THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
[Page: S1600] GPO's PDF---
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. CORZINE):
S. 1990. A bill to establish a public education awareness program relating to emergency contraception; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Contraception Education Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, or one half of all pregnancies, in the United States are unintended, and half of all of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion;
(2) the Food and Drug Administration has declared emergency contraception to be safe and effective in preventing unintended pregnancy, reducing the risk by as much as 89 percent;
(3) the most commonly used forms of emergency contraception are regimens of ordinary birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure;
(4) emergency contraception, also known as post-coital contraception, is a responsible means of preventing pregnancy that works like other hormonal contraception to delay ovulation, prevent fertilization or prevent implantation;
(5) emergency contraception does not cause abortion and will not affect an established pregnancy;
(6) it is estimated that the use of emergency contraception could cut the number of unintended pregnancies in half, thereby reducing the need for abortion;
(7) emergency contraceptive use is the United States remains low, and 9 in 10 women of reproductive age remain unaware of the method;
(8) although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that doctors routinely offer women of reproductive age a prescription for emergency contraceptive pills during their annual visit, only 1 in 5 ob/gyns routinely discuss emergency contraception with their patients, suggesting the need for greater provider and patient education;
(9) in light of their safety and efficacy, both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have endorsed more widespread availability of emergency contraceptive pills, and have recommended that dedicated emergency contraceptive products be available without a prescription;
(10) Healthy People 2010, published by the Office of the Surgeon General, establishes a 10-year national public health goal of increasing the proportion of health care providers who provide emergency contraception to their patients; and
(11) public awareness campaigns targeting women and health care providers will help remove many of the barriers to emergency contraception and will help bring this important means of pregnancy prevention to American women.
SEC. 3. EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:
(1) EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION.--The term ``emergency contraception'' means a drug or device (as the terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) that is--
(A) used after sexual relations; and
(B) prevents pregnancy, by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.
(2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.--The term ``health care provider'' means an individual who is licensed or certified under State law to provide health care services and who is operating within the scope of such license.
(3) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.--The term ``institution of higher education'' has the same meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
(4) SECRETARY.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(b) EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall develop and disseminate to the public information on emergency contraception.
(2) DISSEMINATION.--The Secretary may disseminate information under paragraph (1) directly or through arrangements with nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local agencies, clinics and the media.
(3) INFORMATION.--The information disseminated under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, a description of emergency contraception, and an explanation of the use, safety, efficacy, and availability of such contraception.
(c) EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION INFORMATION PROGRAM FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and in consultation with major medical and public health organizations, shall develop and disseminate to health care providers information on emergency contraception.
(2) INFORMATION.--The information disseminated under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum--
(A) information describing the use, safety, efficacy and availability of emergency contraception;
(B) a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases; and
(C) information explaining how to obtain copies of the information developed under subsection (b), for distribution to the patients of the providers.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CLELAND, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. REID, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN):
S. 1991. To establish a national rail passenger transportation system, reauthorize Amtrak, improve security and service on Amtrak, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National Defense Rail Act on behalf of myself and some 19 co-sponsors. This legislation will establish a strong and efficient national passenger rail system. For far too long, we have neglected investing in our Nation's passenger rail system. We have taken an active responsibility in developing the infrastructure of all other modes of transportation, whether it has been federally funding the development of the interstate highway system, subsidizing airport construction, or taking the responsibility for dredging harbors and channels or building locks and dams. Now it is time to build a world class passenger railroad system in the United States. We know it can be done. Japan and France provide two models of successful passenger railroad service. The time to move ahead is now. We cannot wait for highways and airports to become so clogged that they cannot operate any longer. Rail systems are not built in a day. We need to engage in long-term planning to address future passenger transportation growth and show forethought in crafting transportation solutions--not wait for an impending crisis. My legislation provides the vision to begin to do this.
The atrocious events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath which followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices are limited and our mobility is diminished. In the aftermath of the horrific attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we were forced to adjust to a transportation system that was without access to aviation. That should make us all evaluate the problems inherent in a policy that results in overall dependence on any one particular mode of transportation. We need to have a more balanced system of transportation for passengers in this country. Our economy depends on it; our travelers deserve it; and our roads and airports
[Page: S1601] GPO's PDF
After the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all flights following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, travelers flocked to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during a time of national emergency.
The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that passenger rail is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a national emergency or security crisis. Amtrak provided a critical transportation link, carrying 35,000 passengers along the Northeast corridor every day, and hundreds of extra carloads of mail for the U.S. Postal Office in the days following the terrorist attacks.
Transportation security--an essential part of our national security--requires a balanced and competitive system of transportation alternatives. In September, we found that our dependence on the aviation system almost crippled us. We cannot afford to rely on any single mode of transportation; we need to ensure that we have a balanced system that includes a sound passenger rail system. We also know that passenger railroads use less fuel per passenger mile than highway vehicles and commercial airlines. During these times of oil-consciousness, a larger presence of passenger rail in our transportation system would reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
Passenger railroads, the interstate highway system, and our national aviation network have all taken different paths to their current roles in our national transportation system. The tales of their development stand in quite a stark contrast from each other.
The interstate highway system has received significant attention and federal funding since the construction of the Lincoln Highway in 1913 and the Rural Post Roads Act of 1916, and later during World War II with the Federal Highway Act of 1944. It was not until 1956, however, that the Government began heavily promoting highway transportation with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The act established a Highway Trust Fund based upon Federal user taxes, in order to finance up to 90 percent of State construction costs of the $25 billion plan to pay for new roads, and the construction of the Eisenhower National Interstate and Defense Highway System.
Similar policies and Federal attention for aviation resulted in a strengthened infrastructure, and follows much the same story of the highways system.
Passenger rail service was once a vital instrument in the transportation needs of our Nation. For instance, during World War II, not only did the railroads transport 90 percent of all defense freight, but also 97 percent of all defense personnel on their way to theaters of action. By the end of the war, railroads accounted for three-quarters of the common carrier share of intercity traffic, with airplanes and buses sharing the remaining quarter of traffic. However, with national focus turned to aviation and highways , by the late 1960s most rail companies were petitioning the Government to discontinue passenger services because of losses.
Amtrak was created as a Federal corporation in order to relieve the railroad industry of these unprofitable passenger operations, and in the interest of maintaining a national passenger rail network. But in retrospect, Amtrak was set up not to thrive and expand passenger rail service, but really to just maintain the status quo of 30 years ago. That attitude persists even today. Since 1971, Amtrak has received only $25 billion in public subsidies; during that period, the United States invested $750 billion on highways and aviation.
So one problem becomes all too clear--that U.S. passenger rail infrastructure has no stable funding source in contrast to highways , aviation, and transit. In fact, per capita spending on passenger rail is much lower than many other countries: the U.S. ranks behind Britain, France, Japan, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Norway, Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, Portugal, Poland, South Africa, Greece, and Estonia. Imagine that of the 23 industrialized nations with rail service, we are at the bottom. Including these countries, no passenger rail service in the world has built and operated a passenger rail system at a profit. All have required Government support for construction and maintenance, or operating support, or both. That same principle holds true for highways and aviation, which have required substantial Federal spending since their beginning and continue to receive generous Federal subsidies today.
Those who want passenger rail to operate without Federal assistance--ultimately forcing more travelers onto cars, buses and airplanes--argue that we should not ``subsidize'' passenger rail. But we subsidize the building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We subsidize the building of airports and pay for all of the equipment and people needed to run our air traffic control system. We consider those subsidies to be worthwhile investments in our economy and our quality of life. We must make the same investment to create a world-class passenger rail system in order to see the same kinds of benefits.
While that argument should stand on its own, here's something the highway and airline crowd can take to the bank: moving more short-haul travelers to rail service reduces congestion on our already overcrowded highways and eases congestion at airports. It also provides real competition to airlines on short-haul trips.
Over the past 30 years, the lack of investment and attention to the needs of passenger rail infrastructure has resulted in a weak passenger rail network, and has caused a strain on the capacity of other modes of transportation in many areas of the country. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, and preceding statutes, resulted in creating conflicting missions for Amtrak: serve a public function by operating unprofitable long-distance routes, but also attempt to operate at a profit. To add insult to injury, Amtrak has been forced to delay capital improvement projects having important long-term benefits in order to attempt to meet the mandate of the 1997 Act. Congress passed this misguided law in 1997, requiring Amtrak to operate without government support by the end of fiscal year 2002. But there is no truly national passenger train service in the world that makes a profit. Requiring Amtrak to make a profit has forced the railroad to forgo long-term capital investments in favor of short-term, bond payment shell games. Instead of investing in modern trains and infrastructure upgrades, Amtrak was forced to mortgage Penn Station just to pay the electric bill.
From this, it is evident that we need to reevaluate our Nation's rail passenger policy, and clearly define a role for Amtrak. A strong Federal role was required to establish the interstate highway system and the Federal aviation network. And now Federal investment in passenger rail infrastructure is critical; once again, Federal leadership is required to address the needs of a reliable, safe, secure passenger rail network.
This legislation provides a blueprint for the future of passenger rail in the United States. The bill will help develop high-speed rail corridors, which are the building blocks for a national passenger rail system. This will allow regional transportation solutions to play a part in the national system. It will also aid in the development of short distance corridors between larger urban centers, as well as provide funding to preserve longer distance routes for those communities that do not have the population densities to merit air service--sometimes the train is their only alternative to driving. Finally, it will provide Amtrak with the tools and funding it needs to operate efficiently.
This legislation authorizes $1.255 billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's security and life safety needs. Similar language was included in the Rail Security Act, S. 1550, which was favorably reported by the committee on October 17, 2001. In that legislation, we authorized funds to be spent on immediate rail security needs, such as hiring more police officers across the entire Amtrak system and modernizing the safety infrastructure of old tunnels.
This bill will give the Federal Government the script for the role it needs
[Page: S1602] GPO's PDF
The bill authorizes $1.5 billion annually for corridor development. These funds are needed for infrastructure acquisition, highway-rail grade crossing improvement/elimination, acquisition of rolling stock and track and signal equipment. Development of a national passenger rail system carries a high cost, and the Federal Government must take the lead role in funding it.
This bill will also fund $35 billion in loan guarantees. This money will dramatically expand the current Railroad Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Financing loan and loan guarantee program. But we also must restructure that program. Since it was created in 1998 as part of TEA-21 bill, the program has processed only a few loans due to unreasonable constraints imposed by OMB. Our bill eliminates the artificial limits on loan amounts, impossible collateral requirements, and unworkable loan cohort structures.
This bill identifies existing high-speed corridors in 29 States and the District of Columbia for priority consideration. Many of these corridors are in areas where people are now driving cars or taking airplanes on trips of 300 miles or less. In these areas, like the East Coast, travelers could take a high-speed train instead and arrive at about the same time. But right now they don't have that rail option, and they won't until we build it.
The passenger railroad system that has worked well in the Northeast can work in other highly-congested areas of the country: the South, the Midwest, California and the Northwest. Thirty years ago, those areas did not have the population to support high-speed intercity rail. But today those areas are growing by leaps and bounds. As the highways in those areas clog up and the planes run 3 hours late, their Governors--many of them Republicans--are asking us for help to build high speed rail.
| >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display