope and increase its usability.

The amount of the Federal credit assistance cannot exceed 33 percent of a total project cost. TIFIA offers three different types of financial assistance to the large projects: One, direct loans; two, loan guarantees; and, three, standby lines of credit. The bill also lowers the threshold cost for eligible projects from the TEA-21 level of $100 million down to $50 million to make it available to more people and more projects, making TIFIA accessible to a greater number of large highway projects.

Projects are also eligible for TIFIA assistance when costs are anticipated to equal or exceed 20 percent of Federal highway funds apportioned to that particular State. With the increased emphasis this bill places on freight mobility, the definition of eligible freight- related projects is expanded.

I think the Senator was out of the Chamber when I said I eventually wanted to get through this section by section, but I can do this at any time. As soon as the Senator has anything ready, certainly I am interested in taking that up.

Reclaiming my time, I think he had stated he was not prepared to do that right now, but perhaps one will be coming along in a short while.

I have no objection to that. I think it is a good idea, and we will so inform Senator Bond.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have been trying to get through the explanation of this bill section by section. We have done so now all the way up to section 1304. It seems most people were concerned yesterday about the formula. Now we are addressing another problem. But we have not gotten into the full explanation of the bill. We have gone from section 1104 through section 1303.

I am going to go ahead and proceed. If anyone either has an amendment or wants to be heard on the bill, of course, I will give them that opportunity.

Section 1304 is in regard to the facilitation of international registration plans and international fuel tax agreements.

In response to issues surrounding commerce from Mexico, S. 1072 gives the Secretary of Transportation discretion to provide financial assistance to States participating in the International Registration Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement. These States incur certain administrative costs resulting from their service as a home jurisdiction for motor carriers from Mexico.

The International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Regional Plan are agreements among various U.S. States and Canadian Provinces that facilitate the efficient collection and distribution of fuel taxes and apportioned registration fees among each member jurisdiction.

Under both programs, each motor carrier designates its home State or Province as the jurisdiction responsible for collecting fuel use taxes and fees. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the Mexican Government imposes and collects fuel taxes and registration fees differently from the United States and Canada. The National Governors Association is currently evaluating Mexico and its participation in the IFTA and IRP programs. In the interim, Mexican motor carriers may use individual U.S. States or Canadian Provinces as their home jurisdiction. So we are talking about something that is in the interim until the problem is resolved but is necessary.

Section 1305 is in regard to the National Commission on Future Revenue Sources to Support the Highway Trust Fund and finance the needs of the surface transportation system.

As many of you know, I am personally not one to support expansions of bureaucracy or the creation of innumerable review boards, committees, and commissions. However, this bill creates, and I have found good reason to support, a new temporary--temporary--national commission on future revenue sources to support the highway trust fund and finance the needs of the surface transportation system.

Funding the highway program has already become increasingly more challenging. Even as we debate the funding of this bill, we are confronted with the task of finding innovative and efficient funding methods to capture user fees lost to the fuel tax evasion and a host of other issues that the Finance Committee has done a great job in addressing.

However, one issue that has not been addressed, but must be before the next reauthorization cycle, is Federal incentives for the purchase of hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Fuel efficiency is a goal I support, but I do not believe it should come at the expense of the highway trust fund. So we have these exemptions, which has the result of reducing the revenues that would otherwise come in, even though the goal or the policy we are trying to establish is, perhaps, an inevitable policy.

We run the risk of making economic and environmental advances at the cost of jeopardizing our primary funding source for the highway trust fund--gas taxes. In recent years, the highway trust fund has seen a decrease in revenues. Constant changes in the automotive industry and the economy as a whole impact user fee revenues. We must continue to identify new and reliable revenue sources to sustain the program.

Most recently, we have seen the increase in the cost of fuel and the spiking that has been going on. That has a direct effect on the amount of revenues that are generated from fuel taxes.

In response to these changing and growing challenges, the new commission created in this bill is established to conduct a comprehensive study of the alternatives available to replace or supplement the existing fuel tax as the principal source of supporting the highway trust fund. We may find that this is going to still remain the principal source, but we do not know because we have never had any central place where we were trying to put together something this creative to replace it.

Specific factors which the commission will examine include, one, the effects of each major tax that goes into the highway trust fund; two, the ability to increase taxes if there are future revenue shortfalls; and, three, potential new sources of revenue to support highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs.

In regard to the scope of the study, the commission is charged with suggesting new or alternative revenue sources to fund the needs of the surface transportation system over the next 30 years or the next 40 years--the next long period of time. It is something we should have done before. This bill might have been easier if we had addressed this in TEA-21.

Now we have, in section 1306, the State infrastructure banks. TEA-21 established a State infrastructure bank pilot program that authorized participation among the States of Missouri, Rhode Island, California, and Florida. This bill reauthorizes the program to allow all States to enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Transportation to set up infrastructure-revolving funds eligible for capitalization with Federal transportation dollars.

The SIB program gives States the capacity to increase the efficiency of their transportation investment and to significantly leverage Federal resources by attracting non-Federal public and private investment.

The program provides greater flexibility to the States by allowing other types of project assistance in addition to the traditional reimbursement grant. States utilizing SIBs are able to provide various forms of nongrant assistance to eligible projects, including at or below market rate subordinate

loans, interest rate buydowns on third party loans, and guarantees and other forms of credit enhancements. Any debt that the SIB issues or guarantees must be of investment grade caliber. The SIB program represents one more innovative financing option. We believe, after having done this with three or four States, that it is something that should be expanded to other States. This is a very positive thing.

Section 1401 is the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Along with the new equity bonus program, the bill's new core Safety program is one of the crowning pillars of this legislation. It is both devastating and deplorable that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among American's between the age of 1 and 34-years-old. In 2002 alone, nearly 43,000 people died on our Nation's highways. Although the fatality rate has decreased when compared to the growing number of vehicle miles traveled, the total number of fatal crashes has gradually increased over the life of TEA-21. Through a reorganization of existing safety programs and a significantly increased Federal investment, S. 1072, appropriately referred to as SAFETEA, strives to combat one of the greatest threats faced on our roads today. Not only is the loss of life to unsafe roads and conditions tragic, but vehicle crashes have a huge economic effect manifested in medical costs, property damage, insurance, and the effects of congestion.

In response to the need for safer roads and road conditions, this bill gives heightened attention to improving traffic safety by creating a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program. Under TEA-21 States were required to set-aside 10 percent of their funds apportioned under the Surface Transportation Program for safety projects to eliminate hazardous locations and improve safety at highway-railway crossings. The new Highway Safety Improvement Program preserves the ability of States to continue funding these important projects, while giving the States even greater flexibility to identify and address other traffic safety issues such as work zone safety, traffic enforcement activities, lane and shoulder widening, use of safety warning devices, safety- conscious planning, and improved traffic data collection.

This is just one more effort to recognize that the States are all different. The same shoe does not fit all. We are giving them an expanded role to determine the best way to handle the problems in Vermont as opposed to Oklahoma or any other State.

Recognizing the various and changing safety needs in each State, the bill provides significant flexibility to the States in order to determine how the Federal safety dollars can best be spent to address the areas of greatest need. These are not always the same in each State.

Section 1402 is Operation Lifesaver. Among the existing safety programs that this bill reauthorizes is Operation Lifesaver. This program has proven effective as a national education and awareness campaign dedicated to reducing fatalities and injuries at highway- railway crossings. Operation Lifesaver has utilized various means to educate both drivers and pedestrians about making safe decisions at railroad crossings and has encouraged better engineering to improve safety at rail crossings. Due to the valuable service this program renders and the cost-benefit effectiveness it has sustained, this bill increases funding for the program from $500,000 per year to $600,000 per year and moves the source of funding for Operation Lifesaver from the Surface Transportation Program, STP, to the new Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Section 1403 is license suspension. Another area of concern in regards to highway safety is the intoxicated driver and especial repeat offenders. Current law imposes penalties on States that have not enacted statutes punishing repeat intoxicated drivers with a hard one- year driver's license suspension. However, as the States have reviewed data and adapted their sentencing structures for repeat offenders in this area, they have found that habitual drunk drivers whose license has already been suspended frequently choose to drive without a license, minimizing the effectiveness of the current State of the law. In the interest of public safety, some States have actually accepted the consequences of the Federal sanction and foregoing available Federal funding in order to impose more effective sentencing of these repeat offenders. This bill recognizes the reality of repeat drunk drivers driving on roads with a suspended license and the wisdom of more effective alternative sentencing schemes. Thus, the bill updates the ``repeat offender'' sanction in title 23 of the code to allow States to incorporate ignition interlock or similar devices when sentencing repeat intoxicated drivers.

At this point we have come through all the way to section 1404. I would like to see if the minority leader of the committee, who has been so great to work with, the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, has any comments to make about these sections.

First, I agree with the ranking member of the committee. We have come a long way. We are ready shortly and will be prepared to deal with some amendments. In the meantime, let's wade through this thing a little bit more.

Section 1404. Bus axle weight exemption. SAFETEA holds over-the-road buses and intrastate public transit buses to the same standards that inner-city transit buses must meet with regard to axle weight, air quality, and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the bill exempts any over-the-road buses or intrastate public transit bus from the maximum gross weight limitations imposed by the State.

Section 1405 is the Safe Routes to School Act. This was a provision that handled a number of compromises. It is one we are all concerned about. It has a continuing emphasis on safety. The bill introduces a new program that directly deals with safe routes to school, a safety improvement program established in SAFETEA. Projects eligible under the Safe Routes to School Program are already eligible under the larger Highway Safety Improvement Program.

However, Safe Routes to School provides a dedicated and protected funding source for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects near schools. The program is limited to projects and activities that will impose safety within 2 miles of primary and secondary schools. It sets aside $70 million per year for infrastructure and behavioral activities, such as sidewalk improvements, traffic-calming measures, speed reduction,

bicycle facilities, pedestrian crossings, traffic signal improvements, public awareness campaigns, and traffic education and enforcement.

I think that is significant. We have noticed, between the time we have been dealing with ISTEA and TEA-21, there have been increased fatalities in our young kids. We expanded this program during the course of our committee consideration. I think it was a good compromise to make on the purchase of equipment.

When conducting projects under the Federal program's authorization under this bill, some States will occasionally find the equipment necessary to complete the project may be cheaper to purchase than it would be to rent for the duration of the project. In such cases, this bill instructs them to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the purchase of expensive equipment above specified levels in order to evaluate the savings associated with purchasing the equipment compared to renting the equipment for the duration of the project.

Everything we are doing here is trying to get the very most out of the dollars we are spending in terms of safety and equipment and road construction and the other things we are dealing with in S. 1072.

Section 1407 is work zone safety. Over a thousand deaths occurred in work zones during 2002 due to traffic crashes alone. There has been a lot of awareness in the public about this fact and States are trying to deal with it. We felt it appropriate to have some language in this bill. Although work zones represent a critical component of infrastructure development, they also pose a unique safety challenge for those on the road, and to road workers in particular.

S. 1072 attempts to minimize the injuries and fatalities in work zones by imposing insurance requirements, requiring the use of ITS technologies and safety budgeting in construction and contracting. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to encourage States to choose contractors that carry general liability insurance of at least $15 million. Transportation projects costing more than $15 million are encouraged to include continuously monitored work zone intelligent transportation systems, or ITS systems.

Section 1408. Worker injury prevention and free flow of vehicular traffic. In addition to the provision relating to the safety of workers in work zones just mentioned, SAFETEA also directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations requiring road workers to wear high-visibility clothing, with the goal of decreasing worker injury and maintaining a free flow of traffic.

In section 1501, regarding the integration of natural resource concerns into State and metropolitan transportation planning, my counterpart, the ranking minority member, was very interested in a lot of the parts of the bill that deal with natural resource concerns and State and metropolitan transportation planning. If the Senator from Vermont would like to go over some of these sections, starting with section 1501, it might be appropriate since he had a lot to do with these particular areas.

(Mr. SUNUNU assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to prevent unnecessary hardship for ranching families in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

This summer, restrictions imposed for the Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher will force about fifteen to thirty ranchers off the land that they have long used for grazing.

This bill requires the Forest Service to explore all the options available to avoid this outcome. For example, the bill makes it easier for the Forest Service to offer ranchers suitable alternative grazing land.

Besides alternative grazing arrangements, the Forest Service should look at fencing, active management of the cattle, and other options. If none of these alternatives are feasible, the bill provides relief for the most seriously affected ranchers.

The bill would allow ranchers to keep using 15 parcels of land during this calendar year where Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher restrictions would otherwise make grazing unworkable. For many other ranches, where grazing and the species could coexist with some adjustments, environmental protections would fully remain in place.

I urge the Forest Service to quickly devise a long-term strategy to promote the coexistence of ranchers and the species. The Forest Service should work proactively with the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a conservation plan for the species--with the goal of avoiding the need for any listing of it.

I believe that if the regulatory agencies collect better information on the Yosemite Toad and the willow flycatcher, we can find ways to protect the species without completely shutting down long-term ranching operations. I am committed to expediting these long-term solutions.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003,'' bipartisan legislation to reform the way the Federal Government treats unaccompanied alien children who are in Federal immigration custody. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Voinovich, Kennedy, Cantwell, DeWine, Feingold, and Lautenberg in introducing this important measure.

Approximately 5,000 foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population.

Many have often entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are young and alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. They are often unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can.

Despite these facts, U.S. Immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without regard for their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuances legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration Naturalization Service, INS, had responsibility for the care, custody, and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Too often, the INS, fell short in fulfilling the protection side of these responsibilities.

The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'', which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care

and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, within the Department of Health and Human Services. This provision was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced at the beginning of the 107th Congress.

With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition is completed, we have finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act. Its inclusion in the new law was an important first step in reforming the way unaccompanied alien children are treated. It was a key provision for two reasons: First, it will help ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not burdened with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The new Department has a huge and important mission and its attention should be focused on that mission. Second, it recognizes that the Federal Government has a special responsibility to protect these children who are in federal custody. The INS did not always live up that responsibility.

But, the transfer of authority to the ORR--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are properly treated. Congress now has a responsibilty to go beyond the simple transfer and set the priorities for ORR and its new jurisdiction over unaccompanied foreign-born minors.

A number of other important reforms that were contained in last year's S. 121 were left out of the Homeland Security Act. Enactment of these reforms will be crucial if we truly are to reform the manner in which these children are treated. As I mentioned, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 builds on the Homeland Security Act in two ways: First, it would make a number of technical and conforming changes in law to bring about the smooth transfer of the INS's unaccompanied alien child-related functions to ORR. Second, it would make a number of more substantive reforms in law with respect the respect to the treatment of these children--reforms that are designed to ensure that such children are treated with fairness and compassion.

Other provisions include those that would keep children who are criminals or who pose a threat to national security under the custody of the Department of Homeland Security rather than transfer responsibility of them to the ORR.

I first became involved in this issue when I heard about a young 15- year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.

She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws, Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.

And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The INS detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, OR, for 8 months before her asylum hearing, and 4 months after she was granted asylum.

At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused, and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''

While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of 5,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection. This, is unacceptable treatment. We have a responsibility to do better than this.

Central throughout the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 are two concepts: 1. The United States Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and 2. in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a high priority protecting the interests of these children, most of whom are unable to understand the nature of the proceedings in which they are involved.

This bill would ensure that children who are apprehended by immigration authorities are treated humanely and appropriately by: ensuring that eligible unaccompanied alien children are promptly placed in the custody of Office of Refugee Resettlement after they are encountered by immigration officials; ensuring that the children have counsel to represent them in immigration proceedings and matters; authorizing the Director of ORR to provide guardians ad litem for the children to look after their interests; establishing clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements; establishing minimum standards for detention and alternative settings that take into account the special needs of children; improving such children's access to existing options for permanent protection when U.S. immigration and child welfare authorities believe such protection is warranted; setting forth procedures that immigration officers should follow when apprehending unaccompanied alien children at the United states border or at United States ports of entry; establishing procedures to ensure that the true age of an alien who claims to be under the age of 18 is determined; ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Office of Refugee Resettlement, maintain custody over children who are either criminals or threats to national security; and establishing procedures to ensure that certain unaccompanied alien children from Mexico or Canada, encountered along the United States border, are returned to their homes, subject to formal agreements between the United States and those countries providing for their safe return without undue delay.

Without enactment of my legislation, none of these important parameters would be placed on the Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill also includes provisions that provide for the safety of the significant number of unaccompanied alien children who are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. For example, 2 years ago, Phanupong Khaisri, a 2-year old Thai child, was brought to the United States by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring.

The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the United States until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring. Moreover, the legislation would ensure that children are released into safe and humane environments while awaiting a determination of their status when that is appropriate, and it would ensure that the children are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others who might exploit them.

Further, it would require the ORR to take steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are protected from smugglers or others who may wish to do them harm, and authorizes reimbursement for State and local expenses associated with caring for unaccompanied alien children.

Children, even more than adults, have incredible difficulty understanding the complexities of the immigration system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in immigration custody are overlooked and unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home

countries where they may face further human rights abuses.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 20032 would require that all unaccompanied alien children in Federal custody by reason of their immigration status have counsel to represent them in any immigration proceedings involving them. It would vest in the Director of ORR responsibility for ensuring that the children have counsel, and it would provide the Director power to establish an infrastructure for developing a system to recruit and support pro bono counsel who can represent these children without cost to them or to the government.

It provides, as a last resort, that counsel could be provided for the children at government expense, capping the fees that such counsel could charge in the event that the government pays for such counsel.

This bill would authorize, but not mandate, the Director of ORR to put into place a system of guardians ad litem who would help the court in determining the best interests of children in U.S. custody.

The vast majority of unaccompanied alien children have been forced to maneuver the immigration system without any representation or without any assistance. This is unacceptable. It results in many children participating in a system without any understanding of the process they are undergoing or the ramifications of their situation.

Under this section, the guardian ad litem would not be working ``for the child.'' Nor would he or she be working for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, he or she would be an impartial observer reporting to the court and to the Office of Refugee Resettlement on what he or she thinks is in the best interest of the child.

The guardians ad litem system could be modeled after any of a number of systems already existing in juvenile courts throughout the American juvenile justice system. This system is not a novel legal concept, but one that is trusted and already in place in every state in proceedings involving juveniles.

Imagine the fear of a foreign-born child, in the United States alone without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions. Mr. President, I find it hard to believe that our country would have allowed innocent children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this legislation today. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the American Bar Association, the United National High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals who live in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in he United States for nearly 20 years. They are the parents of Nayely and Cindy, who also stand to benefit from this legislation. The Arreolas also have three United States citizens children: Roberto, who is 11 year old; Daniel, who is 8; and Saray, their youngest daughter, who is six-years old. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola, and her children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is quite compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for humanitarian relief. The Arreolas are in uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the legal detriment he caused his immigrant clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program had he known that he could apply for it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth to Cindy to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is quite likely that the family would have qualified for cancellation of removal but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children: three of whom are U.S. citizens; the other two have lived in the United States virtually all of their lives. This country is the only the country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest child, is a junior in high school. She is an outstanding student with a 3.91 Grade Point Average who ranks fourth in her class of approximately 300 students. At her relatively young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community.

Nayely is a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely is also President of the key Club, a community service organization. She helps mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family if she is forced to return to Mexico will be her lost opportunity to realize here dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

As the principal of her high school wrote, ``[s]he epitomizes what we seek to instill in all of our students. She has accepted the challenges and has made a commitment to better her future, to better her life, and to better herself through education.''

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her fine family.

I understand that the Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents here in the United States. Mrs. Arreola also has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is my understanding that they do not have any family to whom they might return in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farmworker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community and to the United States as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Xavier De La Torre, Principal of Granite Hills High School, as well as the numerous letters of support our office has received from members of the Porterville community be entered into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Nayely's essay entitled ``If I Could Change the World,'' which she wrote at age 15, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to do what should have been done decades ago: fully ban asbestos in the United States. I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 to prohibit this known carcinogen from being used to manufacture products in this country. The bill also bans imports of asbestos products from other countries where asbestos is still legal. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Jeffords and Leahy are original cosponsors of this important legislation.

The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance within two years. Most people think that asbestos has already been banned. In fact, in 1989 EPA finalized regulations to phase out and ban the substance by 1997. But in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, arguing that EPA did not ``first evaluate and then reject the less burdensome alternatives'' under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the first Bush Administration did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not.

As a result, it is still legal in 2003 to construct buildings in the United States with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and clutch facings.

Asbestos is still not banned, and as a result, we're still using it. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2001, businesses in this country consumed 26 million pounds of chrysotile asbestos to make roofing products, gaskets, friction materials and other products. Last month, my staff walked into a local home improvement store and bought off the shelf roofing sealants made with asbestos. In addition, we are still importing asbestos products from other countries, many of which have less stringent environmental and public health standards.

Everyone knows that asbestos is harmful. The term asbestos, like arsenic, lead, mercury or DDT, is synonymous with poison. Asbestos may well be the most regulated toxic substance that federal and state agencies have ever dealt with. At least eleven different Federal statutes address asbestos. The EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are only some of the Federal agencies tasked with implementing rules to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of this substance.

But the sheer volume of rules and regulations in place does not guarantee that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. We have significant evidence suggesting that because asbestos is still not banned, we're still not safe from its dangers. I'd like to highlight some of this evidence for my colleagues.

First, workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, ``An estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job. Heaviest exposures occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. Employees are also likely to be exposed during the manufacture of asbestos products, such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials, and during automotive brake and clutch repair work.''

It is important to remember that there is no known safe threshold level of asbestos exposure. OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter is based on technical measurement limitations. OSHA's limit assumes that workers exposed to this concentration have a lifetime exposure risk of 3 to 5 in 1,000 for cancer and 2 in 1,000 for asbestosis. This is a very high risk compared to the cancer risk levels that are considered acceptable for some environmental cleanups.

The extent to which workers are exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos is especially troublesome when one considers the frequency with which OSHA's standards are violated. On July 31, 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. At the hearing I learned from OSHA that since 1995, the agency had cited employers for violations of its asbestos standards 15,691 times. This is astounding given the known dangers of asbestos and the high risks of disease even when OSHA's exposure limit is being met.

As follow-up to the hearing, I asked OSHA to provide more information about asbestos-related violations. In an October 17, 2001 letter to me, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote that between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001, OSHA conducted a total of 190,971 inspections generating a total of 427,786 violations. Of these, 3,000 inspections and 15,691 violations involved asbestos. According to Mr. Henshaw, about 2 percent of inspections and 4 percent of violations were asbestos-related. In his letter to me, Mr. Henshaw wrote, ``OSHA does not consider any level to be an acceptable noncompliance level. We strive for 100 percent compliance.'' Despite OSHA's best intentions, workers are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

It is also important to consider that the vast majority of workplaces where asbestos exposure occurs, such as construction jobs and auto repair shops, are not regularly inspected by OSHA. The Administration conducts inspections only in response to complaints or as a result of referrals from law enforcement or the media. Many more violations of the standard occur in the real world than are actually recorded by regulators. Many employees likely do not contact OSHA about potential asbestos exposure on the job because they think asbestos has been banned long ago and is no longer a problem.

But asbestos in the workplace is clearly still a problem. Recent news investigations provide more evidence that workers are being exposed to dangerous levels of this mineral. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 16, 2000, ``During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26 percent to 63.8 percent.''

When dust with these concentrations of asbestos in them is disturbed, airborne concentrations of asbestos occur that are well above OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter. Under current OSHA regulations, if airborne asbestos concentrations exceed this level, employers must conduct air monitoring, take measures to reduce asbestos emissions, post warning signs and record concentrations of airborne asbestos. Workers are supposed to wear respirators and protective clothing and are required to undergo long term medical monitoring.

Now I recognize that much of the exposure to asbestos in the workplace comes from asbestos products installed years, and in many cases, decades ago. By one estimate, about 30 million tons of asbestos was used in this country between 1900 and 1980. Asbestos in place, in our buildings, schools and homes, will be with us for decades to come.

But given the known dangers of this mineral, why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose when there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? In retrospect, it is tragic that asbestos was so widely used during the 20th century, for the

economic and public health impacts have been disastrous. One very important step in overcoming the problems caused by asbestos is to stop adding to the problem--however incrementally--by continuing to use this dangerous mineral in products on purpose.

I'd like to point out some additional evidence supporting the need to ban asbestos in the United States and to raise awareness about this issue. Most of my colleagues are familiar with the tragedy in Libby, MT, where hundreds of workers and their families suffer from asbestos- related diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite.

For decades, the W.R. Grace mine in Libby supplied about 80 percent of the vermiculite used in this country. W.R. Grace very successfully marketed its product, without any warning labels, even though the company was well aware its product was contaminated with this known carcinogen. Asbestos-contaminated ore was shipped to more than 300 sites around the country for processing and use in industrial and consumer products. According to the EPA, 14 of these sites are so contaminated with asbestos that they still need to be cleaned up, even though the Libby mine closed in 1990. While this is a problem that came from a small mining town in Montana, the ramifications and consequences are clearly national in scope.

In addition, vermiculite from Libby is still around and is still a threat to public health. It is estimated that tens of millions of homes, schools and businesses contain insulation made with Libby vermiculite, known as Zonolite. A recent study conducted for EPA, entitled Asbestos Exposure Assessment for Vermiculite Attic Insulation, found that Zonolite in homes today contains up to 2 percent asbestos. This study included tests on Zonolite insulation from Seattle Public Utilities and from a home in Washington State. It found that when this insulation was disturbed, airborne concentrations of 3.3 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeters were measured. In other words, handling Zonolite asbestos can cause levels of asbestos in the air that significantly exceed OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Even more troubling, perhaps, the study found ``vermiculite that tests non-detect for asbestos by bulk analysis can still generate airborne asbestos concentrations when disturbed.'' When vermiculite without significant amounts of asbestos in bulk was disturbed, concentrations of asbestos in the air up to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeters were detected. This means that even vermiculite with only trace amounts of asbestos in bulk can generate unhealthy concentrations of asbestos in the air.

Yesterday EPA launched a national consumer education campaign warning people not to disturb Zonolite attic insulation if they have it in their homes. The agency also warned people not to let their children play in attics with vermiculite for fear of asbestos exposure. EPA has developed a consumer education brochure and has created an asbestos hotline for people to call for more information. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have joined EPA in this education effort by creating materials to educate consumers and workers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.

While we need to ensure that we are no longer adding asbestos to our products on purpose, we also need to ensure that asbestos in harmful concentrations isn't ending up in our consumer products by accident. I am glad EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. This is an important first step in dealing with just one aspect of the legacy created by W.R. Grace in Libby.

There is another important reason to ban asbestos that I would like to share with my colleagues. As I mentioned previously, the United States is still importing products that contain asbestos. Unfortunately, we do not have precise statistics on which products coming into this country contain the deadly mineral. The Department of Commerce's import database does not distinguish between asbestos- containing products and products containing asbestos substitutes. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in 2002 this country imported more than 44,000 tons of asbestos-cement products, some of which may have contained cellulose instead of asbestos.

With increased globalization and international trade, U.S. imports of asbestos containing consumer and industrial products will continue to rise--unless we prohibit these products from crossing our borders in the first place.

Although we do not have accurate numbers for the extent to which asbestos products are flowing across our borders, we do know that asbestos is being heavily marketed to developing countries. According to an August 2, 1999 USA Today article, ``As asbestos demand has plummeted in the industrialized world the past 25 years, it has soared in many developing nations and formerly communist countries. Its use in these countries is largely unregulated, haphazard and deadly.''

A more recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares the asbestos industry to the tobacco industry. The February 20, 2001 article by Doctors Joseph LaDou, Philip Landrigan, John C. Bailar III, Vito Foa and Arthur Frank reads:

``The commercial tactics of the asbestos industry are very similar to those of the tobacco industry. In the absence of international sanctions, losses resulting from reduced cigarette consumption in the developed countries are offset by heavy selling to developing nations. In a similar fashion, the developed world has responded to the asbestos health catastrophe with a progressive ban on the use of asbestos. In response, the asbestos industry is progressively transferring its commercial activities and the health hazards to the developing countries.''

Banning asbestos in the United States sends an important message to the rest of the world. The asbestos industry will no longer be able to justify its marketing to developing countries by pointing out that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., and therefore, it must be safe. More than 30 countries have already banned asbestos, and it is time for this country to follow suit. It is our moral responsibility as the world's strongest economy, the most powerful Nation and a leader in environmental protection and public health to ban this harmful substance.

That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act. The legislation has five main parts. First, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 14 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The legislation requires EPA to ban it within two years of passage of the Act. As under the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available.

Second, the bill requires EPA to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos policy and to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an asbestos study. In response to the 2001 EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, the EPA promised to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and non-regulated fibers. But instead of convening a high level panel, EPA hired a non-profit organization, the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, to develop an asbestos policies focus group. Just yesterday EPA released GETF's Asbestos Strategies Report. I am very pleased that the Report recommends several aspects of the Ban Asbestos in America Act, including that Congress pass legislation to ban asbestos.

While the recommendations are certainly helpful in providing guidance to EPA, Congress and other federal agencies on the next steps to address asbestos, the GETF report does not replace a full fledged Blue Ribbon Panel. The Ban Asbestos in America Act codifies creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel as EPA first committed to in 2001. The panel will include participation from the Department of Labor and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It will review the current laws and rules in place to protect workers and consumers, and make recommendations for improving protections within 2 years of passage of the Act.

In addition, the bill calls for EPA to have the NAS conduct a study on the current state of the science relating to the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers. The NAS study shall also include recommendations for a uniform system of asbestos exposure standards and for a uniform system to create protocols to

detect and measure asbestos. As I mentioned previously, asbestos is regulated under multiple statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across Federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to identify the substance. The NAS shall be required to submit the study to EPA, other federal agencies and Congress within 18 months of passage of the Act.

Third, the legislation requires a survey to determine which products contain asbestos, either on purpose or as a contaminant. EPA will be required to conduct this review with input from the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission.

The bill directs the EPA to conduct a survey on the status of asbestos-containing products, such as roofing materials, brake pads and gaskets, which contain asbestos on purpose. EPA must also study contaminant-asbestos products, such as some insulation and horticultural products, which contain asbestos as a contaminant of another substance. The study will examine how people use these products and the extent to which people are exposed to harmful levels of asbestos. The study must be finalized within 18 months to inform the Blue Ribbon Panel and the education campaign.

Fourth, based on the results of the study, EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including those in homes and workplaces. The agency shall give priority to those products posing the greatest risk, as determined by the study required by the bill. The education campaign must be conducted within 2 years of passage of the bill.

EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall still be required to conduct a national education campaign about vermiculite insulation within 6 months of passage of the Act. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may contain asbestos-contaminated insulation made with vermiculite from Libby. This requirement is still in the bill despite EPA's recent announcement of an education campaign about vermiculite attic insulation. This will ensure EPA's long-term commitment to educating the public.

Finally, the Ban Asbestos in America Act increases the federal commitment to finding new treatments for the terrible diseases caused by asbestos. At least 2,000 people per year die from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by exposure to asbestos. The legislation would direct the head of NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Centers for Disease Control would be required to create a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease, which in many cases goes undiagnosed and thus unrecorded. In addition, the bill creates 10 mesothelioma treatment centers around the country to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer.

Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

In the meantime, we should do all we can to ensure that the rules in place to protect workers, consumers and schoolchildren from asbestos are followed and are strengthened if necessary. We also need to make sure that Federal agencies are given adequate resources to fully implement Congress' many mandates.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Ms. Snowe, to introduce the Fishing Quota Act of 2003, legislation to establish national criteria governing the use of individual fishing quota IFQ systems. Work began in earnest on this bipartisan bill in the Commerce Committee last spring, as the expiration of the national moratorium on the use of IFQs approached, and small boat fishermen voiced concerns that existing legislative criteria governing the use of IFQs would not offer sufficient protection to communities. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Snowe for her efforts to work with me and with other members of the Commerce Committee on this legislation, which draws from separate IFQ legislation that both Senator Snowe and I introduced beginning in the 106th Congress.

The IFQ moratorium established under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act was set to expire September 30, 2000. Senator Snowe and I supported a 2-year extension of that moratorium to allow for hearings and full consultation with affected groups on the issues surrounding IFQs. Our discussions focused on the need to provide regional flexibility to use IFQs as a management tool, while providing national ``rules of the road.'' Such rules of the road would ensure IFQ systems developed after expiration of the moratorium are adopted with the support of the fishery, allocate quota fairly and equitably, address region-specific needs, further the conservation and management goals of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, prevent consolidation of quota, address the needs of small fishing communities, and recognize both the public nature of the resource and that issuance of an IFQ does not give rise to a compensable property right.

To develop such rules, we worked with fellow Commerce Committee members, including Senators Breaux, Lott, Boxer, Stevens, and Cantwell, consulted with interested groups, and obtained technical advice from the National Marine Fisheries Service. While New England has historically been opposed to IFQs, other regions are interested in utilizing IFQ programs in certain fisheries. I believe the resulting bill provides a balance between the need to provide national policy guidance that considers the concerns of communities and harvesters, but allows for development of IFQ systems, where appropriate, on a fishery- by-fishery basis. This preserves the balanced regional approach to fishery management that Congress intended in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I also want to clarify that this bill does not authorize the establishment of ``processor quota,'' and relates only to issuance of harvester quota.

The bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing today sets forth a set of national criteria that councils wishing to adopt IFQs would follow. Importantly, this bill contains a provision that directs councils to consider the use of community or area-based approaches and strategies that would preserve the vitality of small fishing communities, including the allocation of quota to a fishing community. It also directs councils to consider use of other management measures, including those that would facilitate formation of fishery cooperative arrangements, taking account of the dependence of coastal communities on these fisheries.

This bill addresses many of the concerns raised by fishermen, and I understand the many concerns of small fisherman in New England regarding the use of IFQs. I believe this bill gives fishermen the power to decide whether to implement an IFQ program and ensures that those who do will operate under a fair system. First, no region could implement an IFQ system without approval of a two-thirds majority of eligible permit holders through a referendum process run by the Secretary of Commerce. In addition, any IFQ system developed under the legislation would have to meet a set of national criteria. These national criteria would include: (1) ensuring a fair and equitable initial allocation of quota, including the establishment of an appeals process for qualification and allocation decisions, taking into account present and historic participation in the fishery; (2) establishing limits necessary to prevent inequitable concentration of quota share; (3) preventing any person from acquiring an ``excessive share''; (4) considering allocation of a portion of the annual harvest specifically to small fishermen, skippers, crew members, fishing communities, or categories of vessels or gear types; and (5) providing for revocation of quota if the owner is no longer an active fisherman.

I also believe this bill responds to concerns that IFQ systems would undermine the national interest in conserving fishery resources held in the public trust. In order to respond to those concerns, the bill would: (1) specify that an IFQ is a permit under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and does not confer any right of compensation or any right, title or interest to any fish before it is harvested; (2) established that the quota expires after 10 years, unless extended by a fishery management plan; (3) require that the systems promote management measures to improve the conservation and management of the fishery, including reduction of bycatch; (4) provide for regular review and evaluation of the system, including specifying actions to be taken for any failure to meet the criteria; (5) require that the systems provide for effective enforcement, monitoring, and management, including use of observers; and (6) require that quota be revoked from individuals found to be subject to civil penalties under section 308 of the Magnuson- Stevens Act.

The bill also would require a 5-year recurring independent review of IFQ systems by the National Research Council, to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of such systems and determine who the systems contribute to improved management, conservation and safety; (2) evaluate the social, economic and biological consequences of the systems, including economic impacts on fishing communities; (3) evaluate the costs of implementation; and (4) provide recommendations to ensure the systems meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and the goals of the plans.

I believe this legislation provides guidelines for the use of IFQs that will help ensure the health of our marine fisheries. During the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our

Nation's fisheries were at a crossroads, and action was required to remedy our marine resource management problems, to preserve the way of life in our coastal communities, and to promote the sustainable use and conservation of our marine resources for future generations and for the economic good of the Nation. We must stay the course, and this bill will help us do just that. I remain committed to the goal of establishing biologically and economically sustainable fisheries so that fishing will continue to be an important part of the culture and economy of coastal communities throughout Massachusetts, as well as the economy of the Nation.

Mr. President, there are now nearly 200,000 American veterans today who are forced to wait at least 6 months for their first visit with a Department of Veterans Affairs physician. Despite having served their country and been promised health benefits, these veterans are receiving deferred and rationed health care because of chronic underfunding and bureaucratic red tape. It amounts to a broken promise with men and women who have served in our armed forces. To help ensure that our veterans receive the care they need and have been guaranteed, today I am pleased to introduce the Veterans' Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003.

Veterans enrolled in the VA health care program are entitled to a prescription drug benefit. This is an essential benefit given the importance of pharmaceuticals in health care today. However, there's a bureaucratic catch: the benefit only applies to prescriptions written by a VA physician, and there are nearly 200,000 veterans who now wait 6 months or longer for their first visit with a VA physician. For those veterans in need of medicine and waiting months on end to see a VA physician, the benefit has little value.

The VA has reported to Congress that, while it has no exact figure, it estimates that tens of thousands of the veterans now on the waiting list are there primarily to access their prescription drug benefit. In many of these cases, veterans have already seen a private physician and have a prescription. But in order to use the VA pharmacy and receive their prescription benefit, these individuals must duplicate their health care visits and see a VA physician. This delays health care benefits for far too many veterans.

The Veterans' Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003 would permit veterans already on the waiting list to fill a prescription written by a private physician at the VA pharmacy.

Specifically, the Veterans' Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003 would give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to permit veterans on the waiting list for their first appointment with a VA physician at the date of enactment to use the VA pharmacy to fill prescriptions written by a private physician. It would also preserve the core healthcare mission of the VA by limiting this initiative only to those currently waiting for their first appointment. The proposal calls for a report to Congress in 1 year so that its potential expansion can be evaluated.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has told Congress that he would support such a proposal, and I look forward to working with Senator Harkin, who joins me in sponsoring this legislation, and my other colleagues in the Senate on this common-sense approach to reducing the lengthy wait-lines for veterans' healthcare.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleagues, Senators Johnson and Smith, as well as the cosponsors of our legislation, Senators Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Daschle, Murray, and Stabenow in introducing the Native American Small Business Development Act.

As many of my colleagues are aware, last Congress the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously passed nearly identical legislation, S. 2335, yet the bill was not taken up by the full Senate. Today, Senator Johnson, Senator Smith and I are reintroducing this bill because we recognize that there is an even a greater need for this legislation on tribal lands across the Nation. The economy continues to slump, access to capital is even more limited, and state funding for small business initiatives is being pulled back.

According to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ``three year average poverty rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives [from 1998-2000] was 25.9 percent. Higher than for any other race groups.'' With an unemployment rate well above the national average and household income at just three-quarters of the national average, Native American communities need a commitment from the Federal government that we will help them, particularly during these difficult economic times. To reaffirm this commitment, the Johnson-Kerry-Smith bill provides Native Americans the resources they need to take advantage of the opportunities of entrepreneurship.

Mr. President, this legislation bears the same name as legislation that recently passed the House, H.R. 1166, which was reintroduced by Congressman Tom Udall, a recognized leader in promoting the interests of American Indians. I would like to thank Congressman Udall for his work in stewarding the Native American Small Business Development Act through the House, this Congress and last, and for his assistance in working with Senators Johnson and Smith and me in drafting the Senate version of our legislation. And I would specifically like to thank Senator Smith for his continued support on this issue.

I would again like to thank the National Indian Business Association, the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, the Association of Small Business Development Centers, the Oregon Native American Business Entrepreneurial Network (ONABEN), Native American Management Services, Inc., and all of the tribes that met with us or provided information to help in the drafting of this legislation.

The Senate version of the Native American Small Business Development Act, while incorporating the heart of the Udall legislation, is more comprehensive and provides greater assistance to Native American communities. Senator Johnson, who serves on the Indian Affairs Committee, and I, as the lead Democrat on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, were able to combine the resources and experiences of our committees in developing this legislation.

Mr. President, our need to fashion a more comprehensive business assistance package for Native American small businesses stems in part from a growing lack of commitment from the Small Business Administration (SBA) to our Native American communities under this Administration.

While I applaud the Bush Administration for responding to congressional requests by including $1 million in the Administration's FY 2003 budget request for Native American outreach, I was disappointed that it did not seek the full level of $2.5 million requested in a letter I sent with my colleagues Senators Daschle, Wellstone, Johnson, Bingaman and Baucus. Our request specifically sought funding for the SBA's Tribal Business Information Center (TBIC) program, an initiative started and successfully operated under the Clinton Administration. The TBIC program was designed to address the unique conditions faced by American Indians when they seek to start or expand small businesses.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Administration has eliminated all funding for Native American outreach in FY2004. With an average unemployment rate on reservations as high as 43 percent, it is inconceivable that two years of outreach is sufficient to have met our shared goal of building sustainable economic opportunities in those communities.

Mr. President, I do not believe that anyone in this Congress would dispute that economic development in Indian Country has often been difficult to achieve and that one important way to help American Indians who live on reservations is to provide them with assistance to open and run their own small businesses. Helping Native Americans open and run small businesses not only instills a sense of pride in the owner and his or her community, it also provides much-needed job opportunities, as well as other economic benefits.

Although underfunded, the TBIC program has provided assistance to a number of small businesses on Indian reservations. TBICs have the support of the American Indian communities they serve because they provide desperately

needed, culturally tailored business development assistance in those communities. The Administration should be seeking to strengthen its commitment to programs that assist Native American communities. Unfortunately, the SBA cut off TBIC funding on March 31, 2002, and now 14 months later, has not met a request by a bipartisan group of Senators to begin the reprogramming process in order to keep the TBICs open.

The Native American Small Business Development Act will ensure that the SBA's programs to assist Native American communities cannot be dissolved by making the SBA's Office of Native American Affairs (ONAA) and its Assistant Administrator permanent. Our legislation would also create a statutory grant program, known as the Native American Development grant program, to assist Native Americans. It would also establish two pilot programs to try new means of assisting Native American communities and require Native American communities to be consulted regarding the future of SBA programs designed to assist them. In short, this legislation will ensure that our Native American communities receive the adequate assistance they need to help start and grow small businesses.

The ONAA will be responsible for helping Native Americans and Native American communities start, operate, and grow small businesses; develop management and technical skills; seek out Federal procurement opportunities; increase employment opportunities through the start and expansion of small business concerns; and increase their access to capital markets.

To be selected to serve as the Assistant Administrator for ONAA, a candidate must have knowledge of Native American cultures and experience providing culturally tailored small business development assistance to Native Americans. Under our legislation, the Assistant Administrator would be statutorily required to consult with Tribal Colleges and Tribal Governments, Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO) when carrying out responsibilities under this legislation, which would give Native American communities a true voice within the SBA. The Assistant Administrator for ONAA would be responsible for administering the Native American Development program and the pilot programs created by the Native American Small Business Development Act.

The Native American Development program is designed to be the SBA's primary program for providing business development assistance to Native American communities. To offer this support, to the SBA will provide financial assistance in establish and keep Native American Business Centers (NABC) in operation. Financial assistance under the Native American Development program would be available to Tribal Governments and Tribal Colleges. Unlike the SBA's TBIC program, however, ANCs and NHOs would also be eligible for the grants.

NABCs would address the unique conditions faced by reservation-based American Indians, as well as Native Hawaiians and Native Alaskans, in their efforts to create, develop and expand small business concerns. Grant funding would be used by the NABCs to provide culturally tailored financial education assistance, management education assistance, and marketing education assistance.

The first pilot program under the legislation establishes a Native American development grant. This grant is modeled after the Udall legislation and is designed to bring the expertise of SBA's Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) to Native American Communities. Additionally, any private nonprofit organization, which has members of an Indian tribe comprising a majority of its board of governors or is an NHO or an ANC, may also apply for the grant. Nonprofits were included in the Senate version thanks to the thoughtful input of Senator Cantwell. Many American Indian communities in Washington state are served by an organization called ONABEN, which provides SBDC-like services to Native American communities in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Organizations like ONABEN, which also has the strong support of Senator Smith, should be encouraged to continue their good work assisting Native American communities, and including them in the grant program available to SBDCs was an important addition to the legislation.

Finally, our legislation establishes a second pilot program to try a unique experiment in Indian Country. Grant funding would be made available to establish American Indian Tribal Assistance Centers. These centers will consist of joint entitles, such as a partnership between an NABC, a Native American development center (which receive grants from the Department of Commerce) and possibly an SBDC. The purpose of this grant is to coordinate experts from various entities to provide culturally tailored business development assistance to prospective and current owners of small business concerns on or near Tribal Lands.

Mr. President, I would again like to thank Senators Johnson and Smith and all of the cosponsors of this important legislation to assist our Native American communities. I would also, again like to thank Congressman Udall for taking the lead in the House on providing critical assistance for small businesses in Native American communities. I would urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation to help us fulfill our commitment to Native American communities.