Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, pursuant to the order of July 9, 2001, I send a substitute amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Grassley to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I was very pleased to see Jeri Thomson become the new Secretary of the Senate. Knowing my own days as a brandnew Senator, the role of Secretary of the Senate was very important, and it is even more important now. I am delighted she is here.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in SD226.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 2:00 P.M., in open session to receive testimony on Cooperative Threat Reduction, Chemical Weapons demilitarization, defense threat reduction agency, Nonproliferation Research and Engineering, and Related Programs, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on July 12, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a Hearing to receive testimony on the goals and priorities of the member tribes of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council for the 107th session of the Congress.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2001. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider nominations for positions with the United States Department of Agriculture, and to discuss the next Federal farm bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on Ballistic Missile Defense Programs and Policies in Review of the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Hatch legislation that addresses the problems caused by housing juveniles who are prosecuted in the criminal justice system in adult correctional facilities. In addition, this legislation reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, to maintain the core protections afforded to juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent and detained in the juvenile court system. This two-pronged approach will help ensure that we treat juvenile offenders with appropriate severity, but also in a way that assists States in providing safe conditions for their confinement and appropriate access to educational, vocational, and health programs that address the needs of juveniles. Improving conditions for juveniles today will improve the public safety in the future, as juveniles who are not exposed to adult inmates have a lower likelihood of committing future crimes. The Justice Department reported last fall that of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 44 house juveniles in adult jails and prisons, and 26 of those do not maintain designated youthful offender housing units. As a nation, we are relying increasingly on adult facilities to house juveniles; for example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' survey of jails, there was a 35 percent increase in the number of juveniles held in adult jails between 1994 and 1997. I believe that there is a will in the States to improve conditions for these juveniles, but resources are often lacking. The Federal Government can play a useful role by providing funding to States that want to take account of the differences between juveniles and adults. Although many juvenile offenders serving time in adult prisons have committed extraordinarily serious offenses, others are there because of relatively minor crimes and will be released at a young age. According to the 1999 report of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 22 percent of juveniles committed to State prisons were there because they had committed property crimes, 11 percent because they committed drug-related crimes, and only 25 percent because they had committed murder, kidnaping, sexual assault or assault. Certainly, many of those juveniles can be convinced not to commit further crimes. The social and moral cost of not making that attempt is simply incalculable. There is stunning statistical evidence that something is deeply wrong with our current approach to incarcerating juveniles. According to the Justice Department, the suicide rate for juveniles held in adult jails is five times the rate in the general youth population and eight times the rate for adolescents in juvenile detention facilities. Juveniles in adult facilities are also more likely to be violently victimized. Sexual assault was five times more likely than in juvenile facilities, beatings by staff nearly twice as likely, and attacks with weapons almost 50 percent more common. Moreover, many scholars have questioned whether housing juvenile offenders with adult inmates serves our long-term interest in public safety. Multiple studies have shown that youth transferred to the adult system recidivate at higher rates and with more serious offenses than youth who have committed similar offenses but are retained in the juvenile justice system. Some would suggest that we should not be transferring youth to the adult system at all, and I am sympathetic to that view. But that is a decision our States must make, and for now most of our States have taken the contrary position. At the very least, then, we must ensure that juveniles are treated humanely in the criminal justice system to reduce the risks that upon release they will commit additional and more serious crimes. One of the ways we can do that is by helping States improve confinement conditions. The problem this bill is intended to address cannot be described simply through statistics or academic studies. The compelling stories of young people who have been part of the corrections system should command our attention. For example, United Press International and numerous newspapers have reported the story of 15-year-old Robert, who was held in a Kentucky adult jail for the minor infraction of truancy and petty theft. One night during his time there, Robert wrapped one end of his shirt around his neck, and one around the cell bars, and hanged himself. The county has now agreed not to house juveniles and adults together. The New York Times magazine last year told the story of Jessica, who at 14 was the youngest female in the Florida correctional system and, within her first few weeks in prison, tried to commit suicide. Jessica was then transferred to a rougher Miami prison where she does not receive psychological counseling or attend class to get her GED. Jessica has found an extensive surrogate prison family whom she turns to for advice. The woman she refers to as ``Mommy'' is serving a life sentence for murder. Jessica will be released at age 22 with no education beyond the sixth grade, no job skills, and no life experience outside of prison after age 13. Now some will point out that Jessica committed a serious criminal offense she and two older teenagers robbed her grandparents and she deserves harsh punishment. And I agree that we must deal severely with such crimes. But the fact remains that when Jessica is released from prison she will be 22, with an entire adult life ahead of her. I believe it is critical for the public safety for her and others like her to have options besides a life of crime. The Miami Herald reported the stories of Joseph Tejera and Rebekah Homerston. Tejera was sentenced as an adult for a burglary offense, and was placed in an adult prison instead of an intensive juvenile program where he would have received 24-hour supervision, had access to educational and other programs, and been surrounded by other juveniles. Instead, at the age of 16 and weighing 135 pounds, he was surrounded by adult inmates who constantly tried to beat him up. Despite a sterling disciplinary record, he was involved in five fights because of the aggressiveness of adult inmates. Homerston was the daughter of a father serving life in prison for sex crimes against minors and a mother arrested for theft and drunk driving. At the age of 13, she ran away from home, and lived on the streets of Fort Lauderdale. At 15, she too was prosecuted and sentenced to a two-year term as an adult after vandalizing the city's recreation center. Upon her release from that prison term, she was arrested at age 16 for shoplifting a shirt, and is now serving three and a half years in an adult facility for that offense. While in prison, she has witnessed numerous suicide attempts. Housing juveniles with adult inmates creates problems not just for the juveniles involved. Such policies also create difficulties for corrections administrators, whose prisons and jails often lack the physical structure, programs, and trained personnel to manage a mixed juvenile-adult population. John Gorsik, the head of the Department of Corrections in my State of Vermont, has advised that corrections officials from around the nation dislike having juveniles in their facilities. These officials often become responsible for delivering those services to which juveniles are entitled, including special education services. As one report on Youth in the Criminal Justice System recently recommended: ``Administrative staff and people in policy making positions dealing with youth in the adult system should have education, training, and experience regarding the distinctive characteristics of children and adolescents.'' This bill would provide for such education and training to make the jobs of corrections officials around the nation easier. In addition, the presence of juveniles among adult inmates can lead to increased disciplinary problems and the inculcation of a criminal mentality in young, highly impressionable offenders like Jessica. Our prisons and jails are too often becoming schools for young lawbreakers. I would like to explain how this bill addresses confinement conditions for juveniles. Title I: The first title of this bill creates a new incentive grant program for State and local governments and Indian tribes. These grants can be used for the following purposes related to juveniles under the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court: (a) alter existing correctional facilities, or develop separate facilities, to provide segregated facilities for them, (b) provide orientation and ongoing training for correctional staff supervising them, (c) provide monitors who will report on their treatment, and (d) provide them with access to educational programs, vocational training, mental and physical health assessment and treatment, and drug treatment. Grants can also be used to seek alternatives to housing juveniles with adult inmates, including the expansion of juvenile facilities. It is important to note that States that choose not to house juveniles who are convicted as adults with adult inmates are still eligible for grants under this bill. For example, they could use the money to train staff, or to provide educational or other programs for juveniles, or to improve juvenile facilities. Applicants for these grants must provide a detailed plan explaining how they will improve conditions for juveniles in their adult corrections system. Let me be clear: the purpose of this grant program is not to fuel a prison-building boom, or to make it easier for States to prosecute juveniles as adults, but to improve conditions for juveniles. States will need to take this purpose into account in making their grant proposals. Moreover, to be eligible for a grant, States must have developed guidelines on the appropriate use of force against incarcerated juveniles, and must also have prohibited the use of electroshock devices, chemical restraints and punishment, and 4-point restraints. The use of such punishment is inconsistent with our commitments to treating juveniles humanely, and is at variance with the very purpose of this grant program. Every State that can meet the requirements of the grant program will receive funding under this title, and rural representation is guaranteed. Title II: The second title of the bill authorizes States to use their Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant money to improve the treatment of juveniles under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system. It also offers States an incentive to use a substantial percentage of their VOI/TIS money for that purpose. States that use 10 percent of their grant money to improve juvenile conditions will receive a bonus of 5 percent above the amount to which they are otherwise entitled under that program. The money can be used to alter existing facilities to provide separate space for juveniles under the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court, or to provide training and supervision of corrections officials and reporting on juvenile conditions. This title, in conjunction with Title I, allows us to make improving conditions for juveniles a national priority by working through the States. No State will be forced to use their money for this purpose or see their funding reduced if they choose not to. But those States that do make a serious effort in this regard will be rewarded. Title III: The third title of this bill reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Under the JJDPA, States receiving federal funds must maintain core protections for detained juveniles. These protections include ``sight'' and ``sound'' separation between those in the juvenile detention system and adult offenders. Children cannot be put in adjoining cells with adults, or placed in circumstances that allow them to be subject to threats and verbal abuse from adults in dining halls, recreation areas, and other common spaces. In addition to establishing sight and sound separation, the JJDPA provides three additional core protections: (1) removal of juveniles from adult jails or lockups, with a 24-hour exception for rural areas and other exceptions for travel and weather-related conditions; (2) deinstitutionalization of status offenders; and (3) efforts toward reducing the disproportionate confinement of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. I am very pleased that Senator Hatch has agreed with me that we need a straightforward reauthorization of the JJDPA. He and I both worked very hard in the last Congress to reauthorize that law, and our efforts were sidetracked by numerous factors. Title IV: Finally, the fourth title of this bill contains a number of provisions that I would like to highlight today. First, it authorizes funding for rural States and economically distressed communities that lack the resources to provide secure custody for juvenile offenders. Second, this title calls for a study on the effect of sentencing juvenile drug offenders as adults. Many have raised concerns about the toll taken on some of our communities, especially those in poorer areas, by lengthy drug sentences. There is no question that the proliferation of illegal drugs over the last 20 years has presented a social crisis with particularly serious effects on poor and urban communities. But we need to take a systematic look at whether our approach to that crisis has been effective and fair, and the study in this bill should be part of that effort. Third, this bill instructs the General Accounting Office to prepare a report on the prevalence and effects of the use of electroshock weapons, 4-point restraints, chemical restraints, restraint chairs, and solitary confinement against juvenile offenders in both the Federal and State corrections systems. I am deeply concerned about the disciplinary methods being used against juvenile offenders in the U.S., and I believe it is important for Congress to receive an accounting of the problem so we can consider whether further legislation in this area is appropriate. Fourth, this title reauthorizes the Family Unity Demonstration Project, which provides funding for projects allowing eligible prisoners who are parents to live in structured, community-based centers with their young children. A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that about two-thirds of incarcerated women were parents of children under 18 years old. According to the White House, on any given day, America is home to 1.5 million children of prisoners. And according to Prison Fellowship Industries, more than half of the juveniles in custody in the United States had an immediate family member behind bars. This is a serious problem, and reauthorizing the Family Unity Demonstration Project will help us address it. I would like to thank numerous people who have worked with me and my staff on this proposal: Ken Schatz of the Vermont Children and Family Council, Marc Schindler and Mark Soler of the Youth Law Center, David Doi of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Jill Ward from the Children's Defense Fund, and John Gorsik and John Perry at the Vermont Department of Corrections. Without their help, I would not be able to introduce this bill today. In conclusion, let me say that Congress must act to ensure that minimum standards are created in as many States as possible to ameliorate the problems resulting from sentencing juveniles as adults. I think this bipartisan bill accomplishes that goal, and I urge the Senate to give its full consideration, and its approval, to this proposal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I probably won't even use all of that. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his customary courtesy. I suggest that we make a few comments, and I will certainly support whatever moves to yield back whatever time we may have so that we can vote at 12. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right, Senators are expecting this noon vote. After today's vote on the motion to proceed, I am going to send an amendment to the desk for myself, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and ask for its immediate consideration. So that Senators will know, this amendment will be the text of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001, as it passed the Senate on March 15 by a vote of 83-15. I was one of the 83, as were Senators Hatch and Grassley. I voted for the Senate form because it marked a bipartisan effort on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Members on the floor. We worked in the committee and then in the Chamber to produce a more fair and balanced bill because of our bipartisan amendment process. During our consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, Democratic and Republican Senators authored and passed 38 amendments between the Judiciary Committee and the Senate floor. That improved the bill. I will certainly be able to vote for it on the floor. I will be able to vote for that in conference. We adopted the Leahy-Hatch amendment to protect the personal privacy of consumers whose information is held by firms in bankruptcy. Our amendment permits bankruptcy courts to honor the privacy policies of business debtors and creates a consumer privacy ombudsman to protect personal privacy in bankruptcy proceedings--the first ever in Federal law. Unfortunately, we had to do this. The reason the Leahy-Hatch amendment is needed is that the customer lists and databases of failed firms can now be put up for sale in bankruptcy without any privacy considerations. Just so people who don't spend much time on the Internet will understand what I am talking about, many times you go into a Web site and they will have a very clear privacy policy where they say: We will never share your name, disclose your address or your information. They may well mean it. For example, you may have a case where you want your children to be able to go on, but under the clear privacy--they may be children's books or anything else. They are willing to have your children go there, and you rely on the privacy line that says, ``Under no circumstances will we reveal these names.'' But then if the Web site goes into bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court is faced with this kind of a situation. They look at the failed company, and they say they have a few outdated computers, they have a couple scuffed-up desks, a building. They do have one thing that may be worth something, one asset, and that is the list of all the people who have gone there--the names of your children and everybody else who may be on there. The bankruptcy court is put in this kind of a Hobson's choice. They are sworn to have to seek the best return on whatever assets remain for the creditors. Yet the people who created the assets, those who visit the Web site, are promised nobody is ever going to disclose their names. So this will at least ameliorate, or go a long way toward solving, the problems there. We adopted the Schumer amendment to prevent the discharge of debts from violence against reproductive health service clinics. During our hearing on bankruptcy reform legislation, Maria Vullo, a top-rated attorney, testified about the need to amend the bankruptcy code to stop wasteful litigation and end abusive bankruptcy filings used to avoid the legal consequences of violence, vandalism, and harassment to deny access to legal health services. If somebody is going to break the law and use violence against health clinics, and somebody then brings a suit against them to recover for damages because of their violence, they should not be able to say: I am going to get away with this and go into bankruptcy court. They should not be shielded by bankruptcy. We adopted the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, to cap homestead exemptions at $125,000, to limit wealthy debtors from abusing State laws to hide million-dollar mansions from their creditors. If somebody knows they are going to declare bankruptcy, they can take whatever cash on hand and in certain States buy a multimillion-dollar mansion knowing they might be protected. Senator Kohl has been a champion of closing this loophole for the rich. At our hearing in the committee, Brady Williamson, the former chair of the National Bankruptcy Reform Commission, testified that ending homestead abuse was a key and consensus recommendation from the Bankruptcy Reform Commission. They all joined on that. Last month, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that underscores the need for a national homestead cap to prevent bankruptcy abuses. The highest court in Florida ruled a debtor can still keep the full value of his home even if the homestead is acquired with the specific intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. That should not be the rule. We adopted several amendments by Senator Feingold to strengthen chapter 12 to help family farmers with the difficulties they face. I hope we can finally make chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. Family farmers and ranchers deserve these protections to help prevent foreclosures and forced auctions. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Carnahan, the distinguished Presiding Officer, and other Senators on a bipartisan basis strongly support permanent bankruptcy protection for family farmers, and I am proud to join Senator Grassley and Senator Carnahan in that support. The complex and competing interests involved in achieving fair and balanced reforms of our bankruptcy system demand we work in a bipartisan manner throughout the legislative process. I look forward to working with Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle to further improve this legislation in conference. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa is here. I ask unanimous consent that at noon, all time, held by whomever, be deemed to have been yielded back, and we will be prepared then to vote.

Mr. LEAHY. I understand that the time of the swearing in and the comments may have affected the time as to our 12 o'clock vote. Can the Chair advise me how much time is remaining under controlled time prior to the vote?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Hatch legislation that addresses the problems caused by housing juveniles who are prosecuted in the criminal justice system in adult correctional facilities. In addition, this legislation reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, to maintain the core protections afforded to juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent and detained in the juvenile court system. This two-pronged approach will help ensure that we treat juvenile offenders with appropriate severity, but also in a way that assists States in providing safe conditions for their confinement and appropriate access to educational, vocational, and health programs that address the needs of juveniles. Improving conditions for juveniles today will improve the public safety in the future, as juveniles who are not exposed to adult inmates have a lower likelihood of committing future crimes. The Justice Department reported last fall that of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 44 house juveniles in adult jails and prisons, and 26 of those do not maintain designated youthful offender housing units. As a nation, we are relying increasingly on adult facilities to house juveniles; for example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' survey of jails, there was a 35 percent increase in the number of juveniles held in adult jails between 1994 and 1997. I believe that there is a will in the States to improve conditions for these juveniles, but resources are often lacking. The Federal Government can play a useful role by providing funding to States that want to take account of the differences between juveniles and adults. Although many juvenile offenders serving time in adult prisons have committed extraordinarily serious offenses, others are there because of relatively minor crimes and will be released at a young age. According to the 1999 report of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 22 percent of juveniles committed to State prisons were there because they had committed property crimes, 11 percent because they committed drug-related crimes, and only 25 percent because they had committed murder, kidnaping, sexual assault or assault. Certainly, many of those juveniles can be convinced not to commit further crimes. The social and moral cost of not making that attempt is simply incalculable. There is stunning statistical evidence that something is deeply wrong with our current approach to incarcerating juveniles. According to the Justice Department, the suicide rate for juveniles held in adult jails is five times the rate in the general youth population and eight times the rate for adolescents in juvenile detention facilities. Juveniles in adult facilities are also more likely to be violently victimized. Sexual assault was five times more likely than in juvenile facilities, beatings by staff nearly twice as likely, and attacks with weapons almost 50 percent more common. Moreover, many scholars have questioned whether housing juvenile offenders with adult inmates serves our long-term interest in public safety. Multiple studies have shown that youth transferred to the adult system recidivate at higher rates and with more serious offenses than youth who have committed similar offenses but are retained in the juvenile justice system. Some would suggest that we should not be transferring youth to the adult system at all, and I am sympathetic to that view. But that is a decision our States must make, and for now most of our States have taken the contrary position. At the very least, then, we must ensure that juveniles are treated humanely in the criminal justice system to reduce the risks that upon release they will commit additional and more serious crimes. One of the ways we can do that is by helping States improve confinement conditions. The problem this bill is intended to address cannot be described simply through statistics or academic studies. The compelling stories of young people who have been part of the corrections system should command our attention. For example, United Press International and numerous newspapers have reported the story of 15-year-old Robert, who was held in a Kentucky adult jail for the minor infraction of truancy and petty theft. One night during his time there, Robert wrapped one end of his shirt around his neck, and one around the cell bars, and hanged himself. The county has now agreed not to house juveniles and adults together. The New York Times magazine last year told the story of Jessica, who at 14 was the youngest female in the Florida correctional system and, within her first few weeks in prison, tried to commit suicide. Jessica was then transferred to a rougher Miami prison where she does not receive psychological counseling or attend class to get her GED. Jessica has found an extensive surrogate prison family whom she turns to for advice. The woman she refers to as ``Mommy'' is serving a life sentence for murder. Jessica will be released at age 22 with no education beyond the sixth grade, no job skills, and no life experience outside of prison after age 13. Now some will point out that Jessica committed a serious criminal offense she and two older teenagers robbed her grandparents and she deserves harsh punishment. And I agree that we must deal severely with such crimes. But the fact remains that when Jessica is released from prison she will be 22, with an entire adult life ahead of her. I believe it is critical for the public safety for her and others like her to have options besides a life of crime. The Miami Herald reported the stories of Joseph Tejera and Rebekah Homerston. Tejera was sentenced as an adult for a burglary offense, and was placed in an adult prison instead of an intensive juvenile program where he would have received 24-hour supervision, had access to educational and other programs, and been surrounded by other juveniles. Instead, at the age of 16 and weighing 135 pounds, he was surrounded by adult inmates who constantly tried to beat him up. Despite a sterling disciplinary record, he was involved in five fights because of the aggressiveness of adult inmates. Homerston was the daughter of a father serving life in prison for sex crimes against minors and a mother arrested for theft and drunk driving. At the age of 13, she ran away from home, and lived on the streets of Fort Lauderdale. At 15, she too was prosecuted and sentenced to a two-year term as an adult after vandalizing the city's recreation center. Upon her release from that prison term, she was arrested at age 16 for shoplifting a shirt, and is now serving three and a half years in an adult facility for that offense. While in prison, she has witnessed numerous suicide attempts. Housing juveniles with adult inmates creates problems not just for the juveniles involved. Such policies also create difficulties for corrections administrators, whose prisons and jails often lack the physical structure, programs, and trained personnel to manage a mixed juvenile-adult population. John Gorsik, the head of the Department of Corrections in my State of Vermont, has advised that corrections officials from around the nation dislike having juveniles in their facilities. These officials often become responsible for delivering those services to which juveniles are entitled, including special education services. As one report on Youth in the Criminal Justice System recently recommended: ``Administrative staff and people in policy making positions dealing with youth in the adult system should have education, training, and experience regarding the distinctive characteristics of children and adolescents.'' This bill would provide for such education and training to make the jobs of corrections officials around the nation easier. In addition, the presence of juveniles among adult inmates can lead to increased disciplinary problems and the inculcation of a criminal mentality in young, highly impressionable offenders like Jessica. Our prisons and jails are too often becoming schools for young lawbreakers. I would like to explain how this bill addresses confinement conditions for juveniles. Title I: The first title of this bill creates a new incentive grant program for State and local governments and Indian tribes. These grants can be used for the following purposes related to juveniles under the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court: (a) alter existing correctional facilities, or develop separate facilities, to provide segregated facilities for them, (b) provide orientation and ongoing training for correctional staff supervising them, (c) provide monitors who will report on their treatment, and (d) provide them with access to educational programs, vocational training, mental and physical health assessment and treatment, and drug treatment. Grants can also be used to seek alternatives to housing juveniles with adult inmates, including the expansion of juvenile facilities. It is important to note that States that choose not to house juveniles who are convicted as adults with adult inmates are still eligible for grants under this bill. For example, they could use the money to train staff, or to provide educational or other programs for juveniles, or to improve juvenile facilities. Applicants for these grants must provide a detailed plan explaining how they will improve conditions for juveniles in their adult corrections system. Let me be clear: the purpose of this grant program is not to fuel a prison-building boom, or to make it easier for States to prosecute juveniles as adults, but to improve conditions for juveniles. States will need to take this purpose into account in making their grant proposals. Moreover, to be eligible for a grant, States must have developed guidelines on the appropriate use of force against incarcerated juveniles, and must also have prohibited the use of electroshock devices, chemical restraints and punishment, and 4-point restraints. The use of such punishment is inconsistent with our commitments to treating juveniles humanely, and is at variance with the very purpose of this grant program. Every State that can meet the requirements of the grant program will receive funding under this title, and rural representation is guaranteed. Title II: The second title of the bill authorizes States to use their Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant money to improve the treatment of juveniles under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system. It also offers States an incentive to use a substantial percentage of their VOI/TIS money for that purpose. States that use 10 percent of their grant money to improve juvenile conditions will receive a bonus of 5 percent above the amount to which they are otherwise entitled under that program. The money can be used to alter existing facilities to provide separate space for juveniles under the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court, or to provide training and supervision of corrections officials and reporting on juvenile conditions. This title, in conjunction with Title I, allows us to make improving conditions for juveniles a national priority by working through the States. No State will be forced to use their money for this purpose or see their funding reduced if they choose not to. But those States that do make a serious effort in this regard will be rewarded. Title III: The third title of this bill reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Under the JJDPA, States receiving federal funds must maintain core protections for detained juveniles. These protections include ``sight'' and ``sound'' separation between those in the juvenile detention system and adult offenders. Children cannot be put in adjoining cells with adults, or placed in circumstances that allow them to be subject to threats and verbal abuse from adults in dining halls, recreation areas, and other common spaces. In addition to establishing sight and sound separation, the JJDPA provides three additional core protections: (1) removal of juveniles from adult jails or lockups, with a 24-hour exception for rural areas and other exceptions for travel and weather-related conditions; (2) deinstitutionalization of status offenders; and (3) efforts toward reducing the disproportionate confinement of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. I am very pleased that Senator Hatch has agreed with me that we need a straightforward reauthorization of the JJDPA. He and I both worked very hard in the last Congress to reauthorize that law, and our efforts were sidetracked by numerous factors. Title IV: Finally, the fourth title of this bill contains a number of provisions that I would like to highlight today. First, it authorizes funding for rural States and economically distressed communities that lack the resources to provide secure custody for juvenile offenders. Second, this title calls for a study on the effect of sentencing juvenile drug offenders as adults. Many have raised concerns about the toll taken on some of our communities, especially those in poorer areas, by lengthy drug sentences. There is no question that the proliferation of illegal drugs over the last 20 years has presented a social crisis with particularly serious effects on poor and urban communities. But we need to take a systematic look at whether our approach to that crisis has been effective and fair, and the study in this bill should be part of that effort. Third, this bill instructs the General Accounting Office to prepare a report on the prevalence and effects of the use of electroshock weapons, 4-point restraints, chemical restraints, restraint chairs, and solitary confinement against juvenile offenders in both the Federal and State corrections systems. I am deeply concerned about the disciplinary methods being used against juvenile offenders in the U.S., and I believe it is important for Congress to receive an accounting of the problem so we can consider whether further legislation in this area is appropriate. Fourth, this title reauthorizes the Family Unity Demonstration Project, which provides funding for projects allowing eligible prisoners who are parents to live in structured, community-based centers with their young children. A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that about two-thirds of incarcerated women were parents of children under 18 years old. According to the White House, on any given day, America is home to 1.5 million children of prisoners. And according to Prison Fellowship Industries, more than half of the juveniles in custody in the United States had an immediate family member behind bars. This is a serious problem, and reauthorizing the Family Unity Demonstration Project will help us address it. I would like to thank numerous people who have worked with me and my staff on this proposal: Ken Schatz of the Vermont Children and Family Council, Marc Schindler and Mark Soler of the Youth Law Center, David Doi of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Jill Ward from the Children's Defense Fund, and John Gorsik and John Perry at the Vermont Department of Corrections. Without their help, I would not be able to introduce this bill today. In conclusion, let me say that Congress must act to ensure that minimum standards are created in as many States as possible to ameliorate the problems resulting from sentencing juveniles as adults. I think this bipartisan bill accomplishes that goal, and I urge the Senate to give its full consideration, and its approval, to this proposal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Knoll Motel in Barre, VT, a pioneer establishment of the VT tourism industry. In April 2000, the Knoll Motel celebrated its 50th anniversary of offering warm and courteous hospitality to visitors of the Green Mountain State. Founded in April of 1950, it is the State's first and longest operating motel. During the period following World War II, the number of Americans traveling for recreational purposes increased dramatically. As more and more citizens traveled the country's expanding network of highways, the touring public were in need of economical and conveniently located overnight accommodations. Responding to this trend, the American tourist industry established motels that catered to the needs of family highway travelers. Recognizing the economic potential associated with the growing tourist industry in Vermont, Stanley and Minnie Sabens established the Knoll Motel on 1015 North Main Street in Barre. Located near the State Capital, Montpelier, and what eventually became Interstate 89, the original eight-room facility became a model for the motel industry in Vermont, where tourism is vital to the success of the state's economy. Keeping with Vermont's proud tradition of family-owned businesses, Stanley Sabens II has assumed the management of the Knoll Motel, ensuring that future generations of visitors to Vermont will be able to enjoy the Sabens' hospitality for years to come. I congratulate the Sabens family and the Knoll Motel for their many years of service to Vermont and its visitors, and I wish them success in the future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my support to the spirit and intentions of the Biden amendment. The National Guard suffers from a serious shortage of helicopters, and it is critical that the Senate do more to address this threat to the readiness of the citizen-soldier force. The National Guard needs at least an additional 200 helicopters. This is not a number pulled out of thin air. It is the minimum number of aircraft needed to carry out the Army Aviation Modernization Plan, which was developed by the office of the Chief of Staff of the Army. It is the road map for the entire Army's helicopter inventory for the next 50 years. The plan will streamline the Army's aviation regiments. It reduces the overall number of helicopters in the Army's inventory, including the National Guard, while increasing capabilities through technological advances. Specifically, the service will retire 700 Vietnam-era UH-1 Hueys, in exchange for 330 advanced UH-60L Blackhawks. In streamlining and modernizing this force, the plan reaffirms the critical role of our citizen-soldiers in our Nation's defense. It recognizes that the National Guard is doing more than ever to defend the Nation, whether at home or abroad. Indeed, every Member of the U.S. Senate will can tell you what a difference advanced helicopters have made in a flood or medical emergency, while every field commander will similarly point out the critically important role of National Guard aviation assets in a combat environment. But the plan also has a much more practical bent. It seeks to avoid a looming crisis in National Guard aviation. The Guard's current inventory of UH-1 Blackhawk and AH-1 Cobra helicopters is old, expensive, and increasingly unsafe to operate. Units that possess upwards of 15 aging Huey and Cobra helicopters, may have only 2 to 6 aircraft actually flying. By legislative mandate, the National Guard must remove all of these obsolete aircraft from the flight-line by 2004. Even when these units take full advantage of additional Kiowa helicopters, they will be hard-pressed to maintain qualified pilots and an acceptable state of readiness when newer aircraft do not arrive to replace them. Given the Army's sensible plans and the looming dangers to National Guard aviation readiness, I have been surprised and disappointed by the Army's reluctance to buy more UH-1's. For the past several fiscal years, the Army has requested only 10 helicopters a year. In this fiscal year, the service has asked for a 12. It will take well over 20 years to complete the plan at that pace. I am especially disappointed by this meager request because the National Guard Caucus, including members with helicopter units in their States, have expressed its concern to the Army several occasions. At every one of these briefings, meetings, and extended discussions Army leaders have admitted that a serious problem exists. Yet, when the budget request moved forward, we get this paltry number. I recognize that fiscal realities limit what Congress can do to rectify this situation on the supplemental. Nonetheless, I urge the Senate to examine this situation closely when it reviews the fiscal year 2002 defense budget. I look forward to working with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, fellow Guard caucus cochair Senator Bond, and longtime caucus member Senator Biden on this issue. I thank Senator Biden in particular for offering this amendment and bring further attention to this problem.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct in stating that Congress, and our subcommittee, has had a longstanding interest in this area and has consistently monitored this issue. We are prepared to turn very shortly to consideration of the fiscal year 2002 foreign operations appropriation bill. I believe that would be the best vehicle for consideration of this issue, in the regular order, when we can consider all the policy ramifications for the entire, upcoming year. I can assure the Senator of our continued attention to this matter, and of thoughtful, thorough consideration.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, when Senator McConnell and I included language in the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations bill to condition United States assistance in Serbia on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal, we could not predict what the effect of our provision would be. While we both wanted to support democracy and economic reconstruction in Serbia, we also felt strongly that if Serbia's leaders wanted our assistance they should fulfill their international responsibility to apprehend and surrender indicted war criminals to The Hague. I am very grateful for the way Senator McConnell and his staff have worked closely with me and my staff on this. It has been a classic case of how conditioning our assistance and working together, with the Administration, can achieve a result that significantly advances the cause of international justice. Milosevic's transfer to the War Crimes Tribunal should bring hope to millions of people throughout the former Yugoslavia. Above all, as Senator McConnell has already noted, we should congratulate Prime Minister Djindjic and other Serb leaders who have risked their lives and their careers for their country's future. It is a legacy that few people in history can claim. Those who have criticized Prime Minister Djindjic for surrendering Milosevic should be aware that for the United States there is no alternative. We will not support a Serb Government that does not cooperate with the War Crimes Tribunal. We expect the apprehension and transfer to The Hague of the other publicly indicted war criminals who remain at large in Serb territory, and the release of the remaining political prisoners in Serbia's jails. I also want to recognize the Serb people who suffered terribly under Milosevic's disastrous policies, and who increasingly saw that in order to rebuild their country and establish democracy and the rule of law on a solid footing, it was necessary to bring to justice the people who devastated the former Yugoslavia in their names. We submit this resolution on their behalf, and on behalf of Milosevic's other victims, dead and alive, in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 856

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today's passage of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act marks a major step forward in the struggle for a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. I am hopeful that with the adoption of this landmark legislation, patients throughout the country can feel a sense of relief knowing their rights will now be protected. Over the past two decades, our Nation's healthcare delivery system has seen a seismic transformation. Rapidly rising healthcare costs have encouraged the development and expansion of managed care organizations, specifically health maintenance organizations. Unfortunately, the zealous efforts of HMOs to contain these costs have ended up compromising patient care and stripping away much of the authority of doctors to make decisions about the best care for their patients. During the past several years, many Vermonters have let me know about the problems they face when seeking health care for themselves and their families. Like most Americans, they want: greater access to specialists; the freedom to continue to be treated by their own doctors, even if they switch health plans; health care providers, not accounting clerks at HMOs, to make decisions about their care and treatment; HMOs to be held accountable for their negligence. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act is the solution that Americans have called for--patient protections that cover all Americans in all health plans by ensuring the medical needs of patients are not secondary to the bottom line of their HMO. Too many times, I have heard from Vermonters who have faced difficulty in accessing the most appropriate healthcare professional to meet their needs. This legislation will solve that problem by giving Vermonters--and all Americans who suffer from life-threatening, degenerative and disabling conditions--the right to access standing referrals to specialists, so they do not have to make unnecessary visits to their primary care physician for repeated referrals. These patients will also be able to designate a specialist as their primary care physician, if that person is best able to coordinate their care. This legislation makes important strides in allowing patients access to a health care provider outside of their plan when their own plan's network of physicians does not include a specialist that can provide them the care they need. This provision is especially important for rural areas, like many parts of Vermont, which tend to not have an excess of health care providers. Women will now be able to have direct access to their OB/GYN and pediatricians can be designated as primary care providers for children. If an individual gets hurt and needs unexpected emergency medical care, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act takes important steps to ensure access to emergency room care without a referral. If a woman is suffering from breast cancer, this bill will protect her right to have the routine costs of participation in a potentially life-saving clinical trial covered by her plan. This bill puts into place a wide range of additional protections that are essential to allowing doctors to provide the best care they can and to allow patients to receive the services they deserve. Many of our States have already adopted patient protection laws. My home State of Vermont is one state that currently has a comprehensive framework of protections in place. This Federal legislation will not prohibit Vermont or any other state from maintaining or further developing their own patient protections so long as the laws are comparable to the Federal standard. I am pleased that this bill will allow states like Vermont to maintain many of their innovative efforts, while also ensuring that patients in states that currently have no laws in place will receive the basic protections they deserve. Each of the important protections I have highlighted will only be meaningful if HMOs are held accountable for their decisions. The key to enforcing these patient protections rests in strong liability provisions that complement an effective and responsive appeals process. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act provides patients with the right to hold their HMO liable for decisions that result in irreparable harm or death. Managed care organizations are one of the very few parties in this country that are shielded from being held accountable for their bad decisions. The time has come for that to change. Opponents of patients' rights legislation have been vocal in suggesting that by allowing patients to hold HMOs liable in court, there will be an explosion of lawsuits, causing the costs of healthcare insurance to skyrocket. This has not been the case in states like Texas, that have already enacted strong patient protections. Rather, it has been shown that most cases are resolved through the external appeals process and that only a very small fraction of cases ever reach the court room. Under this legislation, a patient must exhaust all internal and external appeals before going to court. I have heard from many Vermonters concerned about the potential impact of new HMO liability provisions on employers. I am disappointed that the opponents of this legislation have exploited and misrepresented this part of the bill. Rather than attempting to alleviate concerns by explaining the liability provisions, they have instead resorted to a scare tactic strategy. If you listen to some opponents of this bill, you would think that any employer who offers health coverage will be sued. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the facts. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act protects employers with a strong shield that only makes the employer accountable when he or she directly participates in health treatment decisions. The bill also clearly states that employers cannot be held responsible for the actions of managed care companies unless they actively make the decision to deny a health care service to a patient. This only occurs in about five percent of businesses --generally those employers large enough to run their own health plan. Those few companies that directly participate in the decision to deny a health care benefit to a patient, should accept legal responsibility for those decisions. After nearly 5 years of debate in Congress, the American people are finally closing in on the patients' rights and protections they deserve. But there is still more work to be done. The House of Representatives must consider this important issue in a timely manner and I am hopeful their bill will include provisions similar to the bipartisan patient protection legislation passed in the Senate. Most importantly, I am hopeful that President Bush will hear the voices of Americans and not those of the special interests and their well- financed lobbyists, and sign this important legislation into law. The American people have spoken; the time for enacting strong patient protections is long overdue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the most significant accomplishments of the 106th Congress was the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, commonly known as ``ESIGN.'' This landmark legislation establishes a Federal framework for the use of electronic signatures, contracts, and records, while preserving essential safeguards protecting the Nation's consumers. It passed both houses of Congress by an overwhelming majority, and went into effect in October 2000. I helped to craft the Senate version of the bill, which passed unanimously in November 1999, and I was honored to serve as a conferee and help develop the conference report. I am proud of what we achieved and the bipartisan manner in which we achieved it. It was an example of legislators legislating rather than politicians posturing and unnecessarily politicizing important matters of public policy. Much of the negotiations over ESIGN concerned the consumer protection language in section 101(c), which was designed to ensure effective consumer consent to the replacement of paper notices with electronic notices. We managed in the end to strike a constructive balance that advanced electronic commerce without terminating or mangling the basic rights of consumers. In particular, ESIGN requires use of a ``technological check'' in obtaining consumer consent. The critical language, which Senator Wyden and I developed and proposed, provides that a consumer's consent to the provision of information in electronic form must involve a demonstration that the consumer can actually receive and read the information. Companies are left with ample flexibility to develop their own procedures for this demonstration. When the Senate passed ESIGN in June 2000, I expressed confidence that the benefits of a one-time technological check would far outweigh any possible burden on e-commerce. I also predicted that this provision would increase consumer confidence in the electronic marketplace. One year later, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce have issued a report on the impact of ESIGN's consumer consent provision. In preparing the report, these agencies conducted extensive outreach to the on-line business community, technology developers, consumer groups, law enforcement, and academia. The report concludes: [T]hus far, the benefits of the consumer consent provision of ESIGN outweigh the burdens of its implementation on electronic commerce. The provision facilitates e-commerce and the use of electronic records and signatures while enhancing consumer confidence. It preserves the right of consumers to receive written information required by state and federal law. The provision also discourages deception and fraud by those who might fail to provide consumers with information the law requires that they receive.'' Significantly, the consumer consent provision is benefitting businesses as well as consumers. The report states that businesses that have implemented this provision are reporting several benefits, including ``protection from liability, increased revenues resulting from increased consumer confidence, and the opportunity to engage in additional dialogue with consumers about the transactions.'' The technological check has not been significantly burdensome, and ``[t]he technology-neutral language of the provision encourages creativity in the structure of business systems that interface with consumers, and provides an opportunity for the business and the consumer to choose the form of communication for the transaction.'' The report also finds that ESIGN's consumer safeguards are helping to prevent deception and fraud, which is critical to maintaining consumer confidence in the electronic marketplace. ESIGN is a product of bipartisan cooperation, and it is working well for the country. We should learn from experience as we take up new legislative challenges.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Administration finally released its National Energy Policy last month. As I noted at the time, I have serious concerns about several of its recommendations, not the least of which was its proposal to build 1,300 to 1,900 new electric power plants many of them burning relatively dirty fossil fuels, while, at same time, questioning the enforcement of clean air laws that protect the public from excess power plant emissions. Today, fossil fuel-fired power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the United States. Every year, they collectively emit approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 13 million tons of acid rain-producing sulfur dioxide, 7 million tons of acid rain- and smog-producing nitrogen oxides, and 43 tons of highly toxic mercury. How could pollutants still be dumped into our atmosphere at this scale? One reason that cannot be ignored is that more than 75 percent of the fossil-fuel fired power plants in the United States are still ``grandfathered,'' or exempt from modern Clean Air Act standards. When the Clean Air Act and its amendments were passed, Congress assumed that old, 1950's era power plants would be retired over time and replaced by newer, cleaner plants within 30 years. They were not. Unfortunately, utilities have kept these inefficient, pollution-prone power plants on line because they are inexpensive. Those grandfathered plants continue to burn cheap fuel and refuse to invest in emissions control technologies that protect air quality. The continuing harm to our atmosphere, lands, waters, State economies, and public health by excess power plant emissions is well documented. In my home state of Vermont, acid deposition caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide has scarred our forests and poisoned our streams. Emissions of mercury have contaminated our rivers and lakes to the point that statewide advisories against fish consumption are necessary to protect citizens. Emissions of greenhouse gas threaten to negatively change the climate for Vermont maple trees the source of Vermont maple syrup and other economic Vermont crops. And despite Vermont's tough air laws and small population, out-of-state particulates and smog lower our air quality, endanger our health, and ruin views of our Green Mountains. Earlier this year, I cosponsored bipartisan legislation, the ``Clean Power Act of 2001,'' that strictly capped national power plant emissions and ended ``grandfather'' loophole exemptions. To promote rapid and reliable changes in the utility industry, that legislation also gave utilities the regulatory tools needed to make those changes with incentives for free market trading of emissions credits, a so- called ``cap-and-trade'' mechanism. I remain a supporter of the Clean Power Act of 2001 and hope it becomes key to energy policy negotiations in Congress. However, I believe we can do even more. So today I am introducing a second piece of legislation covering power plant emissions that I also intend to promote during the energy debate. The ``Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001'' again strictly caps emissions and ends the ``grandfather'' loophole on old plants. Instead of providing utilities the incentive of free market trading, however, my bill creates strong financial incentives, in the form of accelerated tax depreciation, for older utilities that cut emissions and upgrade their plants to 45 percent to 50 percent efficiency. With current average energy efficiency of U.S. power plants at only 33 percent, this bill is another proposal that protects the environment and public health while providing the energy industry with a comprehensive and predictable set of long-term regulatory requirements. Under this bill, mercury emissions would be cut by 90 percent, annual emissions of sulfur dioxide would be cut by more than 6 million tons beyond Phase II Clean Air Act Amendments requirements, and nitrogen oxide emissions would be cut by more than 3 million tons per year beyond Phase II requirements. This bill would also prevent at least 650 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. And this bill goes beyond emissions caps and transition incentives to recognize the emergence of energy technologies that are more environmentally sustainable. It provides substantial funding for research, development, and commercial demonstrations of renewable and clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and fuel cells. It also authorizes expenditures for implementing known ways of biologically sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as planting trees, preserving wetlands, and soil restoration. The bill emphasizes the importance of immediately capping, if not totally eliminating, the release of mercury from power plants. In December, the EPA finally determined to regulate mercury emissions from electric utility power plants, an action I strongly commended. However, such regulations are years away, and it is uncertain what form they will take. Yet, just last year, 41 states issued more than 2,200 fish consumption advisories because of mercury contamination. Eleven states, including Vermont, issued statewide advisories. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed the health risks of mercury, emphasizing the special vulnerability of unborn and young children. I believe we need to do something now. As the energy landscape of our nation changes, this bill also recognizes the need to train a new national energy work force. As U.S. power plants become more efficient and more power is produced by renewable technologies, less fossil fuel will be consumed. This will have an impact on the workers and communities that produce fossil fuels. These effects are likely to be greatest for coal, even with significant deployment of clean coal technology. The bill provides funding for programs to help workers and communities during the period of transition. I am eager to work with organized labor to ensure that these provisions address the needs of workers, particularly those who may not fully benefit from retraining programs. Finally, this bill holds the electric power industry, and Congress, accountable for any and all taxpayer dollars used to aid the transition to cleaner electric generation facilities. To assess how well clean air laws and emissions reductions are working, our nation must have robust, nationwide monitoring networks capable of generating reliable, consistent, long-term data about natural ecosystems. Networks such as the National Atmospheric Deposition Program currently provide the national data needed by scientists and Federal agencies to accurately assess the trends in pollutant deposition. Yet, over the past 30 years, these networks have struggled to survive with ever-decreasing funding. My bill provides modest appropriations for both operational support and modernization of scientific sites that are so critical to understanding of our ecosystems and our public health. The American public overwhelmingly supports the environmental commitments that we have made since the early 1970s. It is our responsibility to preserve the environment for our children and grandchildren, and it is our duty to protect their health as well. The proposed energy policy of this administration needs to be less about drilling and more about energy efficiency and protection of air quality. This bill will, I hope, add another way in which we can ensure reliable, affordable electric power while modernizing energy efficiency and protecting our national resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and the section- by-section overview of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Administration finally released its National Energy Policy last month. As I noted at the time, I have serious concerns about several of its recommendations, not the least of which was its proposal to build 1,300 to 1,900 new electric power plants many of them burning relatively dirty fossil fuels, while, at same time, questioning the enforcement of clean air laws that protect the public from excess power plant emissions. Today, fossil fuel-fired power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the United States. Every year, they collectively emit approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 13 million tons of acid rain-producing sulfur dioxide, 7 million tons of acid rain- and smog-producing nitrogen oxides, and 43 tons of highly toxic mercury. How could pollutants still be dumped into our atmosphere at this scale? One reason that cannot be ignored is that more than 75 percent of the fossil-fuel fired power plants in the United States are still ``grandfathered,'' or exempt from modern Clean Air Act standards. When the Clean Air Act and its amendments were passed, Congress assumed that old, 1950's era power plants would be retired over time and replaced by newer, cleaner plants within 30 years. They were not. Unfortunately, utilities have kept these inefficient, pollution-prone power plants on line because they are inexpensive. Those grandfathered plants continue to burn cheap fuel and refuse to invest in emissions control technologies that protect air quality. The continuing harm to our atmosphere, lands, waters, State economies, and public health by excess power plant emissions is well documented. In my home state of Vermont, acid deposition caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide has scarred our forests and poisoned our streams. Emissions of mercury have contaminated our rivers and lakes to the point that statewide advisories against fish consumption are necessary to protect citizens. Emissions of greenhouse gas threaten to negatively change the climate for Vermont maple trees the source of Vermont maple syrup and other economic Vermont crops. And despite Vermont's tough air laws and small population, out-of-state particulates and smog lower our air quality, endanger our health, and ruin views of our Green Mountains. Earlier this year, I cosponsored bipartisan legislation, the ``Clean Power Act of 2001,'' that strictly capped national power plant emissions and ended ``grandfather'' loophole exemptions. To promote rapid and reliable changes in the utility industry, that legislation also gave utilities the regulatory tools needed to make those changes with incentives for free market trading of emissions credits, a so- called ``cap-and-trade'' mechanism. I remain a supporter of the Clean Power Act of 2001 and hope it becomes key to energy policy negotiations in Congress. However, I believe we can do even more. So today I am introducing a second piece of legislation covering power plant emissions that I also intend to promote during the energy debate. The ``Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001'' again strictly caps emissions and ends the ``grandfather'' loophole on old plants. Instead of providing utilities the incentive of free market trading, however, my bill creates strong financial incentives, in the form of accelerated tax depreciation, for older utilities that cut emissions and upgrade their plants to 45 percent to 50 percent efficiency. With current average energy efficiency of U.S. power plants at only 33 percent, this bill is another proposal that protects the environment and public health while providing the energy industry with a comprehensive and predictable set of long-term regulatory requirements. Under this bill, mercury emissions would be cut by 90 percent, annual emissions of sulfur dioxide would be cut by more than 6 million tons beyond Phase II Clean Air Act Amendments requirements, and nitrogen oxide emissions would be cut by more than 3 million tons per year beyond Phase II requirements. This bill would also prevent at least 650 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. And this bill goes beyond emissions caps and transition incentives to recognize the emergence of energy technologies that are more environmentally sustainable. It provides substantial funding for research, development, and commercial demonstrations of renewable and clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and fuel cells. It also authorizes expenditures for implementing known ways of biologically sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as planting trees, preserving wetlands, and soil restoration. The bill emphasizes the importance of immediately capping, if not totally eliminating, the release of mercury from power plants. In December, the EPA finally determined to regulate mercury emissions from electric utility power plants, an action I strongly commended. However, such regulations are years away, and it is uncertain what form they will take. Yet, just last year, 41 states issued more than 2,200 fish consumption advisories because of mercury contamination. Eleven states, including Vermont, issued statewide advisories. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed the health risks of mercury, emphasizing the special vulnerability of unborn and young children. I believe we need to do something now. As the energy landscape of our nation changes, this bill also recognizes the need to train a new national energy work force. As U.S. power plants become more efficient and more power is produced by renewable technologies, less fossil fuel will be consumed. This will have an impact on the workers and communities that produce fossil fuels. These effects are likely to be greatest for coal, even with significant deployment of clean coal technology. The bill provides funding for programs to help workers and communities during the period of transition. I am eager to work with organized labor to ensure that these provisions address the needs of workers, particularly those who may not fully benefit from retraining programs. Finally, this bill holds the electric power industry, and Congress, accountable for any and all taxpayer dollars used to aid the transition to cleaner electric generation facilities. To assess how well clean air laws and emissions reductions are working, our nation must have robust, nationwide monitoring networks capable of generating reliable, consistent, long-term data about natural ecosystems. Networks such as the National Atmospheric Deposition Program currently provide the national data needed by scientists and Federal agencies to accurately assess the trends in pollutant deposition. Yet, over the past 30 years, these networks have struggled to survive with ever-decreasing funding. My bill provides modest appropriations for both operational support and modernization of scientific sites that are so critical to understanding of our ecosystems and our public health. The American public overwhelmingly supports the environmental commitments that we have made since the early 1970s. It is our responsibility to preserve the environment for our children and grandchildren, and it is our duty to protect their health as well. The proposed energy policy of this administration needs to be less about drilling and more about energy efficiency and protection of air quality. This bill will, I hope, add another way in which we can ensure reliable, affordable electric power while modernizing energy efficiency and protecting our national resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and the section- by-section overview of the bill be printed in the Record.