Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Conrad, Breaux, Snowe, Lincoln and Smith that will provide thousands of our Nations' automobile dealerships with needed additional flexibility to re-invest franchise termination payments so that taxes are not unfairly imposed. This legislation has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and was included in the Chairman's modified mark in last year's small business tax bill.

At the end of 2000, GM notified their 2,801 Oldsmobile dealers that they were phasing out the 100 year-old Oldsmobile brand and its complete line-up of vehicles shortly after the dealers had signed a new agreement with a commitment of up to five years on this

product line. With this surprising elimination of the Oldsmobile product line, many family-owned dealerships are facing an increased threat to the viability of other product lines at their dealerships and, in some cases, a complete loss of their business.

GM is in the process of compensating these dealers to minimize the impact, as many of these dealers are facing a significant and previously unforeseeable financial burden, through no fault of their own, in connection with their efforts to continue in the automobile retail business. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to lessen that burden by allowing these dealerships up to two years to re- invest their GM's financial assistance payments in other dealership properties and defer payment of taxes under IRC Section 1031. Under current law, the dealerships would only have 6 months to identify and purchase a similar business or property. This time restriction would make it difficult, if not impossible, for most of these businesses to re-invest these payments because, as is the case with most franchises, there are very few businesses or investments that are similar enough to be considered ``like kind'' and hence qualify for tax deferral. The failure to do so results in the owner paying taxes on the payment, even if they are ultimately re-invested in a business that would have qualified. Since the dealers did not want to forfeit their rights to sell Oldsmobiles, this seems like a particularly harsh result.

In rural States like New Mexico, family-owned businesses supply the majority of jobs and services in the State. This legislation gives these small businesses an opportunity to continue their family-owned businesses and, at the same time, give a boost to the local economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I have no objection to the request of the Senator from Texas who asked if he could be allowed to speak for 15 or 20 minutes before we begin my amendment. If that is not a problem for the manager of the bill, I have no objection.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a very straightforward, simple amendment that deals with a problem that is buried in this legislation and

which really needs to be dealt with. That is the so-called assets test. My amendment would eliminate the assets test beginning in the year 2009.

The first obvious question everyone should be asking is, What is the assets test? The assets test is as follows: The bill provides a more generous set of benefits for low-income individuals and low-income couples. That is as we intend.

I think all Members of the Senate recognize that those who have the least in the way of income really need the most help in paying for their prescription drugs, particularly when you are dealing with seniors who are not, in most cases, out in the workplace able to increase their income. We believe the proper, the humane, and the compassionate thing is to provide this greater level of subsidy for low-income individuals.

In particular, we look at those individuals with incomes up to 160 percent of poverty. That is the figure we have in this legislation. That translates into, I believe, what we are talking about. A couple with an income of perhaps $17,000 or $18,000 a year would qualify, and if they had any more income than that they would not qualify for this higher level of subsidy.

The bill also provides that if a low-income individual has as much as $4,000 in assets, that individual is not entitled to that subsidy in the same way others would be.

For example, if you have a 70 or 75-year-old widow who is receiving $5,000 a year in income or $6,000 a year or $8,000 in income and that widow also has $1,000 in U.S. savings bonds, and a car that has a blue book value of $3,100, then that widow is not entitled to the full benefit unless and until she goes out and either sells the savings bonds or sells the car or somehow or other impoverishes herself to be able to demonstrate she does not have assets worth $4,000.`

This is a test that was put in the law many years ago. It is one that adds great complexity to the law. In fact, a major effect of this assets test is to discourage a great many low-income individuals from even applying for the increased benefit that is provided for in this legislation because the requirements for reporting, filling out forms, getting blue book values on your automobile--these are complicated requirements that discourage people from applying across the board.

I also point out that under this assets test, not only is it $4,000 for an individual--so if you have $4,000 worth of income, of assets, as a widow, you fail the assets test--but if you are married, it is then $6,000. A lot of the Members of this Senate and the Congress have given speeches about what a terrible thing the marriage penalty is. Here is another marriage penalty that is in the law we are dealing with today. This is a penalty which says, if you get married, your ability to hold on to assets and still get this full benefit is reduced. You cannot hold on to as many assets. You can only hold on to $6,000 as a couple whereas you could hold on to $4,000 as an individual.

In my view, the justification for this assets test has long since gone away. The reality is, if people are unable to work, as most seniors are, unable to increase their income, if they are low-income individuals, and if they have very substantial prescription drug costs, they need the assistance we are providing in this legislation--or trying to provide in this legislation--and we should not take that away from them by virtue of their having $4,000 worth of assets as an individual or $6,000 worth of assets as a couple.

Let me elaborate on this a little bit more. There are about 40 million seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicare who could benefit from this prescription drug coverage we are talking about in this bill, and this assistance is particularly critical for those low-income individuals. Here we are talking about 14 million beneficiaries who have incomes less than 160 percent of poverty. Many of those individuals are in the State the Presiding Officer represents. Many of those individuals are in my State of New Mexico.

The bill provides a significant benefit to those low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities, but it does so only if they do not fail the assets test. I do not know the exact figures, but the Congressional Budget Office estimate is that 21 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who would otherwise qualify for this low-income benefit in fact will be denied that full benefit because they fail the assets test.

In fact, for those below 100 percent of poverty, if they fail the assets test, their cost sharing is increased, under this bill, by 400 percent. For those between 100 and 135 percent of poverty, the assets test causes their cost sharing to increase by 200 percent.

I believe strongly that in the year 2009--which is what I have in my amendment--we should eliminate the assets test. I would propose we do it earlier, frankly, but I am informed that the Budget Committee has calculated the cost of the bill in such a way that there is no funding available for us to do anything such as eliminate the assets test before the year 2009. So I have crafted the amendment so that it would become effective in the year 2009.

In addition to protecting low-income beneficiaries below 135 percent of poverty from much higher costs, much higher copays due to this assets test, it should also be noted that the assets test significantly increases the paperwork burden on seniors and on individuals with disabilities.

While the underlying bill provides physicians and other health providers with regulatory relief--and that is one of the things we keep talking about when we try to describe the benefits in this bill--I fear the bill will significantly complicate the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to receive prescription drug coverage, particularly low- income individuals. They may need--I said this in the committee during our markup, and I believe it is not a totally facetious statement--they may need an accountant or a lawyer just to figure out the paperwork having to do with this assets test and how they can access these benefits.

We should not be putting people to the choice of selling their car or liquidating their U.S. savings bonds in order to get the benefits of this bill. There are a great many low-income individuals who have very high prescription drug costs. That is a very unfortunate fact but one we are trying to come to grips with here.

Under the bill, if they fail the assets test, their copay requirement is 10 percent up until they hit the so-called doughnut portion of the bill, which means essentially $4,000 of prescription drug expense in any given year; and then for the next $1,500 or $1,800 beyond that, they pay a 20-percent copay. If you have high prescription drug costs, a 20-percent copay is substantial. If you have high prescription drug costs, even a 10-percent copay can be substantial if your income is extremely low. And that is the group we are talking about here.

So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It is done in a responsible way. It is not drafted in such a way that it would take effect immediately. It takes effect in the year 2009, when we are advised by the Budget Committee funds will be available to pay to eliminate this assets test. It clearly is the right thing to do. It is the humane thing to do if, in fact, we are serious about helping low-income seniors deal with this very substantial burden. We should adopt this amendment and eliminate the assets test as soon as we can afford to do so. And the Budget Committee tells me that is in fiscal year 2009.

So I hope very much colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the Bingaman-Inhofe amendment to preserve the Essential Air Service Program. Our amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, Harkin, Clinton, Schumer, Pryor, Ben Nelson, Lincoln, and Grassley. I thank them for their support.

I first want to compliment Commerce Committee Chariman McCain, Aviation Subcomittee Chairman Lott, and Ranking Members Hollings and Rockefeller for their good work on this bill to reauthorize FAA. The bill the Senate is now considering, S. 824, will do much to assure the safety and security of the traveling public.

I am also pleased S. 824 includes a number of provisions that will help improve commercial air service in rural areas, including a reauthorization of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program.

However, we do take issue with one provision in this bill that would for the first time impose new costs on some communities that participate in the EAS program.

As the bill now stands, some communities would be required to pay to continue to receive scheduled air service I believe this arbitrary proposal could eliminate scheduled air service from many rural communities. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to eliminate all mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. I hope the Senate will do the same.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

A recent study from the Department of Agriculture, titled ``How Important is Airport Access for Rural Businesses'' underscores the importance of commercial air service to rural communities. In a survey of rural businesses, access to airport facilities and air service was frequently cited as one of the top problems for businesses in most rural counties. Air facilities, services, and fares were also found to be important to tourist-related and service businesses in rural areas. Not surprisingly, airport access was one of the least cited concerns of manufacturers in large- and medium-sized cities.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the current financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Congress already limits the eligibility of the EAS program to communities more than 70 miles from a major airport. In addition, the amount of the subsidy must be less than $200 per passenger for communities less than 210 miles from a major airport. These requirements serve to limit the cost to the government of the EAS program. In fact, in the past two years, about a dozen airports, including one in New Mexico, have been eliminated from EAS because the cost per passenger has exceeded the limit. We feel the additional requirements imposed in this bill are not appropriate and could force a number of communities to lose their commercial air service.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's largest city and business center.

I hope that all Senators recognize the vast distances between communities in my State. If you drive, Hobbs is 320 miles from Albuquerque, Carlsbad is 283 miles, Silver City 233, Clovis 216, and Alamogordo 210 miles. None of these cities are on interstate highways, so the driving times to Albuquerque can be 4, 5, and even 6 hours. Commercial air service is the only practical way to make the trip for business people or community leaders going to Albuquerque or to the nearby state capital in Santa Fe. Though so called ``hub'' airports may be located a hundred miles away in another state, it is just not practical to drive the long distance to another airport in order to fly to Albuquerque. However, that's exactly what is likely to happen if the Congress imposes new costs on our communities to maintain their commercial air service.

As I understand it, under the proposal in this bill communities in 16 states could be affected by the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the Senate bill. These States are, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont.

The House-reported bill--H.R. 2115--also requires some rural communities to pay or lose their commercial air service. We believe this ill-conceived proposal could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues.

The Governor of my state of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, said in a letter to me supporting this amendment: The cost sharing provision has the potential to affect the economic welfare of small communities in over 35 states---particularly those in New Mexico.

I also have a letter of support from the New Mexico State Aviation Director, Mike Rice, who said this: This significant additional financial burden would have profound negative impacts on both current sir service and economic development efforts in several of our cities. Changes to current EAS funding could very well jeopardize existing air service in our state.

Mayor Donald Carroll of Alamogordo, writes that it is improbable that funding will be available to locally subsidize air service. He also notes that the city is actively working with the commercial carrier, Rio Grande Air, to increase enplanements.

The National Association of Development Organizations says:

During these challenging economic times, Congress should be

working to improve and enhance air service to rural and

underserved communities, instead of adding new requirements

that would further isolate hundreds of our nation's smaller

communities.

I'm not entirely sure that the proposal to charge the communities to continue their air service has been thoroughly thought out. The chairman's report on this bill from the Commerce Committee indicates that the Secretary will select 10 EAS communities to pay for their air service. However, the way I read the reported bill, only a one city in each of 8 states would be required to pay. Now, the chairman has offered an amendment that ups that total to 16 states with about 27 communities that could be impacted.

At the same time, the bill isn't clear on what exactly is a ``hub'' airport. As I understand it, the FAA compiles one set of data on annual enplanements, but the Department of Transportation currently uses a different set of data from the department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics to determine eligibility for EAS. These data produce a different list of ``hub'' airports, which could change which airports would be required to pay, simply because of the source of the data the government chooses to use. Finally, new cities are coming into the EAS program, so that additional states could have cities that would be required to pay for their air service.

Just one last point on the impacts of this proposal. I think we should make clear this isn't about saving the Government a lot of money. We estimate the payments from the communities would amount to less than $2 million a year out of a $113 million annual program.

Advocates of this proposal may claim they've made it as easy as possible for the communities to provide the mandatory 10 percent match. I just don't believe these alternatives will be all that effective. I understand, none of the five EAS cities in New Mexico currently charge the commercial carrier any fees to land at the airport. In this way, our cities are already contributing to the cost of their commercial air service.

I think we all appreciate the current concerns about the aviation industry and the EAS program. Ridership levels to rural cities are down. Meanwhile operating costs continue to increase, resulting in ticket prices that fewer people can afford. There are too many commuter aircraft flying at less than half capacity. Clearly, some improvements are needed.

But what are some better options? Well, I think senators need only look in this same bill for the answer. In my view the bill already includes a number of excellent improvements in the EAS program that I believe will significantly enhance commercial air service in rural communities.

For example, section 352 of the bill authorizes a new Marketing Incentive Program to increase ridership, reduce the Federal subsidies, and improve service. Section 353 provides for a number of pilot programs to help communities improve their commercial air service. One option is to allow communities to receive service with a smaller airplane. In my State, Alamogordo has decided to try service with a nine-passenger plane. In addition, communities may opt to convert their EAS service to alternative transportation, which might include bus or vans. I think these ideas represent a better approach to improving commercial air service in rural areas. I support these proposals and want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including them.

The choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could well see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our amendment will help ensure affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America.

The House of Representatives has already voted to eliminate the mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. I hope all Senators will vote for this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the communities that could be affected and a letter of support for the amendment by the Governor of New Mexico, a letter of support for the amendment from the Director of the New Mexico Aviation Division of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, a letter from the Mayor of Alamogordo, NM, and a letter from the National Association of Development Organizations, all in support of this amendment, be printed in the Record.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Madam President, that is correct. We support the amendment and urge its passage.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and Senator Inouye. It is an amendment that will make several changes in section 303 of the Indian energy title in this legislation that is pending before the Senate.

First, a little background on these issues so my colleagues understand what is at stake. Title III of S. 14 contains a very strong Indian energy title. It would provide tribes with the financial and technical assistance they need to help them develop and utilize energy resources on Indian land.

This title III represents a combination of sections from two separate bills. One was introduced by Senator Campbell; the other was introduced by Senator Inouye and myself. I very much appreciate the willingness of the majority to work with us and include in the bill now before the Senate a number of sections from the Bingaman-Inouye bill. Most of these measures were included as part of last year's Senate-passed Energy bill and were generally agreed to in the House-Senate conference without controversy. Unfortunately, as we all know, those sections did not become law.

Notwithstanding the general support that exists for the Indian energy title in this bill, there is one section that is fairly controversial. That is the subject of our amendment. It is section 2604. It would authorize tribes to enter into leases and business agreements and issue rights-of-way for energy development projects on tribal lands without the separate approval of the Secretary of the Interior. These leases and business agreements and rights-of-way would involve a broad range of energy projects, including oil and gas extraction, powerplants development and construction, and even some mining activity would be covered under the language in the bill. This activity could take place on any tribal trust lands, not just those on reservation but also lands that have been designated as tribal trust lands off reservation. There are many of those, as we know.

There is no disagreement on whether we should allow tribes to exercise more control over development on tribal lands. There is, however, a disagreement on how we go about that.

The present language in section 2604 raises two significant issues. The first is that by eliminating the Secretarial approval of leases and agreements and rights-of-way, section 2604 eliminates the ``major Federal action'' determination that triggers the application of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This effectively waives the analysis and the public participation requirements that are in that law. It thereby reduces the ability to protect the interests of both those residing on reservations and those residing in adjacent communities.

While a substantial environmental review process is included in section 2604, it is limited in the range of impacts that require review. It does not require the implementation of mitigation measures. It does not require any changes in response to the concerns of affected tribal members or the concerns of local communities.

Obviously, eliminating NEPA is a concern to many national and local environmental groups and also to some Native American organizations that have weighed in with strong letters on the issue. It is also of concern to the counties around the country. In a letter dated May 14 of this year, the National Association of Counties is calling for section 2604 to be modified so that a NEPA analysis is completed for each new energy project that goes forward on Indian lands.

There is a bipartisan group of attorneys general representing the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Connecticut that have also expressed strong concerns about the diminishment of environmental review for tribal energy resource development projects. They have expressed their views in a letter dated June 9 of this year. In that letter they wrote:

While we understand that this provision is intended to

promote the worthy goals of tribal self-determination and

sovereignty, we are concerned that it goes too far in

facilitating significant development activity without

ensuring that adequate protections exist for affected

communities and adjacent lands. Section 2604 represents a

significant change in the law that could have serious

implications for the States that we represent. We therefore

urge the provision be amended to ensure that significant

energy development activity on tribal lands continues to be

subject to meaningful environmental review, including an

ability for State and local governments to participate in the

process.

The concern expressed by those attorneys general and the counties underscores the fact that without some applicable Federal law related to the significant development activity contemplated under this section 2604, it is unclear what standard is to apply. Some have argued that tribal lands should be treated just as private lands are and tribes should be free, as private landowners are, to go forward with development projects. In my view, that is not a good analogy because private lands are subject to State and local laws; tribal lands are not. We are all aware that a private landowner has requirements by virtue of State and local law that do not apply on tribal lands. Tribal law can and should apply to energy development on tribal lands, but at the same time Congress has a responsibility to ensure that certain Federal parameters are in place.

The second issue that is raised by this section 2604 is that the language in the section undermines the Secretary's trust responsibility to Indian tribes. A number of tribes have expressed strong concerns about the language which appears to change the traditional trust relationships between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Tribal concern is driven by a decision 3 months ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Navajo Nation. The Supreme Court specifically addressed the Federal trust responsibility and the standard for ensuring that statutes affecting Native Americans contain fiduciary duties by which the Federal Government as trustee can be held accountable for its actions that may have serious and negative impacts on tribal interests.

Section 2604, the subject of our amendment here, as currently drafted does not meet the standards established by the Supreme Court. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction. It diminishes the Federal Government's trust responsibility and accountability to tribes. This is inconsistent with the current Federal policy of tribal self- determination and self-governance. These policies, in effect since the landmark Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975,

clearly preserved the Federal trust responsibility and accountability to tribes while facilitating tribal control over Federal Indian programs.

The amendment Senator Inouye and I are offering addresses both the environmental review question I talked about and the trust responsibility issues, as well as other miscellaneous matters, in the hope that we can improve the final Indian energy title from a tribal perspective, from an environmental perspective, from a State perspective, and from a local perspective.

With respect to the environmental issue, the amendment does the following four things:

No. 1, it ensures sufficient time for the Secretary to review the proposed tribal energy resource agreements without a waiver of Federal environmental laws.

No. 2, it improves the environmental review process so that it is comparable to the standards required under NEPA, while maintaining tribal control over that review.

No. 3, it removes language limiting who can petition for a review of the implementation of tribal energy resource agreements.

No. 4, it requires Congress to review and reauthorize this section of the program 7 years from now, without it just continuing indefinitely.

With respect to trust responsibility, the amendment deletes language that would prevent the tribes from asserting claims against the Secretary of the Interior related to the Secretary's approval of tribal energy resource agreements. It also eliminates a broad waiver that limits the liability of the United States for any losses associated with the leases or with agreements or with rights-of-way.

The language being eliminated is unacceptable to a large number of Indian tribes. Because of the language, the Navajo Nation, the largest tribe in our country and the one involved in this recent Supreme Court decision that I described, stated in a letter they sent to us dated June 4 that the ``tribal energy proposal must be defeated.''

The letter goes on to say that the language, if successfully included in the bill:

. . . would be a virtual endorsement by the Indian tribes'

trustee itself [of course, that is the Federal Government],

of the fraud, dishonesty, and unethical treatment that was

the subject of the Navajo Nation's claim against the United

States, and would open the door for future similar conduct by

federal officials.

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe, in a letter dated April 28, stated that the provisions currently in the bill ``are inconsistent with the United States' trust relationship with Indian tribes . . .'' This is a quotation from their letter. They go on to say they would ``actually turn the current legal and political relationship between Indian tribes and the United States Government on its head.''

In addition to deleting most of the offending language, our amendment also established Secretarial duties to the tribes in implementing section 2604. In light of the United States v. Navajo Nation decision, we view this language as necessary to maintain a trust relationship in which the Federal Government has some accountability to the tribes electing to enter into agreements under section 2604. The language we are proposing to add is taken directly from the existing self- determination law and therefore relies on longstanding precedent.

Finally, our amendment includes a number of minor changes that are technical. I believe it is a good, constructive improvement to the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, let me ask, how much time remains on our side?

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

That is my understanding. I was hoping we would have a vote right away. How much time remains on each side?

I thought the agreement was that we would have a vote on ours.

We were anxious to get a vote. Senator Schumer wanted to be here for a vote. He had to leave. He indicates he will have to leave.

I request that we do our vote so he can be here later on. Is that acceptable?

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

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

How much time would remain on our side if we had entered into that agreement?

I will use those 2 minutes.

Mr. President, the underlying bill, which we are trying to amend here, has in it really clear language that essentially lets the Secretary of the Interior off the hook. It eliminates responsibilities that the Secretary of the Interior would otherwise have. It says the United States shall not be liable for any loss or injury sustained by any party, including an Indian tribe, or any member of an Indian tribe, to a lease,

business agreement, right-of-way, executed in accordance with the tribal energy resource agreements approved under this subsection.

Then it says that on approval of a tribal energy resource agreement of an Indian tribe, under paragraph 1, the Indian tribe shall be estopped from asserting a claim against the United States on the grounds that the Secretary should not have approved this agreement.

That is a clear statement by the Congress--if that becomes law--that the Secretary of the Interior is off the hook. This may be on Indian trust land. It may be that the Secretary of the Interior is the trustee of that Indian trust land. We are saying in this language--if we don't amend it by the amendment Senator Inouye and I have prepared, we are saying that the Secretary of the Interior is off the hook and the Indian tribe has no one to go to for any kind of remedy. I don't think we intend to do that.

Senator Inouye and I have put together an amendment we believe keeps trust responsibility with the Federal Government, where it should be. It sets up a good procedure that the tribe can work with the Federal Government. The tribe still has decisions, makes decisions over these energy development projects, but clearly the Federal Government needs to be part of that and needs to have responsibility for seeing that decisions are in the best interest of the tribe.

Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I hope that once we do get to a vote, whenever that occurs, we will see this amendment adopted. It will strengthen the bill, and I hope very much we can approve it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me speak briefly also in support of the amendment by Senator Wyden and Senator Sununu. This is an amendment I offered in the committee markup with Senator Wyden. We were not successful at that time, obviously. I congratulate both sponsors of the amendment for offering it again here.

Clearly, I am not opposed to the building of new nuclear powerplants. I believe nuclear power makes a very major contribution to our energy needs. It supplies about 20 percent of our Nation's electricity today. It does so safely. It does so reliably. It does not generate greenhouse gases. And it does so at prices that are competitive with coal and natural gas.

I hope in the future we will see additional nuclear power production in this country and worldwide. I think it is a technology that provides many benefits to us.

There are provisions in the bill that are strongly in support of the nuclear power industry and its future: The renewal of the Price- Anderson Act, for example, that protects the nuclear industry against liability from accidents. There are provisions in there to carry out research and development to help with the training of a workforce. There are many provisions in this bill that are very strongly in support of the nuclear power industry.

The provision this amendment goes to would authorize the Secretary of Energy to guarantee up to half the cost of 8,400 megawatts of nuclear capacity. That translates into at least six large nuclear powerplants. We do not know with any precision how much these loan guarantees would wind up costing taxpayers. That depends on many variables, such as how many plants are actually built under the program, how much they cost, whether in fact there is a default, what the interest rates might be on the defaulted loans, whether the plants would still be able to operate if there were default.

There is a lot of uncertainty in the provision that is the subject of this debate. The Congressional Budget Office has made a number of assumptions that are favorable to the industry in coming up with its estimate. It assumes, for example, that the Government would only guarantee one, not six, plants during the next 10 years. It also assumes that it would cost about half as much as Seabrook and Shoreham did two decades ago and that it would still be able to operate after a default. Under these assumptions, CBO has concluded that the loan guarantees would cost in the range of $275 million for the one plant.

The Nuclear Energy Institute takes strong exception to these Congressional Budget Office conclusions. NEI doubts the industry will default on its loans. It believes CBO's estimate is based on noncredible, illogical assumptions and that the CBO estimate is unrealistically high.

So we have experts on all sides of this issue. The debate is important, but I do think it glosses over some of the fundamental questions: Does this nuclear power industry need these loan guarantees at this point? Is guaranteeing the nuclear power industry's loans sound public policy? On both of those issues, I believe the preponderance of the argument is on the side of the Wyden-Sununu amendment. I do not believe loan guarantees are necessary in this magnitude at this time.

This is a mature industry. We have been building nuclear powerplants in this country for nearly half a century. We have over 100 nuclear powerplants now operating. The nuclear industry did not need loan guarantees to get off the ground 50 years ago, and I do not believe those guarantees are required at this point.

Moreover, the companies that are most likely to build these new nuclear powerplants are the ones that have built them before and the ones that are operating them now. These are not small businesses.

As a result of the recent wave of mergers and acquisitions, there are a dozen utilities that now own 75 percent of the Nation's nuclear capacity and two-thirds of its nuclear reactors. Each of these utilities generates billions of dollars in revenues each year. Many generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue each year. Collectively, these 12 utilities had nearly $12 billion in revenues in 2001.

There is no evidence of which I am aware in the record before us that the nuclear industry needs loan guarantees of this magnitude to build new nuclear powerplants. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held hearings on the state of the nuclear industry in the past Congress. We heard from both the utility industry and the financial community, and neither one suggested that loan guarantees were appropriate or required.

The utility representative said that the state of the nuclear industry is ``very sound'' and that new plants would be ``economically competitive'' and acceptable to investors. The Wall Street representative at our committee hearing testified that a large successful utility could finance the construction of a new nuclear powerplant, and nobody mentioned the need for a Federal loan program of this type or a loan guarantee program of this type.

Second, I do not believe that shifting the financial risk of constructing these plants from industry to the Federal Government or to the taxpayers is sound public policy.

For most of the last century, utilities built powerplants in this country, whether nuclear or non-nuclear plants, under what is called the regulatory compact. Utilities were State-regulated monopolies. They accepted an obligation to serve everyone in their service territories at State-set rates. In return, they were shielded from competition. They were guaranteed recovery of their prudently incurred costs plus a reasonable profit.

The regulatory compact has largely been abandoned in this country during the last couple of decades. It has been replaced by deregulated, competitive, wholesale electricity markets. So instead of wholesale electricity prices being set based on the utility's cost of production, they are now being set more by the market, and title XI of the bill before us is intended to further these developments.

Giving Government loan guarantees of this magnitude to one segment of the utility industry--indeed one of the better financed segments of the industry--I think unduly interferes with the

free market. It runs counter to efforts to establish competitive electricity markets in this country.

In a competitive market, utilities are supposed to decide whether to build new powerplants by weighing the economic risk involved against the economic reward they might receive. Loan guarantees skew the market by shifting the risk to the taxpayers while keeping the rewards for the utility shareholders.

We have had this debate before, 50 years ago, at the dawn of the nuclear era. The House and Senate debated whether nuclear powerplants should be built and operated by the private sector or by the Government. The decision was made to leave the construction and operation of nuclear powerplants to the utilities, to the private sector.

The Federal Government encouraged support of the utilities through nuclear research programs, through fuel subsidies, and through indemnification against accidents. It did not use loans or grants or loan guarantees.

The Federal Government's faith in the utilities 50 years ago was justified as the more than 100 nuclear powerplants operating today attest, and we should continue to have faith in the free market today and not subsidize the next generation of nuclear powerplants to this extent by shifting economic risks from utility shareholders to the taxpayers.

I urge colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today because there is a crisis in our country that begs our attention. This crisis is the overwhelming lack of adequate mental health services available to the children and adolescents in our Nation and it is time that we address it. As I speak, over 13,700,000 young people are suffering from diagnosable psychiatric disorders. Sadly, fewer than one-third of these have access to mental healthcare. Today I am introducing the ``Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act'' along with Senators Collins, Jeffords, and Dodd in an effort to reduce the disparity between the need for mental health services and resources available to meet that need.

The landmark report ``Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' illuminated the crisis in 1999. 13,700,000 young people have diagnosable mental disorders including 6-9,000,000 children and adolescents who meet the definition for having a serious emotional disturbance and 5-9 percent of youth who meet the definition for having severe functional impairment. Unfortunately, few of these young people have access to adequate mental health services. The resulting lack of treatment leads to a lifetime cycle of difficulties from unresolved mental health issues. These difficulties are often as severe as school failure, substance abuse, job and relationship instability, and even criminal behavior or suicide. In many cases, young people who do not receive the mental health treatment that they need end up in foster care or even in the juvenile justice system. In my state of New Mexico, a 2002 report concluded that 1 in 7 incarcerated youth is currently in a detention center solely because there is no appropriate treatment option available. These youth are actually cleared to leave as soon as they have adequate treatment in place. In fact, from January 2001 to December of 2001 an estimated 718 New Mexico youth were collectively incarcerated for 31.3 years waiting for a treatment opening. Most other States are facing similar situations. In fact, studies have found that nationally more than 1 in 3 youth in detention centers have a mental health disorder. Clearly, this is an issue that demands our immediate attention.

One of the key barriers to treatment is the shortage of available specialists trained in the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. The 1999 Surgeon General's Report stated, ``there is a dearth of child psychiatrists, appropriately trained clinical child psychologists, and social workers.'' There are particularly acute shortages in the number of mental health service professionals serving children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders as well as those serving rural areas. Nationwide, 4,358 urban, suburban, and rural localities have been designated mental health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government. The President's New Freedom Commission has recognized the shortage and has made a recommendation to develop a strategic plan to address it. The Council on Graduate Medical Education and the State Mental Health Commissioners have also recognized this shortage of mental health professionals.

The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act will help remove one of the key barriers to treatment for children and adolescents with mental illnesses: the lack of available specialists trained in this field. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct clinical care and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train child mental health professionals through several mechanisms. The bill provides loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals to help pay back educational loans. It provides grants to graduate schools to provide for internships and field placements in child mental health services. It provides grants to help with the preservice and inservice training of paraprofessionals who work in the children's mental health clinical settings. It also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. Finally, the bill allows for an increase in the number of child and adolescent psychiatrists permitted under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program, extends the Board Eligibility period for residents and fellows from 4 years to 6 years, and instructs the secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me along with Senators Collins, Jeffords, and Dodd in supporting this essential legislation. Over 13 million children in our country are counting on us.

As Walt Disney once said, ``Our Nation's greatest national resource is the minds of our children.'' Let us not fail these 13 million people.

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

Mr. President, I rise today because there is a crisis in our country that begs our attention. This crisis is the overwhelming lack of adequate mental health services available to the children and adolescents in our Nation and it is time that we address it. As I speak, over 13,700,000 young people are suffering from diagnosable psychiatric disorders. Sadly, fewer than one-third of these have access to mental healthcare. Today I am introducing the ``Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act'' along with Senators Collins, Jeffords, and Dodd in an effort to reduce the disparity between the need for mental health services and resources available to meet that need.

The landmark report ``Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' illuminated the crisis in 1999. 13,700,000 young people have diagnosable mental disorders including 6-9,000,000 children and adolescents who meet the definition for having a serious emotional disturbance and 5-9 percent of youth who meet the definition for having severe functional impairment. Unfortunately, few of these young people have access to adequate mental health services. The resulting lack of treatment leads to a lifetime cycle of difficulties from unresolved mental health issues. These difficulties are often as severe as school failure, substance abuse, job and relationship instability, and even criminal behavior or suicide. In many cases, young people who do not receive the mental health treatment that they need end up in foster care or even in the juvenile justice system. In my state of New Mexico, a 2002 report concluded that 1 in 7 incarcerated youth is currently in a detention center solely because there is no appropriate treatment option available. These youth are actually cleared to leave as soon as they have adequate treatment in place. In fact, from January 2001 to December of 2001 an estimated 718 New Mexico youth were collectively incarcerated for 31.3 years waiting for a treatment opening. Most other States are facing similar situations. In fact, studies have found that nationally more than 1 in 3 youth in detention centers have a mental health disorder. Clearly, this is an issue that demands our immediate attention.

One of the key barriers to treatment is the shortage of available specialists trained in the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. The 1999 Surgeon General's Report stated, ``there is a dearth of child psychiatrists, appropriately trained clinical child psychologists, and social workers.'' There are particularly acute shortages in the number of mental health service professionals serving children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders as well as those serving rural areas. Nationwide, 4,358 urban, suburban, and rural localities have been designated mental health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government. The President's New Freedom Commission has recognized the shortage and has made a recommendation to develop a strategic plan to address it. The Council on Graduate Medical Education and the State Mental Health Commissioners have also recognized this shortage of mental health professionals.

The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act will help remove one of the key barriers to treatment for children and adolescents with mental illnesses: the lack of available specialists trained in this field. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct clinical care and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train child mental health professionals through several mechanisms. The bill provides loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals to help pay back educational loans. It provides grants to graduate schools to provide for internships and field placements in child mental health services. It provides grants to help with the preservice and inservice training of paraprofessionals who work in the children's mental health clinical settings. It also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. Finally, the bill allows for an increase in the number of child and adolescent psychiatrists permitted under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program, extends the Board Eligibility period for residents and fellows from 4 years to 6 years, and instructs the secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me along with Senators Collins, Jeffords, and Dodd in supporting this essential legislation. Over 13 million children in our country are counting on us.

As Walt Disney once said, ``Our Nation's greatest national resource is the minds of our children.'' Let us not fail these 13 million people.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly in favor of the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota and give the reasons I believe this is a meritorious amendment that would strengthen the bill.

First, I think everyone needs to understand the amendment is an amendment that just sets targets. It really says that the plan--this is the plan the administration is going to come up with to spend this $1.3 billion, I believe it is--

shall describe the activities of the Department of Energy,

including a research, development, demonstration, and

commercial application program for developing technologies to

support--

and then it goes on to set these targets to support:

the production and deployment of . . . 100,000 hydrogen-

fueled fuel cell vehicles by 2010; and . . . 2.5 million

hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles by 2020 . . .

As I say, this is an amendment that sets some targets. They are not mandates; they are targets. I think they add greatly to the bill. Unfortunately, the Senator from Tennessee, as chair of the Energy Subcommittee in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, does have the primary responsibility for the oversight of a lot of this activity. I would see this amendment, frankly, by the Senator from North Dakota as a way to give him more ability to perform that oversight.

Frankly, the only oversight target in the bill right now is you could call in the various officials from the Department of Energy and ask them whether in fact they are spending the money we have authorized to be spent. That is not a very effective kind of oversight. I am sure they would tell us they are spending the money.

The real question is, Are they achieving something with the expenditure of those funds? I believe this amendment tries to put in place some targets for what we would like to see them achieve. Clearly those are not hard-and-fast targets and they will change over time, but they do give us some benchmarks against which we can measure progress. I think that is very useful.

The Senator from Tennessee made the point that, in his view, his preference would be to leave it to the market as to how quickly these technologies develop. Clearly the private sector is going to determine to a very great extent how quickly these technologies become commercialized and how well they develop. But this legislation is authorizing the expenditure of Federal funds. It is entirely appropriate that we specify what we want to see as results coming out of the expenditure of those funds. To me it is not incumbent upon us to leave that kind of decision to the market. The market will have a major role, major voice, major determination as to what actually comes to market and what actually is commercialized and how quickly. But in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars it is our job to set out there what we would like to see achieved. If we determine after a few years that those targets are not realistic, we can always change them. Congress is in session every year. But this gives us something to shoot at. I think it is a major step in the right direction.

The Department, under the legislation we are considering, would invest $171 million in the current fiscal year, $272 million next fiscal year, $1.7 billion over the next 5 years--I said earlier $1.3 billion. I gather it is $1.7 billion. In my view, it is entirely appropriate that we look at trying to achieve some particular targets so we can then go back to our constituents and say this is what this money is going for and this is how we are making progress.

I do want to say, just before I yield the floor here, that this has been a very good, bipartisan effort. The Senator from North Dakota has been a long-time leader in trying to get more attention to the use of hydrogen in meeting our future energy needs. The Senator from Tennessee is certainly a strong proponent of this and has demonstrated that in our debates this year.

I know there are others on our committee who have taken a very major role: Senator Akaka, as well, of course, and others before him. So I think this is a very good part of the bill. I think this amendment by Senator Dorgan will strengthen it even more.

I hope very much we can see it adopted.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment addresses the fact that most hydrogen today is manufactured from natural gas. As far as we can tell, this is likely to remain the case as we make any transition to a hydrogen-based economy. This dependence on natural gas may prove to be a real Achilles' heel for the future development of these promising technologies we have been discussing on the Senate floor today related to hydrogen.

The lead story in today's Financial Times has a headline entitled ``U.S. Faces Natural Gas Shortage.'' I believe Chairman Greenspan has also been testifying about this very important issue today in the House of Representatives. This is not a new story. There are a number of us who have been sounding the alarm for a long time on this issue and the need for effective action to address it. It is a serious situation. It has been in the making for several years, and it will not be easy for us to reverse this situation.

As an example of this concern, on May 27 there were 29 other Senators who joined me in a letter to Secretary Abraham. In that letter we expressed concern about the current and continued high natural gas prices and their effects on consumers and industries that rely on natural gas. We strongly urged the Secretary of Energy to look to conservation, energy efficiency, and fuel switching as important near- term steps that can be taken to alleviate what is shaping up as a critical problem, perhaps this coming winter.

This past Friday, Secretary Abraham wrote back, agreeing with the analysis of the problem and agreeing that--this is a quote from his letter--``the natural gas industry has been strongly supportive of this conservation message. . . .''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent by 30 Senators to the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Energy's response be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, it would be ironic if, in the name of increasing the diffusion of hydrogen-based energy technologies into the U.S. economy, we wound up exacerbating the long-term problem we have with the natural gas supply. To make sure we maintain the awareness of this linkage, and the potential downside that could arise because of it, this amendment I have sent to the desk would make two changes in the underlying hydrogen title of the bill.

First, the amendment would require a triennial report from the Secretary of Energy with an assessment of how the various programs in the bill to increase the number of hydrogen vehicles and the use of hydrogen as a fuel were affecting our long-term demands for natural gas. If other sources for the manufacture of hydrogen were coming

to the fore, such as renewable sources of electricity, and the increased dependence on natural gas was not looming as a big problem, then fine. But we would be looking at this natural gas issue on a periodic basis at least each 3 years as hydrogen technologies move forward.

The second change the amendment would make would be to add a similar analysis to a report from Federal agencies that is already required in the bill on their own future use of hydrogen. It would require Federal agencies to assess how their own increased use of hydrogen would affect natural gas demand.

Obviously, all of us want hydrogen to be better developed as a technological option. We all, I believe, also want to make sure we do not have unwanted consequences or unwanted impacts on our strained natural gas picture going forward. This amendment will help ensure that we keep our eyes open and we keep focused on this important potential problem as we move toward a hydrogen-based economy.

Mr. President, I think this amendment would strengthen the bill, and I hope it is acceptable and can be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

United States Senate,

Washington, DC, May 27, 2003.

Hon. Spencer Abraham,

Secretary, Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Abraham: We are writing to express our

concern about continued high natural gas prices, the impact

on industries that rely on natural gas for manufacturing, and

the possibility of severe price spikes recurring later this

year. In your recent address to the National Petroleum

Council, you correctly pointed out that the amount of natural

gas in storage is unusually low and that injection rates must

increase dramatically in order to fill storage to levels

sufficient to meet anticipated demand this year. With natural

gas prices twice as high as they were last year and the

increased demand for electricity expected this summer, market

fundamentals are not encouraging for robust storage refill

rates.

We commend you for focusing on the near term challenges we

face with respect to natural gas and for calling an emergency

meeting of the National Petroleum Council next month to

identify actions that can be taken immediately to ease short-

term supply constraints. The expertise of the NPC's members

in the production, transmission and distribution of natural

gas should be very helpful. Increased natural gas supplies

are needed of course and, in fact, drilling is up thirty

percent this year. But significant new gas supplies are not

likely to come on line in the near term.

Energy efficiency and conservation, as well as fuel

switching, are more likely to make a difference in natural

gas markets this summer and next winter. Analysis of the

successful efforts of California to reduce electricity

consumption in 2001 demonstrated that efficiency and

conservation were the fastest and least costly solutions

available. We urge you to cast a wider net for

recommendations on natural gas including meeting with

Governors, state and federal regulators, industrial and

commercial gas consumers, electric utilities and independent

generators, and experts in efficiency and conservation.

We look forward to working with you to address this

critical issue.

Sincerely,

Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, Jay Rockefeller, Russell D.

Feingold, Harry Reid, Joseph Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman,

Tom Carper, Frank R. Lautenberg, Ron Wyden, Debbie

Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Mary L. Landrieu, Jon S.

Corzine, Jack Reed, Charles Schumer, Evan Bayh, Daniel

K. Inouye, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Dick

Durbin, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Patrick Leahy, John F.

Kerry, Paul Sarbanes, Barbara A. Mikulski, Ted Kennedy,

Carl Levin, Daniel K. Akaka, Patty Murray.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Yes, I have.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from California on this amendment. It substantially improves this portion of the bill and does provide additional opportunity for developing ethanol from these other sources. It is good environmental policy. It is good energy policy. I very much support the amendment.

As I understand it, most of those people who looked at this agreed to it. I agree with my colleague from New Mexico that this is an amendment we should agree to unanimously in the Senate and we should maintain it in conference, insisting on it in our discussions with the House.

I yield the floor.

Let me respond, to the extent I am persuasive in the conference, I will commit to keeping this provision in the law.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for offering the amendment. I do support the amendment.

The general rule which has served us well in this country is that if you design or manufacture a product that proves to be defective and that product then injures someone, you can be held liable. That has allowed us to protect the health and safety of the American people. It is a substantial protection for all of us.

This safe harbor provision that the Senator from California wants to strike says:

No renewable fuel shall be deemed to be defective in design

or in manufacture or no motor vehicle fuel that contains

renewable fuel shall be deemed to be defective in design and

manufacture.

To my mind, it is unwise public policy for us to be writing into law this kind of exception to the general tort laws that we operate under in the country. We do not know enough, frankly. We do not know what the scientific and health experts are going to find when they fully investigate the impact of tripling the use of ethanol on the air that we breathe and the water we drink.

I certainly hope they will find there is no harmful health effect from it, but to say we are going to prohibit anyone from recovering if they are damaged from the design or manufacture of any of these renewable fuels I think is a big mistake.

I compliment the Senator from California. I support her amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response, let me indicate my best information is they are still insisting that we not deal with LIHEAP in this legislation, which is of course not my position. I think we should deal with it.

Accordingly, I would not agree to just a sense of the Senate on that subject, which is their preference, as I understand it.

I hope we can persuade them otherwise. If not, then we will have to have a vote.

Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, for his comments. I agree with his request that we move ahead with amendments. I know there are many Senators with amendments they want to offer. I think the logical thing to do is to try to deal with all of the ethanol-related amendments at this stage in the consideration of the bill. I hope that by offering an ethanol- related amendment now, on behalf of myself and Senator Sununu, we can begin the process of considering these amendments in a thoughtful way and, hopefully, work through them over the next day or two.

Amendment No. 851 To Amendment No. 850

Mr. President, with that, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. It is an amendment to amendment No. 850 that Senator Domenici offered on behalf of Senator Frist and others.

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

Mr. President, as I indicated, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of Senator Sununu and myself. It is to improve the waiver provisions in the renewable fuels standard in the Daschle- Frist amendment.

The amendment we are offering seeks to give the President the authority to suspend the ethanal mandate--he could suspend it with regard to a particular geographic area in the country--in the event there is a severe supply or price disruption to U.S. gasoline markets. We have a way of determining when that threshold is reached. It provides a path for immediate action to be taken to deal with that price circumstance.

This is not a requirement that the President act. This is merely authority for him to act if he chooses to do so. I think we need to make that point so all Members understand we are not requiring any action by this amendment; we are expanding the waiver authority so that additional authority exists if the President chooses to use it. Ultimately, someone needs to have the authority to take immediate action if there happens to be a crisis, if a crisis comes upon us.

The Daschle-Frist amendment waiver provisions--and this is on page 12 of the underlying Daschle-Frist amendment--those waiver provisions give each State the right to petition the Administrator for a waiver in the event of severe harm to the economy or the environment. The process that is outlined can take up to 90 days. It is not necessarily going to take 90 days. It could

take longer, as there is no enforcement really built in, but it is supposed to take no more than 90 days.

The State files the petition. The Administrator has the 90 days, maximum, to make a determination of whether the petition should be granted. In making that determination, the Secretary is required to give public notice and an opportunity for comment. That is a 3-month period--or up to a 3-month period--for a determination to be made and for the mandate to be suspended.

In a crisis situation, a significant amount of economic or environmental damage could be done during that period while all of this notice and opportunity for comment is occurring. In my view, we cannot afford that. Ninety days is too long a period.

The amendment we are offering does not seek to disturb or to weaken the underlying Daschle-Frist amendment. It simply gives the President the authority to take immediate action to deal with urgent issues that may arise in particular regions. If a State or region experiences a supply disruption which they might experience with regard to ethanol or a price spike resulting from the mandate, and a suspension of the mandate is necessary, then we are giving the President authority to suspend the mandate for a 30-day period. He could renew that for an additional 30 days if he chose to. But that is the essence of our amendment. If the gasoline prices rise more than 10 cents as a result of the mandate, that is when this authority would come into place.

Now, this is not the price of ethanol rising 10 cents; this is the price of gasoline at the pump rising 10 cents because of the mandate to use ethanol as required in the Daschle-Frist amendment. If the price of gas at the pump rises over 10 cents, and the Secretary makes the determination that immediate action is necessary, then the mandate could be suspended for the 30 days in this affected PADD, this Petroleum Administration for Defense District, or in the effected State or region.

What does that 10-cent rise in the price of gasoline per gallon mean? Let me refer to this chart I have in the Chamber.

You can see that ethanol is going to be blended with other petroleum fuel in gasoline, and 10 percent of it is going to be ethanol. So, in fact, if you saw a 50-cent increase in the price of ethanol per gallon, that would mean a 5-cent-per-gallon rise in the price of gasoline. If you saw a $1 increase in the price of ethanol per gallon, that would mean a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the price of gasoline.

I think this chart makes clear that what we are proposing gives the President the ability to act expeditiously. If there is this kind of $1 increase in the price of ethanol itself, that could translate approximately to a 10-cent increase in gasoline. This is a high threshold. Frankly, I know there are Members of this Senate who would say that should not be 10 cents; we ought to have the President have the authority to act if you have a 3-cent increase or a 2-cent increase or a 5-cent increase, and I might agree with some of that logic.

But the truth is, we have tried to write this in a way that makes it clear that this is not authority we would expect to be invoked or to be available to the President under most circumstances. This is authority which would only be available under extraordinary circumstances.

Today prices are at about $1.15 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, this is roughly where they were back in 1998. There has been some fluctuation.

This second chart that I have in the Chamber shows what has happened to the price of gasoline from 1998 through the current period. You can see that there has been fluctuation in the price of ethanol, but we have not seen enough fluctuation in the price of ethanol from the average price to trigger this authority to ever take place, so that during this entire period this authority would not have come into place. It is clear we are not setting up some kind of a hair-trigger procedure here which will give the President or the Secretary of Energy the ability to step in at will and act.

The amendment we are proposing is simply a safety valve. As I have said several times, it is not automatic. If there is no disruption in supply, if prices do not spike substantially outside the range shown on this chart, then nothing would happen. However, in the event we do have a problem, we would have in place, with this amendment, a procedure for dealing with it.

The reason I think this amendment is important is because fuel transitions are inherently problematic.

We have a lot of history on which to base that judgment. All previous changes to the reformulated gasoline formula have resulted in severe price volatility in gasoline markets. We don't have to go back very far to see that this is the case. In 1996 and in the year 2000, we saw gasoline prices rise substantially, and both times this resulted in gasoline price spikes of more than 30 cents a gallon in California.

There are previous EIA studies that have been done, but they have not addressed short-term issues. That is what we are talking about, short- term supply disruptions. They either look at the long-term outcomes or act to analyze supply disruptions only after they have occurred.

The mandate we are proposing to put into law with the Frist-Daschle amendment does create substantial uncertainty. That has been discussed in some of the debate that has already occurred. The mandate says we will use 5 billion gallons of ethanol in the Nation's fuel supply by 2012. It bans the use of MTBE beginning in the year 2007. While some would prefer to call it a renewable fuels standard, it is in fact a mandate. All of us understand that. By the nature of a mandate, it creates a substantial amount of uncertainty.

While my colleagues may argue that they have crafted a plan that allows plenty of time for the transition from MTBE to ethanol, I have doubts about whether that is the case. Under the mandate in the Frist- Daschle amendment, it is possible that our motor fuels market will see disruptions in supply and price spikes that, if left unattended, could harm consumers and the economy. Our amendment tries to deal directly with that.

We have to keep in mind the MTBE ban affects supply immediately. Once the bill passes, MTBE will be quickly phased out and banned in 16 States; most importantly, in California and Washington and Arizona on the West Coast and in New York and Connecticut on the East Coast. These States in the Northeast in particular are heavily dependent on gasoline product imports from Europe and South America. Venezuela supplies 8 percent of the gasoline volume on the East Coast. The Venezuelan National Oil Company says a renewable fuels mandate could make it difficult if not impossible to import finished gasoline into the United States as they have been doing.

Most of the East Coast imports come into the New York area and need to be suitable for the reformulated gas markets.

As I have said in several ways, there is a lot of uncertainty that we just do not know the answers to. Let me list some of that again. Then I will defer to my colleague from New Hampshire who is here and wishes to speak on behalf of the amendment as well.

Some of the questions that still exist in my mind as regards this mandate are, No. 1, what if we have a supply shortage when refineries are already producing at capacity? What does that do to the price to the consumer? Second, what if our import capacity declines and prices spike even further? Third, what if there is a drought in the Midwest that affects corn production and therefore affects ethanol production? That could significantly affect the price. And it could get the price outside of this area that is reflected on the chart behind me.

Perhaps we could experience problems in transporting the ethanol or an important element in the refinery infrastructure could be damaged at a key hub. There is any number of scenarios that could lead us to supply disruptions, to price spikes. Under those circumstances, we need to have authority vested with the President to take action. We should not be requiring that he take that action, but we should be giving him the authority. We need to be proactive. We need to look forward and analyze potential problems the U.S. motor fuels market could face in the short term, and we need to do this before the disruption occurs.

I urge our colleagues to carefully consider the amendment. It is good policy to build in such a provision to protect consumers in the event of a crisis. It is a good safety valve to add to the bill. It substantially strengthens the bill. I hope my colleagues will agree and that we can add this as an amendment.

I yield the floor. I see my colleague, my cosponsor from New Hampshire, is in the Chamber waiting to speak.

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

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of the leader. I know of his strong commitment to this underlying amendment. I will say what everyone in the Senate knows, which is his reputation, a well-earned reputation, for straight dealing. He indicated to me before I offered the amendment that he would be compelled to oppose it, and I certainly understand. I am anxious to accommodate some of the concerns he has raised.

With that in mind, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, let me explain what I did with the modification. I dealt with the issue Senator Daschle raised about his concern that

the language in the previous amendment, as I offered it with Senator Sununu, allowed the Secretary to act on the basis of a prediction about what was going to happen. That language was in the bill, and I just modified the bill to provide that the President--let me clarify that nothing in this amendment gives the Secretary authority to act. This amendment only gives the President authority to act. The President can only act on the basis of a determination made by his or her Secretary of Energy.

Now, with the modification, it would be a determination made by his or her Secretary of Energy that this ethanol mandate, in fact, has resulted in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to end users or it has resulted in a significant interruption or has resulted in an increase in the average cost by at least 10 cents per gallon as a result of the mandate.

In response to that concern Senator Daschle raised, I want to be clear that we have dealt with that in the modification I have just sent to the desk.

Let me also address briefly the other issues Senator Daschle raised.

He indicated the need for this is not there because, in fact, the Energy Information Agency in the Department of Energy has said this mandate will result in an increase in the price of gas per gallon of less than one-half of 1 cent per gallon, and the California Energy Commission has also concluded that there is no appreciable increase that will result from this mandate.

First of all, if you look into the analyses that were done both by the Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission, they were looking over the long term and saying over the long term there will not be, in their view, a substantial increase in the price of gasoline as a result of this mandate. That may well be true. Our amendment does not deal with the long term. Our amendment tries to deal with the short term, and that is where there is a price spike, where there is a supply disruption that causes the price to go up an additional 10 cents per gallon because of the ethanol mandate, if that occurs, and it may well not occur. So there is a difference between the studies that they did, which are long term, and the issue we are trying to deal with, which is short term.

I also point out that another sort of flaw in the argument, at least in my view, is that we are now saying we do not need to put this extra safety valve in the legislation because we have a prediction by the Energy Information Agency and we have a prediction by the California Energy Commission that this will not be needed down the road. It may well not be needed, and certainly I am not here to predict that it will be needed. I am just saying this is a good insurance policy. This is a good safety valve.

The Energy Information Agency has been known to make mistakes in their predictions. As to the California Energy Commission, although I am not totally familiar with all of their work, I would venture to say they have probably made a few mistakes in their predictions. I do not know exactly where they were on their predictions with regard to the price of electricity in California a few years ago, but they may well have missed the mark in predicting what that price was going to be, and they might well have wished there was some similar authority to this in place that could have been exercised or had been exercised when that crisis hit.

So I think this is good government practice, and clearly under most circumstances the appropriate course is to give public notice, to have opportunity for comment and hearings, have all the sides, all the interest groups come in and give their point of view. That is a good course. But if the price of ethanol has gone up substantially or there has been a supply disruption or there has been something that has occurred that has caused the price of gasoline to jump more than 10 cents that is directly traceable to this mandate, I believe the wise course is for us to give authority to the President to take action if he or she decides to take action.

As I say, there is nothing in this amendment that requires anyone to do anything. This amendment merely gives people authority to take action if a crisis occurs, if a price spike occurs, if they determine that action is appropriate.

It is possible, in some future administration, that there will be a Secretary of Energy who is opposed to ethanol perhaps, but I assume that the American people are going to elect Presidents in the future who reflect their views on most issues. If they do not reflect their views, then of course the voters have the opportunity to hold them accountable when there is a follow-on election.

Clearly, I think we are mandating a substantial increase in the use of ethanol. I am not opposing that in this amendment, but I am saying let us at least be a little bit humble about our own ability to predict what might occur in the future. If, in fact, there is a significant price spike because of some problem in transitioning to this new fuel mixture, if there is some price spike as a result of interruptions in supply, then let's have the President, with the authority, deal with the situation, and let's not just say, okay, we are going to require that they go through the normal hoops, give public notice and comments, have hearings, and all of that. I think there is certainly a time for all of that, but there is also a time to take action. When the American people elect a President, they expect the President to have authority to act when the circumstance requires. That is what our amendment would do, and we hope very much it will be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

I am glad to ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, in response to the question, my understanding is Senator Cantwell, from Washington, did want to speak on this LIHEAP issue. I don't feel comfortable just agreeing we are going to lock her out of that opportunity. I think we have been advising people that the LIHEAP issue had been put aside for some period of time.

Until we can consult with her, at least, and find out--as I understand it, the Senator is suggesting we go ahead and go to a vote on the Gregg amendment?

That would essentially replace the LIHEAP provisions with a sense of the Senate.

I am saying before I agree to that specific time I would like to be sure to protect Senator Cantwell.

Madam President, in response, I have no problem with proceeding to a vote on my amendment on ethanol at this point.

Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to anything the chairman said, but I would like to clarify, the votes are to start at 4:30 p.m. today; is that what the unanimous-consent agreement provides?

I appreciate that. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me speak very briefly and indicate my strong support for the Senator from Arkansas and her effort.

I think clearly we need to address this major failing of the previously passed tax bill, and we need to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. That is exactly what the Senator from Arkansas has proposed--to find a way to pay for the refundability of the child tax credit. That is what she proposed earlier in the bill. That is what the Senate agreed to earlier in the bill. That is clearly what we ought to do at this point. I regret that we were not able to do that this afternoon. But I hope the opportunity to do so will recur at some point in the near future and we can, once again, do what we believe should be done to try to bring more equity to that tax package which was passed and signed by the President.

Mr. President, will the manager of the legislation yield for a question?

Section 914 of this legislation directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a research and development program on solid- state lighting. I worked on this provision with the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I thought it would be useful to have his agreement that this program should not be a traditional grant, contract or cooperative agreement effort. The Department of Energy, DOE, should administer this program in partnership with an alliance of solid-state lighting industry partners who will act to guide and evaluate the research.

If the Senator would yield for a further question, I would like to know whether he also agrees that our intention is that academia, national laboratories and other research organizations should perform most of the fundamental research, while commercial entities, especially alliance companies, should perform most of the development and demonstration work. The selection of DOE laboratories should be based on demonstrated technical accomplishments

in the field of solid-state lighting, particularly inorganic and organic light-emitting diodes.

I thank the Senator and would ask one final question. I think he would agree that solid-state lighting is in its research infancy. While it holds a promise to make white light illumination 10 times more efficient than today's light bulb, it is imperative that the DOE implement this program quickly, and transfer the pre-competitive research to industry, so that our country can retain its leadership position in lighting--a field that Thomas Edison started.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Amendment No. 845 to Amendment No. 539

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other

purposes)

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Schumer and Senator Lincoln, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems.

Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction.

To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year.

The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials.

``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.''

The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's

commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.''

The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land.

``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.''

The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts.

In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation.

I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity or IMPACT Bill that Senator Frist has introduced with myself and Senators Dodd, DeWine, Clinton, Warner, Murray, Lugar, Landrieu, and Sessions. This is a bill that is critical in this era of chronic disease, as it addresses the mounting public health concerns of obesity, overweight, eating disorders, and their related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Approximately 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation today are overweight or obese. These individuals have a significantly greater risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke than their healthy weight peers. Another 5 to 10 percent of Americans are suffering from eating disorders that can also manifest themselves in a number of physical and psychological illnesses including heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney failure, depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unfortunately, these rates of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders are rising in both adult and child populations. Since obesity is a health problem that disproportionately impacts medically underserved populations, it is rapidly increasing the medical burden on these already overburdened populations.

The economic implications of the obesity epidemic are equally disturbing. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is now 117 billion dollars--exceeding the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. These costs will only continue to climb unless we make a concerted effort to stem this dangerous tide by initiating primary and secondary prevention programs.

It is this conclusion that led the United States Surgeon General to issue a Call to Action listing the treatment and prevention of obesity as a top national priority. It is this conclusion that has led Secretary Thompson to implement the Steps to a Healthier US initiative. And it is this reality that makes passing the IMPACT bill a critical step towards improving our nation's future health and well-being.

Obesity and eating disorders are complex diseases and as such require comprehensive multidisciplinary solutions. IMPACT aims to move us toward those solutions by addressing these diseases on a number of levels. First, it aims to prepare the health care community to deal with obesity from prevention to diagnosis to intervention by adding obesity, overweight, and eating disorders to the list of priority conditions to be addressed in the health professions Title VII training grants.

Second, IMPACT supports community-based solutions to increase physical activity and improve nutrition on a number of levels. It provides funding for demonstration projects in communities, schools, health care organizations, and other qualified entities that promote fitness or healthy nutrition. It authorizes the CDC to collect fitness and energy expenditure information from children. It directs AHRQ to review any new information relating to obesity trends among various sub-populations and include such information in its health disparities report. It allows states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money for community education on nutrition and increased physical activity. It instructs the Secretary to report on what research has been done in the area of obesity, what has been learned from this research, and what future research should be conducted. And finally, it asks the secretary to report on the effectiveness of the Youth Media Campaign in changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity.

IMPACT is supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity or NANA, an organization including more than 250 national, state, and local organizations and the single largest coalition in the U.S. dedicated to promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing obesity states, ``NANA strongly supports your efforts to reduce obesity and improve eating and activity habits in the U.S. through the IMPACT bill.'' Other organizations that have stated their support include the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Council for States and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Society for Nutrition Education, and the American Dietetic Association.

This legislation is an excellent first step in the fight for improved health, but it is not the only step we must take. We need to assist our schools in providing healthy nutrition options and expanding physical activity programs. We need to grow the workforce so that people have access to the healthcare professionals they need to prevent, diagnose, and treat obesity and eating disorders. We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid and insure that they provide the services necessary to help people prevent and treat obesity and its complications so that we reduce the burden of these diseases in these vulnerable populations. And we need to promote research in the areas of obesity prevention and treatment so that we can offer people better and more effective interventions in the future. These are not small goals but they are critical to our nation's health. I will continue to work on additional legislation that will take the next steps toward addressing these and other related concerns.

For today, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in taking this very important first step toward reducing obesity and eating disorders by supporting this important legislation. By passing this bill we can truly IMPACT the health of our nation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems.

Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction.

To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year.

The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials.

``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.''

The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's

commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.''

The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land.

``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.''

The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts.

In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation.

I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity or IMPACT Bill that Senator Frist has introduced with myself and Senators Dodd, DeWine, Clinton, Warner, Murray, Lugar, Landrieu, and Sessions. This is a bill that is critical in this era of chronic disease, as it addresses the mounting public health concerns of obesity, overweight, eating disorders, and their related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Approximately 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation today are overweight or obese. These individuals have a significantly greater risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke than their healthy weight peers. Another 5 to 10 percent of Americans are suffering from eating disorders that can also manifest themselves in a number of physical and psychological illnesses including heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney failure, depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unfortunately, these rates of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders are rising in both adult and child populations. Since obesity is a health problem that disproportionately impacts medically underserved populations, it is rapidly increasing the medical burden on these already overburdened populations.

The economic implications of the obesity epidemic are equally disturbing. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is now 117 billion dollars--exceeding the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. These costs will only continue to climb unless we make a concerted effort to stem this dangerous tide by initiating primary and secondary prevention programs.

It is this conclusion that led the United States Surgeon General to issue a Call to Action listing the treatment and prevention of obesity as a top national priority. It is this conclusion that has led Secretary Thompson to implement the Steps to a Healthier US initiative. And it is this reality that makes passing the IMPACT bill a critical step towards improving our nation's future health and well-being.

Obesity and eating disorders are complex diseases and as such require comprehensive multidisciplinary solutions. IMPACT aims to move us toward those solutions by addressing these diseases on a number of levels. First, it aims to prepare the health care community to deal with obesity from prevention to diagnosis to intervention by adding obesity, overweight, and eating disorders to the list of priority conditions to be addressed in the health professions Title VII training grants.

Second, IMPACT supports community-based solutions to increase physical activity and improve nutrition on a number of levels. It provides funding for demonstration projects in communities, schools, health care organizations, and other qualified entities that promote fitness or healthy nutrition. It authorizes the CDC to collect fitness and energy expenditure information from children. It directs AHRQ to review any new information relating to obesity trends among various sub-populations and include such information in its health disparities report. It allows states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money for community education on nutrition and increased physical activity. It instructs the Secretary to report on what research has been done in the area of obesity, what has been learned from this research, and what future research should be conducted. And finally, it asks the secretary to report on the effectiveness of the Youth Media Campaign in changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity.

IMPACT is supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity or NANA, an organization including more than 250 national, state, and local organizations and the single largest coalition in the U.S. dedicated to promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing obesity states, ``NANA strongly supports your efforts to reduce obesity and improve eating and activity habits in the U.S. through the IMPACT bill.'' Other organizations that have stated their support include the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Council for States and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Society for Nutrition Education, and the American Dietetic Association.

This legislation is an excellent first step in the fight for improved health, but it is not the only step we must take. We need to assist our schools in providing healthy nutrition options and expanding physical activity programs. We need to grow the workforce so that people have access to the healthcare professionals they need to prevent, diagnose, and treat obesity and eating disorders. We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid and insure that they provide the services necessary to help people prevent and treat obesity and its complications so that we reduce the burden of these diseases in these vulnerable populations. And we need to promote research in the areas of obesity prevention and treatment so that we can offer people better and more effective interventions in the future. These are not small goals but they are critical to our nation's health. I will continue to work on additional legislation that will take the next steps toward addressing these and other related concerns.

For today, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in taking this very important first step toward reducing obesity and eating disorders by supporting this important legislation. By passing this bill we can truly IMPACT the health of our nation.