[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2125. A bill to provide for the designation of certain Federal
lands in Montana as wilderness areas, to provide for multiple use and
recovery of certain other Federal lands in Montana, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the montana jobs security and lands protection act of 1994
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning I am introducing the Montana
Jobs Security and Lands Protection Act of 1994. This bill sets aside as
wilderness approximately 800,000 acres of Montana's Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management lands and almost 500,000 acres in special
management areas. Equally important, it releases 5 million acres of
lands which have not met the wilderness test to their traditional
multiple uses.
This bill is made in Montana. It was written by natural resource
providers in the living rooms of Montana. It is supported by more than
20 of Montana's most respected organizations representing more than
100,000 members.
This bill is historic because, for the first time, lands not
designated wilderness will be managed with an emphasis on the job-
producing activities that have sustained Montana's economy and
maintained the public lands of which we are so proud.
This bill will help protect water rights and property rights which
were established before designation of the wilderness areas.
preserving wilderness and protecting jobs
While Montana's economy has been expanding, the jobs of people who
work in Montana's natural-resources based industries have been
disappearing. Job losses in timber, mining, energy, and agriculture are
readily apparent.
Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record a list of 16 mine and
sawmill closings which have taken place in Montana since 1990. These
closings, which are only a partial accounting of jobs lost in mining
and timber, meant the loss of more than 1,500 good paying, family jobs
in Montana. This list I am submitting is only a partial accounting of
the total number of jobs lost in mining and timber during the last few
years. Total job losses and the loss of secondary jobs generated by
mining and timber are much, much higher. I ask unanimous consent that
that list be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
MONTANA SAWMILL AND MINE CLOSURE DETAILS
[1990-1994]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Operation Year Location Company Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1990................ Col. Falls.......... WTD/CF Forest Prod.............................. 150
Closed.............. Mine................ 1991................ Libby............... W.R. Grace...................................... 130
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1991................ Dillion............. Stoltze Lumber.................................. 95
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1992................ Dillion............. Stoltze Lumber.................................. 110
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1992................ Dixon............... Flathead Post & Pole............................ 80
Closed.............. Mine................ 1992................ Troy................ Sarco........................................... 340
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1992................ Kalispell........... Industrial Wood Products........................ ..............
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1992................ Polson.............. Pack River Lumber............................... 60
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1993................ Libby............... Champion International.......................... 35
Closed.............. Mine................ 1993................ Garrison............ Cominco......................................... 150
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1993................ Libby............... Champion International.......................... 150
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1993................ Darby............... Stoltze Lumber.................................. 58
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1993................ Livingston.......... Park County Lumber.............................. 10
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1994................ Bonner.............. Stimpson Lumber................................. ..............
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1994................ Drummond............ Tricon Lumber................................... 63
Closed.............. Sawmill............. 1994................ Superior............ Crown Pacific................................... 160
---------------
Total......... .................... .................... .................... ................................................ 1,591
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Montana Mining Association.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, too many of our young people are forced to
leave Montana to find good-paying, family jobs. I want to see Montana's
economy grow and job opportunities created in Montana.
That is why I am introducing a bill which will help ensure that
Montana's economy will prosper while we preserve our best lands.
Besides designating wilderness, this bill will also allow for the
environmentally responsible recovery of our natural resources on our
public lands.
This means jobs in agriculture, mining, timber, and energy, and it
means jobs in our service industries. The businesses on Montana's main
streets will grow with new natural resource jobs. Communities which are
dependent on these industries will have the certainty they need and
deserve.
Our entire State benefits as our businesses grow. Our counties have a
larger tax base to provide for the services our communities need, and
our schools do not have to look for additional areas to cut when they
are already just getting by.
Montanans expect to be able to find jobs within our State to support
their families. This bill helps assure that their expectations will be
met.
My bill seeks a balance between protecting wilderness, jobs, and
Montana's economy. We are already approaching that threshold of that
balance. Montana already has 3.4 million acres of wilderness. With this
bill, Montana will become the third-highest State in the Nation in
total wilderness acres. Already, there are already three times the
wilderness acres in Montana than in all the States east of the
Mississippi combined.
Montana's economic future depends on achieving the vital balance
between protecting wilderness and preserving jobs. One of the reasons
we all enjoy living in Montana is the diversity of its people. We all
have neighbors who work in town, on our farms and ranches, and in our
vital natural resources sector. By using these resources, Montanans are
able to provide a stable income for their families, pay community taxes
for schools, and contribute to the economic health of small towns
across Montana.
Sadly, there are those who want to close these family jobs down.
Urged on by out-of-State special interests, they want to lock away our
renewable timber base for all time, and eliminate the jobs to the
thousands of Montana families that depend upon them.
releasing land to multiple uses
My bill provides the best opportunity we have to put Montanans to
work in good-paying, family jobs in natural resources industries such
as timber, mining, and energy production. It is balanced. That is what
we have to strive for, a balance, in these communities who depend
socially and economically in primarily western Montana to have some
sort of stability. They deserve a balanced piece of legislation that
will protect their jobs and also their social viability.
For too long the problem with wilderness bills has been that they do
nothing concrete for the lands that they release. And the wilderness
extremists simply take another bite of the apple--lock up as much land
in wilderness as possible and fence everyone else out. Not only are we
locked out of the areas designated as wilderness, but we are also
locked out of those lands designated for further study, otherwise known
as defacto wilderness.
What has been lacking has been language that provides direction to
the Forest Service and to the courts that the lands released should be
managed in a responsible way for the resource-based jobs that they can
sustain. That helps our families, it helps our communities, and
ultimately it helps our State.
The release language in this bill does just that. Without repealing
any of our environmental laws, it offers direction to the Federal land
managers, requiring them to manage for multiple uses of nonwilderness
lands, preserving local jobs for Montanans on the 5 million acres of
lands which have been carefully studied and have not met the wilderness
test. This bill offers a real solution to the release problem--a
problem that has kept these lands in wilderness limbo and off limits to
Montana resource providers for almost a decade.
The mining industry, so vital to Montana, has come under attack
recently, and I believe much of that attack is unwarranted. So-called
mining reform, in my view, is another effort by out-of-State
preservationists who simply want mining, and the good paying, family
jobs that they represent, to move away, overseas or wherever. Out of
sight, out of mind is their view.
Now the Eastern elite have decided they have another tool to help
them eliminate mining, and the jobs they represent. That tool is
wilderness. I was surprised to learn that most of Montana has never
been mapped for its mineral potential. I do not believe Montana can
afford to lock away forever some of its best job producing potential.
That is why I have introduced a wilderness bill with a different focus.
My bill would actively seek ways to use our resources on released
lands in an environmentally sound manner that would create the
diversified job base that can support families, pay taxes, and
contribute to the health of our communities. I want to see the
wilderness issue put to rest in Montana, while at the same time,
securing the jobs for Montanans that will continue to make our State
such a special place in which to live.
protecting water, property rights, and existing uses
My bill helps protect Montana against threats to our most precious
natural resource--our water. Indications are that the Justice
Department and other Federal agencies have reversed their long-standing
position of not aggressively working to reserve portions of Montana's
water to the Federal Government. I believe that they are going to make
a run at our water.
We live in a semiarid State that is very dependent upon our limited
water resources. And we have a long history of giving to the people of
the State of Montana the authority to decide how that water is used.
There are instances when the Federal Government should be given water,
but, and this is an important point--the Federal Government should
stand in line like everyone else in our State, for its share.
In no way does this bill diminish the Federal Government's current
authority to use water to protect wilderness values. It has that
authority now. It simply helps assure that Montana's lifeblood--its
water--will not be disrupted and will continue to flow through the
intricate appropriations system which has been developed by the State
of Montana during the last 150 years. We just cannot let the Federal
Government grab our water, it is that simple.
Property rights rival water rights in their importance to Montanans.
Besides taking our water, the Federal Government wants to walk over our
individual private property rights, as well. Whether it is by law or
regulation, this constitutionally protected right is under assault. Now
the bureaucrats want to infringe on our private property rights through
land management policies. That is why I have included a provision in
the bill which protects private property.
Private property rights are guaranteed to us by the fifth amendment
to the Constitution. And I want to safeguard that right--that is also
why I am a founding member of the Senate Private Property Rights
Caucus.
My wilderness bill will not only help create the jobs Montana needs,
it will ensure that when implementing the bill, the land management
agencies will respect and protect private property rights.
Private property rights are important for all of Montana's
businesses, including our four largest industries--agriculture, mining,
timber, and oil and gas. If these industries are threatened, Montana's
diversified economy is threatened. If these industries are allowed to
grow, our entire economy will benefit. I believe my bill is responsive
to the working men and women of Montana because it will provide jobs
and it protects our private property rights.
This bill takes an extra step to protect the rights of those who
cannot step out on their own. Under current wilderness regulations,
handicapped persons can be denied access to wilderness areas if they
try to enter using a motorized wheelchair. My bill would end this
ridiculous impediment.
more than wilderness
As we consider new wilderness legislation for Montana, we must
remember that we are considering much more than what acres we want to
designate as wilderness. We are also making decisions about the jobs of
Montanans that we are willing to protect and those that we are willing
to sacrifice.
Yes, we must protect our very best wild areas. But we also must work
to find a reasonable balance. We cannot just permanently lock away all
our natural resources, because in doing so, we jeopardize Montana's
economic diversity and economic future. That is not fair to the
Montanans who live and work here today and want their children and
grandchildren to have the same opportunities to live and work here in
the future.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if
in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my colleague from Montana has just
introduced his version of the wilderness solution in our State of
Montana. It is my very fervent hope that we who represent Montana and
this country can finally resolve this issue.
Montanans have been attempting for many years to solve the wilderness
issue. At issue is how many of Montana's 6 million acres of roadless
acreage in national Forest Service land should be designated as
wilderness and how much should be returned to the forest planning
process.
Montana has been wrestling with this question for 16 years. We are in
this situation because about that number of years ago the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that the national Forest Service did not
correctly apply NEPA with respect to roadless acres in national Forest
Service land.
As a consequence, the Forest Service asked the U.S. Congress to
allocate the various designations of use of roadless acreage in
national Forest Service land. If the Forest Service had to go back and
rewrite the environmental impact statements for every roadless area in
the national Forest Service System it would be too expensive and in
effect break the bank.
Therefore, the U.S. Congress has for the 29 States in our Nation that
have national Forest Service roadless acreage, addressed the wilderness
allocation question. Congress has done so, that is, for every State but
two; Montana and Idaho.
It is a very contentious issue in our State because Montanans are
outdoors people. Everybody in our State loves the out-of-doors. We
hunt. We fish. We backpack. We ride horses. We also harvest grain,
raise livestock, mine minerals, and harvest timber. We have recreation
industries, tourist industries. Montanans are also somewhat independent
people. We pride ourselves on our individualism, and each of us has our
own idea as to how the land should be managed.
I would hope, Mr. President, that finally this year for the sake of
Montanans and the Nation that we can finally resolve this issue.
The House of Representatives passed its version of the roadless
acreage bill just yesterday. This legislation introduced by our
Congressman Pat Williams, allocates about 1.7 million acres for
wilderness--out of the total of 6 million.
The bill now introduced by my colleagues essentially provides for
about 800,000 acres of wilderness.
I have told my colleague from Montana on many occasions that it was
my intention, as soon as the House passed its version, to ask him to
join me in reintroducing the same bill that he and I agreed to when we
last dealt with this issue 2 years ago. Under that version, about 1.2
million acres of wilderness would be allocated wilderness. This is the
measure that passed the Senate, and is the same measure that he and I
agreed to a couple of years ago.
It is my firm belief that if the Senate can move the same bill that
moved out of the Senate a couple of years ago the that Senator Burns
and I agreed to, and send it to conference with the House, then we can
get Wilderness fairly resolved, and get this issue behind us.
I urge my colleague to reconsider cosponsoring the same bill that he
and I agreed to a couple years ago. We must find a compromise.
So I urge my colleague, in addition to introducing his own bill, to
join me in cosponsoring the same bill he and I agreed to so we can
compromise with the House.
My colleague my disagree with the compromise that comes out of the
conference. At the very least, let us keep the process on track.
Montanans want a solution. They want their delegation to resolve it;
to do it in a fair, balanced way, but to resolve it.
I also think that most Montanans do not want us, as a delegation, to
listen to the extremists on either side of the issue. They want a
balanced, fair solution.
I do hope, finally, this year we can get this resolved. I urge my
good friend and colleague to join with me in getting a compromise and
in getting a compromise and in getting this finally resolved.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I extend the invitation to my friend to
also take a look at the bill I have just introduced and take a good,
close look at it, because it is a different approach. It does come up
to around the 800,000 plus 500,000 special management.
We can sure get together and work out something, I think, that would
be acceptable to both Senators which can pass this body before Mr.
Williams' bill comes to the Senate or we go into conference.
So I invite Senator Baucus to take a look at it. I know it is a very
contentious issue. It is an issue that I would like to get settled. We
all would. We are all going to try very hard to do that.
______
By Mr. DANFORTH:
S. 2127. A bill to improve railroad safety at grade crossings, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the railroad grade crossing safety act of 1994
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, every year we see improvements in
transportation safety. For example, 10 million fewer motor vehicle
traffic accidents occurred last year than in 1978, with 10,000 fewer
deaths. Transportation mishaps involving the release of hazardous
materials were cut by 80 percent during that time, from 138 to 27. The
annual number of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents was down
from about 1,600 in 1978 to about 400 in 1992.
Similarly, accidents involving railroads fell from 11,300 to 2,300.
The number of collisions involving trains and motor vehicles at grade
crossings also dropped dramatically, from 13,400 in 1978 to 4,800 in
1993. There were 83 fewer collisions in 1993 than in 1992, despite
record high levels of freight traffic. The number of people injured in
grade crossing accidents reached a record low last year, dropping 9
percent from 1,969 in 1992 to 1,792 in 1993. There is a tragic
exception to this good news trend, however. Last year alone, grade
crossing fatalities increased from 579 to 614, a jump of 6 percent.
In fact, a vehicle and train collide every 90 minutes in the United
States, at an average annual cost as high as $1.8 billion in terms of
medical costs, insurance payments, legal fees, and damages to railroad
property. The driver of the car or truck that collides with a train is
30 times more likely to be killed than in a crash involving 2 motor
vehicles. The main cause of these deaths is not inadequate signage.
Over 50 percent of collisions between trains and motor vehicles occur
at crossings with active warning gates, lights, and bells. Most of the
time, motorists simply fail to recognize that to race a train is to
race death.
The legislation that I am introducing today, the Grade Crossing
Safety Act of 1994, creates no new, expensive programs. It is modest in
scope, and limited to issues within the jurisdiction of the Commerce
Committee. Simply stated, this bill is intended to save lives.
Specifically, the measure would:
First, maximize the impact of Federal, State, and railroad safety
efforts by directing the Secretary of Transportation to make clear the
allocation of responsibility for selection and installation of signal
devices at public railroad-highway grade crossings;
Second, reduce public risk by including plans to close dangerous and
redundant grade crossings, and policies to limit the creation of new
crossings, in the highway safety management systems that States are
required to develop by October 1, 1996;
Third, help ensure that existing signs and warning devices are in
working order by establishing a toll-free 800 telephone number for the
public to use to report problems and malfunctions at grade crossings;
Fourth, improve awareness of grade crossing dangers by increasing
Federal, State, and private sector support for a multiyear, multimedia
public information and law enforcement campaign through Operation
Lifesaver, Inc., a nationwide, nonprofit organization created 22 years
ago to reduce crashes, fatalities, and injuries at grade crossings;
Fifth, promote advanced technology development by directing the
Secretary of Transportation to conduct at least two operational tests
of intelligent vehicle-highway system technologies focused on grade
crossing safety;
Sixth, encourage public safety by creating Federal civil penalties
for any motor carrier operator who enters, without sufficient space to
clear, a grade crossing; any individual who vandalizes grade crossing
signs, signal, or devices; or anyone who trespasses on a railroad
right-of-way, roadbed, or bridge;
Seventh, increase compliance by establishing sanctions against
commercial motor vehicle operators who repeatedly violate grade
crossing safety laws; and
Eighth, improve compliance with and enforcement of grade crossing
laws by encouraging cooperation between the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the Office of Motor Carriers within the
Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration, the
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and Operation Lifesaver.
Mr. President, these grade crossing safety provisions will be
discussed during the Commerce Committee's June hearing on reauthorizing
Federal rail safety programs. I will recommend that they be included in
the committee's rail safety reauthorization bill. I urge my colleagues
to support this lifesaving legislation when it is considered by the
Senate.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 2128. A bill to authorize an entrance fee surcharge at the Grand
Canyon National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
grand canyon national park act of 1994
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help
finance desperately needed improvements at our Nation's premier
national park--our great pride and joy--the Grand Canyon.
The measure would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a special public-private partnership account, under which
entrance fee revenues would be matched with private donations to help
fund vital projects called for in the park's general management plan.
This legislation will provide additional resources for the Grand
Canyon at a time when park needs far outstrip the ability of Treasury
to fund them. The measure enjoys the support of two important
organizations dedicated to protecting the interests of the Grand
Canyon: The Grand Canyon Trust; and, the Grand Canyon Natural History
Association.
We in Arizona are proud to be home to the crown jewel of our National
Park System. We take immense pride in the park and appreciate the
awesome responsibility with which our country has been vested as
stewards of this world class resource. We also understand that we have
much work to do in order to meet those responsibilities.
By some accounts, $2.2 billion is needed to make repairs to the
park's aging infrastructure. Compare that need to be canyon's park
budget this year which is only $13 million--a gap as wide and
formidable as the Grand Canyon itself.
The need is enormous and it is growing. Last year, 5 million people
visited the Grand Canyon--a number that is expected to double by the
turn of the century. The ever increasing demand will place even more
stress on the park's aging and needy infrastructure.
To address future needs, the National Park Service has been working
diligently on the park's general management plan. The plan will guide
management perogatives into the next century. The draft plan which was
released earlier this year, identifies projects and programs which will
help us to cope with the increased visitation, enhance visitor
experience and protect the canyon's valuable resources for this and
future generations.
While the plan has not been completed, preliminary reports estimate
that it will cost nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to fully fund.
Providing the necessary resources is a staggering challenge. The
proposal I am presenting here today is one way to help us meet this
enormous need.
As I said, the bill would authorize the Secretary to use fee revenues
to leverage private contributions to help finance park projects.
In order to fund the Federal share of such partnerships, the
Secretary would be authorized to add a surcharge of up to $2 on the
current $10 per vehicle park entrance fee.
Mr. President, no one, least of all this Senator, likes the idea of
higher park entrance fees. But, visitors understand that park services
and infrastructure cost money and they are willing to support the park
with their fees as long as they know the revenue will be used for that
purpose.
Under current procedures, entrance fees are collected at the park,
returned to the General Treasury and appropriated by Congress in many
instances for purposes other than the needs at the Grand Canyon.
The revenues raised under the measure I am proposing would remain in
a special account at the park to be used only in concert with private
donations for vital park needs. Such public-private partnerships have
ample and successful precedent in other areas of public administration,
and are an excellent means of stretching our resources. I believe they
could be a useful tool at the Grand Canyon and perhaps other national
parks as well.
Again, no one likes the idea of any increase in park fees. But,
ironically, we need only to look to Disney World for a reality check.
Today, visitors to Disney World pay $35 a piece to see Mickey Mouse. By
comparison, Grand Canyon visitors pay a relatively modest $10 per
carload to view what John Wesley Powell aptly described as the most
sublime spectacle on Earth. We all understand and accept the fact that
keeping that spectacle sublime and providing for its employment by the
millions who visit costs money. An added surcharge to leverage private
dollars would seem to be a justified and efficient means of making ends
meet, and it deserves our thoughtful consideration.
We estimate that the surcharge would generate an additional $2
million a year. Once leveraged with money from the private sector the
fund would make a significant contribution to park improvements and
maintenance of infrastructure such as upgrading the park's
transportation system to relieve overcrowding; maintaining trails; and
improving the water system and housing, just to name a very few.
Mr. President, the creation of a special partnership account raises
many questions. I, like others, want to make absolutely certain that
private contributions to the park are not used in any way that would
compromise park interests or values. This measure seeks to address that
issue because management of the fund must be dictated solely by the
needs of the park and the ethic of stewardship.
The measure calls on the Secretary of the Interior to establish
regulations, with full public comment and participation, to guide how
the fund will be managed, how private donations will be solicited, for
what purposes they will be used and how the partnerships will be
structured and managed.
In addition, the bill specifically requires that any project funded
under the partnership must be consistent with the statutes, regulations
and rules governing the park, and that it is specifically approved and
prioritized within the general management plan. These plans are
developed with public participation and are subject to all the
applicable environmental laws. Ensuring that partnership funds are used
only for purposes authorized by the relevant management plan will
ensure that only necessary and appropriate projects are undertaken.
Many businesses and individuals want to contribute to the protection
of Grand Canyon National Park because they realize that it is a
national treasure and that it needs and deserves our assistance.
Nevertheless, we must take steps to ensure that these donations are not
offered with strings attached that would place commercial interests
ahead of park needs and values.
Mr. President, Grand Canyon and our other national parks are at a
critical point. Demand for park resources is increasing, as is the cost
of maintenance. Several weeks ago, Secretary Babbitt began a tour to
examine many of these problems firsthand. I commend him for taking this
action.
While his tour is not yet complete, he is certain to discover that
the needs of our parks far outstrip the ability of a limited Federal
treasury to finance them. When our parks are not properly funded it
makes resource management, interpretation and other essential duties of
the Park Service impossible.
Last year, the Interior Appropriations committee increased the
operations account of the Parks Service by 9 percent above the fiscal
year 1993 level in an effort to improve conditions. While this increase
was helpful, it is not nearly enough to meet the needs at the Grand
Canyon and I am sure other parks as well. Given the current budget
situation the administration and Congress is not likely to provide
further increases to adequately to meet the need.
We must look for innovative ways to fully fund the preservation and
enhancement of our Nation's Park System. I believe the method I am
proposing is a viable option that should be fully examined and
considered.
Mr. President, this year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of Grand
Canyon National Park. It is most appropriate that we recommit ourselves
to the charge of Theodore Roosevelt ``to keep the canyon for our
children and our children's children, and for all who come after us, as
one of the great sights which every American if he can travel at all
should see.''
Let us work to meet the needs at the Grand Canyon with that purpose
firmly in mind.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2128
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) As of the date of enactment of this Act, the existing
infrastructure of Grand Canyon National Park is not adequate
to serve the purposes for which the Park was established.
(2) Improving the infrastructure of the Park would enhance
the natural and cultural resources of the Park and the
quality of the experiences of visitors to the Park.
(3) Through the development of a general management plan,
the Director of the National Park Service has identified
reasonable measures that are necessary to improve the
infrastructure and related services of the Park, including
making improvements to transportation facilities and visitor
services, and reusing historic structures appropriately.
(4) In order for the Director to implement the general
management plan referred to in paragraph (3) at the Park, it
is necessary for the Director to be authorized to--
(A) enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to
share the costs of the improvements; and
(B) assess and collect a special surcharge in addition to
the entrance fees otherwise collected by the National Park
Service.
SEC. 2. GRAND CANYON ENTRANCE FEE SURCHARGE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of the Interior shall--
(1) authorize the Superintendent of the Grand Canyon
National Park to charge and collect, in addition to the
entrance fee collected pursuant to section 4 of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a), a
surcharge in an amount not to exceed $2 for each individual
charged such entrance fee; and
(2) remit to the special account for Grand Canyon National
Park infrastructure improvement amounts collected as a
surcharge under such authority.
SEC. 3. SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall
establish in the Treasury of the United States a special
account for Grand Canyon National Park infrastructure
improvement.
(b) Administration of Account.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall--
(1) credit to the special account amounts remitted pursuant
to section 2(2); and
(2) make funds in the special account available for use
only as provided in subsection (c).
(c) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the National Park Service, may use
funds in the special account only to pay the Federal share of
the cost of eligible projects.
(2) Daily operations.--No funds in the special account may
be used for daily operation of the Grand Canyon National
Park.
SEC. 4. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.
(a) Eligible Projects.--Subject to subsection (b), any
project for the design, construction, operation, maintenance,
repair, or replacement of a facility within the Grand Canyon
National Park is eligible for funding in accordance with this
Act.
(b) Limitation.--A project referred to in subsection (a)
shall be consistent with--
(1) the laws governing the National Park Service;
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Grand Canyon
National Park in the State of Arizona'', approved February
26, 1919 (16 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), the Grand Canyon National
Park Enlargement Act (16 U.S.C. 228a et seq.), and any
related law; and
(3) the general management plan for the Park.
SEC. 5. COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES.
(a) Agreements Required.--The Director of the National Park
Service, in consultation with the Superintendent of the Grand
Canyon National Park, shall enter into a cost-sharing
agreement with a non-Federal Government entity for each
eligible project.
(b) Content.--The cost-sharing agreement shall specify the
Federal share and the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project and shall provide for payment of the non-Federal
share by the non-Federal entity.
(c) Authority To Cover Several Projects.--A cost-sharing
agreement may cover more than one eligible project.
SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.
(a) Regulations Required.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall prescribe regulations to carry out this Act.
(b) Content.--The regulations shall include the following
matters:
(1) The procedures for the management of the special
account.
(2) The manner in which funds for payment of the non-
Federal share of the cost of an eligible project may be
solicited and acknowledged.
(3) Provisions for ensuring the protection of the natural,
cultural, and other resources that the Park was established
to protect.
(4) Provisions to encourage funding from the private sector
only for projects that contribute to the restoration and
protection of the resources referred to in paragraph (3).
(5) Protections against the commercialization of the Grand
Canyon National Park.
(6) Procedures to prevent the creation of a conflict of
interest with respect to an employee of the Federal
Government.
(7) Provisions for continuous participation of the general
public in the oversight of the implementation of this Act.
(c) Notice and Public Comment.--The Secretary shall carry
out subsection (a) in accordance with section 553 of title 5,
United States Code (relating to publication of notice and
opportunity for public comment), without regard to any
applicable exception provided in such section.
SEC. 7. REPORT.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
submit to Congress a report on the Grand Canyon National Park
infrastructure improvement authority provided in this Act.
(b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the
following matters:
(1) An assessment of the effectiveness of the exercise of
authority under this Act to improve the infrastructure of the
Grand Canyon National Park.
(2) Any recommended legislation with respect to--
(A) the surcharge authorized under section 2;
(B) the special account;
(C) the use of the special account for funding eligible
projects; or
(D) any other matter that the Secretary determines to be
related to the authority provided under this Act.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Facility.--The term ``facility'' includes any
structure, road, trail, utility, or other facility that is
used or to be used for or in support of--
(A) the protection or restoration of a natural or cultural
resource;
(B) an interpretive service; or
(C) any other service or activity that the Secretary
determines to be related to the operation of the Grand Canyon
National Park.
(2) Federal share.--The term ``Federal share'', with
respect to the cost of an eligible project, means the percent
of the cost of such project that is paid with Federal funds,
including funds disbursed from the special account.
(3) Non-Federal share.--The term ``non-Federal share'',
with respect to the cost of an eligible project, means the
percent of the cost of such project that is paid with funds
other than funds referred to in paragraph (2).
(4) Eligible project.--The term ``eligible project'' is any
project that is eligible for funding in accordance with this
Act.
(5) Special account.--The terms ``special account for Grand
Canyon National Park infrastructure improvement'' and
``special account'' mean the account established pursuant to
section 3.
____
Grand Canyon Trust,
May 9, 1994.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for providing the Grand
Canyon Trust with the opportunity to review and comment on
both draft and final versions of your proposed legislation
regarding entrance fees and public/private cost-sharing at
Grand Canyon National Park.
We believe that your proposed legislation will greatly
assist the efforts of the National Park Service and other
entities who are struggling to find appropriate means to
generate the additional funding so urgently needed by Grand
Canyon National Park. In this regard, we strongly support the
core concepts in your bill: new fees to generate incremental
revenue for park projects and cost-sharing arrangements
between the Park Service and nongovernmental entities.
We share your concern that Grand Canyon's pressing
infrastructure and resource management needs will not be met
unless Congress acts to provide the new authorities described
in your legislation. And, if those needs are not met, the
park environment and visitor experience will continue to
deteriorate--an utterly unacceptable and unnecessary fate for
the crown jewel of America's parks.
Senator McCain, we applaud your consistent leadership on
behalf of Grand Canyon. This bill, the National Parks
Overflights Act, Grand Canyon Protection Act, and so many
other measures reflect your unwavering dedication to the
needs of the park. Please be assured that we are prepared to
assist you in your efforts to move the bill through the
legislative process to final enactment.
Again, thank you for all you have done for the Grand
Canyon.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Jensen,
Executive Director.
____
Grand Canyon
Natural History Association,
May 6, 1994.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am very happy to be able to write
this letter of complete and enthusiastic support for your
bill designed to authorize an entrance fee surcharge at the
Grand Canyon National Park, for the purpose of assuring a
Federal matching pool of funds for necessary capital projects
at the Park. We have previously discussed the value of such a
tool to be used to foster public/private partnerships to
accomplish the overdue rebuilding of infrastructure to
support the crush of visitors. We further believe that the
choice of Grand Canyon as the test case for such an effort
will enable us to create a model that can be used by other
National Parks and Monuments across the country. Please let
us know how else we can support this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Koons,
General Manager, CEO.
____
In Search of Help
When droning airplanes and rattling helicopters were
swooping unchecked below the rim of the Grand Canyon,
destroying the natural quiet, Congress wisely took steps to
restore peace and tranquility by creating flight-free zones
and banning aircraft below the rim.
This idea, passed into law in 1987, is now being touted as
a solution to the soaring decibel levels being generated by
an increase in the number of low flying aircraft in many of
the nation's national parks.
If U.S. Sen. John McCain has his way, Arizona's most prized
natural treasure may again serve as a model for the rest of
the nation. This time, the Arizona Republican has proposed a
novel public-private partnership as a way to pump some badly
needed dollars into rebuilding and improving the
infrastructure of Grand Canyon National Park.
Under his proposed legislation, to be introduced this week,
the Secretary of the Interior would be required to impose
upon visitors to Grand Canyon a surcharge of up to $2 per
vehicle. The surcharge would be placed into a special trust
account, when it would be matched by contributions from
corporations, foundations and individuals.
The special account could be drawn down to design, build,
repair or replace the park's infrastructure, but not for
daily operational expenses.
The concept behind McCain's proposal is two-fold. First is
the belief that any additional entrance fees ought to stay
with the park: As it is, visitors fees flow to the federal
treasury and are appropriated back to the National Park
Service for park operations each year. Second is the idea
that the park service be allowed to enter into flexible cost-
sharing agreements with the private cost-sharing agreements
with the private sector in order to maximize donations
earmarked for park improvements.
When it comes to the plight of the National Park Service,
the financial dilemma is not illusory. Park usage is on a
stampede upward, but this popularity has a price--a steep
one. It is estimated that $2.2 billion worth of park repairs
are needed--a considerable undertaking even in the best of
times.
Grand Canyon, the grande dame of the park system, is being
loved to death and it shows. Trails could be improved.
Housing is inadequate. Transportation and water systems are
at a capacity. And if Interior Department officials are
serious about a South Rim that is auto-free and capable of
handling the 5 million visitors each year--a figure expected
to double by the turn of the century--some form of mass
transit would appear to be in the cards.
All of these are expensive propositions at a time that
Congress is especially sensitive to new spending proposals.
This is a reality of the times. If the American people are
serious about preserving the nation's cultural and natural
resources, Congress must examine creative financing measures.
McCain has thrown out one. Cost-sharing, of course, is not
a new idea. Corporations and foundations underwrite numerous
and worthwhile causes. What's important to keep in
perspective is that the national parks cannot be for sale.
Not under any circumstance. The Coney Islands and Disneylands
have their place and it is not in our national treasures.
We have said it before and we'll say it again: The almighty
dollar must not drive the needs of the park; the needs of the
park ought to drive the fund-raising. Tom Jensen, executive
director of the Grand Canyon Trust, a non-profit advocacy
group of the Colorado Plateau, was right when he said, ``The
devil is in the details.''
With adequate protections against commercialization of the
park system, there may be merit in McCain's proposal. He is
to be commended for trying park surcharges and private
donorship into a plan that, at the least, is worthy of being
discussed. One thing is a given: the more time that passes
without the fiscal needs of Grand Canyon and the park system
being met, the situation can only worsen.
____
[From the Arizona Daily Star, May 16, 1994]
Funding a Healthy Canyon
Sen. John McCain--a good fighter for Grand Canyon--has now
proposed a novel plan to fund efforts to attack overcrowding
at the park.
With a few caveats, the Arizona Republican's proposal looks
like a sound blueprint for the maintenance of a superb Canyon
experience even despite a use crisis that now portends near
chaos along those ledges and cliffs.
McCain's proposal possesses the virtues of both pragmation
and timeliness.
By allowing the park to raise millions of dollars through
corporate donations as well as a surcharge up to $2 on the
$10 entrance fee, McCain's new legislation would enable
Canyon administrators to attack their expensive problems in
an era of scanty appropriations.
The surcharge alone should yield at least $2.5 million a
year toward the enormous needs now being identified in the
still incomplete General Management Plan, since some five
million visitors will strain park roads and buildings this
year.
And presumably tens of millions dollars more could be
solicited from corporate America for the infrastructure
account. In this way, McCain's scheme would go far toward
instituting a steady funding mechanism by which the park
could begin enacting the forthcoming GMP, whose
implementation may cost a quarter of a billion dollars.
McCain's plan innovates with its establishment of a
dedicated add-on fee. Such fees may well represent the wave
of the future all through the Park Service by allowing parks
to retain collected money for their own use, rather than send
them into the general fund.
Once major concern does linger about Sen. McCain's
pragmatic strategy to supplement Grand Canyon National Park's
$15 million budget.
This touches the sure knowledge that in America corporate
``cost sharing'' agreements all too easily lend to subtle
``promotional'' agreements providing, for instance, for
tramways plastered with corporate logos and viewpoints
brought to you by big business.
True, McCain aides point out that language in the bill
limits expenditures from the infrastructure fund to less
visible capital uses. Yet anyone familiar with a university
capital drive or museum construction knows that does not
preclude the distraction of nameplates and corporate logos,
even on public lands.
Furthermore, no rules now exist in the bill to guard
against excessive commercialization, though its text does
provide for the Secretary of Interior to write such
regulations and guarantee public oversight. This leaves cause
for worry about the fine line Sen. McCain's plan walks
between securing new financial resources for the Canyon, and
opening it to hype.
But then, it is early. For now, those who care about the
Canyon should keep the creation of adequate rules curbing
undue commerce in mind, even as they urge Congress to move
quickly on McCain's grounddbreaking, pragmatic plan to
preserve a national treasure.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
S. 2131. A bill to authorize additional major medical facility
construction projects for fiscal year 1994, at the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center Sepulveda, CA, and to waive the notice
and wait requirement for an administrative reorganization at that
facility; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
sepulveda, ca, construction project authorization act of 1994
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2131, a bill to authorize additional
major medical facility construction projects for fiscal year 1994 at
the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Sepulveda, CA, and
to waive the congressional waiting period requirement for an
administrative reorganization at that facility. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the
Senate by letter dated April 13, 1994.
My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2131
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the
following major medical facility projects for which funds
were appropriated in Public Law 103-211 in the amounts
specified:
(1) Construction of a new ambulatory care/support services
facility at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center
in Sepulveda, California, $53,700,000.
(2) Other major medical facility projects required to
repair, restore, or replace earthquake damaged facilities at
the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in
Sepulveda, California, $50,000,000.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(A) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1994,
$103,700,000 for the major medical facility projects
authorized by section 1.
(b) Limitation.--The projects authorized in subsection (a)
may only be carried out using the following funds:
(1) Funds appropriated for the Construction, major projects
account of the Department of Veterans Affairs by chapter 7 of
title I of Public Law 103-211 and available for obligation
for major construction projects.
(2) Funds appropriated for the Construction, major projects
account of the Department of Veterans Affairs for a fiscal
year before year 1994 that remain available for obligation.
(3) Funds appropriated for the Construction, major projects
account of the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year
1994 for a category of activity not specific to a project.
(4) Funds in an amount not to exceed $10,600,000 out of the
funds appropriated to the Medical Care account of the
Department of Veterans Affairs by chapter 7 of title I of
Public Law 103-211 that are transferred to the Construction,
major projects account of the Department by an appropriations
Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CARRY
OUT SPECIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION.
(a) Authority for Administrative Reorganization.--The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the
administrative reorganization described in subsection (b)
without regard to section 510(b) of title 38, United States
Code.
(b) Specified Reorganization.--Subsection (a) applies to a
reorganization at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center in Sepulveda, California, necessitated by the January
1994 earthquake damage at that location as such
reorganization was described in the detailed plan and
justification submitted by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
in April, 1994, letters to the Chairmen of the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
____
The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
Hon. Al Gore,
President of the Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are transmitting a draft bill, ``To
authorize additional major medical facility construction
projects for Fiscal year 1994, at the Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center Sepulveda, California, and to waive
the Congressional waiting period requirement for an
administrative reorganization at such facility.'' I request
that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee and
promptly enacted.
This measure would authorize specific funding for the
construction phase of a new ambulatory care/support services
facility at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical
Center Sepulveda, California, as well as other major medical
facility projects for extensive repairs and renovations at
that facility. Further, since the proposed replacement of the
Sepulveda hospital, with a new ambulatory care facility at
Sepulveda, is a change which constitutes an administrative
reorganization subject to the Congressional notice and
waiting period requirements of Section 510(b) of title 38,
United States Code, this measure would waive the waiting
period requirement in order to expedite this project.
The January 1994 Southern California earthquake caused
enormous physical damage, leaving tens of thousands homeless,
closing major highways, demolishing schools and closing down
utilities. The VA's Sepulveda Medical Center was not spared.
It sustained extensive structural damage which required the
transfer of more than 300 hospital and nursing home patients
to other VA facilities in the Los Angeles area on the day of
the earthquake.
Responding to the situation necessitated a reexamination of
the medical needs of veterans in the earthquake damaged area
and of the most effective manner in which VA could best meet
those needs. For example, even after the transfer of the
Sepulveda Medical Center patients, the West Los Angeles VA
Medical Center still had more than 170 inpatient beds
available. Furthermore, future (year 2005) hosptial bed
projections indicate a need for approximately 600 fewer VA
hospital beds than the current operating capacity in the Los
Angeles area.
In addition, VA's health care delivery system in the Los
Angeles area must be properly positioned for future
competitiveness under health care reform. VA intends to
improve the efficiency of its health care delivery system in
order to be more competitive and to continue to move toward a
managed care system with a primary care focus. Under a
managed care system, there will be incentives to promote
alternatives to hospitalization and to avoid hospital
admissions whenever possible. Accordingly, VA has determined
that vetarans' medical care needs will be best served by
retaining and enhancing ambulatory care and nursing home
programs at VA's Sepulveda Medical Center and by permanently
shifting the hospital programs to the West Los Angeles VA
Medical Center.
Congress, through the enactment of a supplemental emergency
appropriation, provided VA the initial funding necessary to
accomplish these objectives. On February 12, 1994, Congress
enacted the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-211), which appropriated $21,000,000 to the
VA's Medical Care account to provide health care to veterans
affected by the earthquake. In addition, $45,600,000 was
appropriated to VA's Construction, Major Projects account to
repair and renovate buildings as well as to restore
electrical and water services at the VA Medical Centers in
Sepulveda and West Los Angeles. In addition, since only
preliminary damage estimates were available when these
supplemental appropriations were considered, Congress
included a contingency fund of $550,000,000 in the
Unanticipated Needs account of the Act.
The contingency fund appropriation was made available for
transfer at the discretion of the President to various
agencies to meet disaster needs. In a letter to the Speaker
of the House of Representatives dated March 18, 1994 (copy
enclosed), the President stated that $47,500,000 from the
contingency fund would be transferred to the VA's
Construction, Major Projects account for constructing a
state-of-the art ambulatory care facility to replace the
damaged Sepulveda hospital. This request reflected a
reestimate of the additional Medical Care costs incurred as a
result of the earthquake that was $10,600,000 less than
originally assumed. The Department proposes to transfer to
the Construction, Major Projects account up to $10,600,000 of
the $21,000,000 appropriated to the Medical Care account to
complete all major medical facility projects at the Sepulveda
Medical Center.
Despite the Congressional appropriation and Presidential
transfer of funds to the Construction, Major Projects
account, VA currently is barred by statute from obligating
these funds for the purposes appropriated. Section 8104(a)(2)
of title 38, United States Code, prohibits VA officials from
obligating any funds appropriated for any major medical
facility project (defined as a project for the construction
or alteration of a medical facility involving a total
expenditure of more than $3,000,000) unless funds for such
project have been specifically authorized by law. Therefore,
this draft bill would specifically authorize VA to obligate
the $45,600,000 appropriated by the Congress and the
$47,500,000 transferred by the President, as well as any
transfer to the Construction, Major Projects account of up to
$10,600,000 in Medical Care funds appropriated by the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994.
Further, section 510(b) of title 38, United States Code,
precludes any action, including the obligation of funds, to
carry out a reorganization at the Sepulveda Medical Center
prior to complying with the Congressional notice and waiting
period requirements of that section. Since the construction
of an ambulatory care facility at Sepulveda Medical Center in
lieu of replacing the damaged Sepulveda hospital would be
delayed for a minimum of 90 days of continuous session of
Congress while VA complies with the Congressional waiting
period requirement, the draft bill would waive the waiting
period requirement and expedite the proposed project.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires that
all revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-as-
you-go requirement. That is, no such bill should result in an
increase in the deficit and, if it does, it must trigger a
sequester if it is not fully offset. The funds provided by
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994 were
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and the
President, in his March 18, 1994, request designated the
amount of funds made available from the Unanticipated Needs
account as emergency requirements pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended. Accordingly, this
legislative proposal would not score under the pay-as-you-go
provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this legislative proposal
to the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord
with the program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
Jesse Brown.
____
The White House,
Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Sir: In accordance with provisions of P.L. 103-211, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994, I am
transmitting a request to make available appropriations
totaling $103,000,000 in budget authority for the Departments
of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior,
Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, and the
Corporation for National Community Service. The funds to be
made available will be transferred from the Unanticipated
needs account within Funds Appropriated to the President to
support emergency requirements arising from the consequences
of the January 17th earthquake in Southern California and the
Midwest floods of 1993. As provided in P.L. 103-211, the
funds will be available 15 days from the date of this
transmittal.
In addition, in accordance with provisions of P.L. 102-368,
the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, I
hereby make available appropriations of $75,000,000 in budget
authority for the Small Business Administration. These funds
will provide $326 million in additional disaster loans to
victims of the January 17th earthquake in Southern California
and will be available immediately.
I designate the amounts made available as emergency
requirements pursuant to section 251(D)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
The details of these actions are set forth in the enclosed
letter from the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. I concur with his comments and observations.
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
The President,
The White House.
Submitted for your consideration are requests to make
available emergency appropriations totaling $429 million in
budgetary resources for the Departments of Commerce, Housing
and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation,
and Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and the Corportion for National and Community Service.
Your approval of these requests would make available
previously appropriated funds to these agencies to enable
them to address needs arising from the consequences of the
January 17th earthquake in Southern California and the
Midwest floods of 1993.
P.L. 103-211, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
of 1994, provided $550 million for the Unanticipated needs
account within Funds Appropriated to the President that may
be transferred to any authorized Federal governmental
activity to meet requirements of disasters. The availability
of these funds was made contingent upon the President
submitting a budget request to the Congress and designating
the entire amount requested as an emergency requirement. At
this time, $103 million is required to support urgent needs
arising from recent disasters. As provided in P.L. 103-211,
the funds would be available 15 days after the submission of
your request to the Congress. As described in the enclosure,
the requests include: $90.8 million in continued emergency
support for victims of the January 17th earthquake in
Southern California; $12.2 million for the Department of the
Interior to support additional needs arising from the Midwest
floods of 1993.
Public Law 102-368, the Dire Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1992, provided $331.8 million in budget
authority to SBA for the cost of direct loans. Of this
amount, $256.8 million was made immediately, and the
availability of $75 million was made contingent upon the
President submitting a budget request to the Congress and
designating the entire amount of the request as an emergency
requirement. This $75 million in budget authority, which will
support additional disaster lending of $326 million to
victims of the Southern California earthquake, is now
required. Forwarding this request to the Congress will make
the funds available to SBA immediately.
I recommend that you designate these requests as emergency
funding requirements in accordance with applicable provisions
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
I have carefully reviewed these proposals and am satisfied
that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the
heads of the affected departments and agencies in
recommending that you approve these requests by signing the
enclosed letter to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. This action would make the $75 million in
SBA funds available immediately. No further congressional
action will be required on the $103 million from the
Unanticipated needs account; however, P.L. 103-211 provides
Congress with 15 days to review your proposed allocation of
the funds before the funds can be released.
Sincerely,
Leon E. Panetta,
Director.
____
Emergency Appropriations: Amounts Previously Appropriated Made
Available by the President
Funds appropriated to the President:
Unanticipated needs--$103,000,000.
Public Law 103-211, the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1994, which was enacted into law on
February 12, 1994, provided $550 million in contingent
emergency funding for the Unanticipated needs account within
Funds Appropriated to the President. These funds were made
available contingent upon the President submitting a budget
request to the Congress and designating the entire amount
requested at an emergency requirement.
The Act further provides that the funds may be transferred
to any authorized Federal governmental activity to meet the
requirements of disasters. At this time, $103 million is
required to support needs arising from the consequences of
the January 17th earthquake in Southern California and the
Midwest floods of 1993 and will be transferred to the
following programs, projects, and activities in the amounts
specified.
Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration: Economic development assistance programs--
$8,000,000.
These economic development assistance program funds will:
(1) support technical assistance grants to municipal
governments for long-term, post-earthquake economic recovery
planning, including financial management activities; and (2)
assist minority businesses in Southern California in
recovering from the impact of the January 17th earthquake.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing
Programs: Annual contributions for assist housing--
$1,000,000.
This $1 million will enable the Department to help families
locate housing in areas affected by the January 17th
earthquake. These search funds are needed due to the limited
availability of affordable housing, particularly for large
families.
Policy Development and Research: Research and technology--
$1,500,000.
These funds will enable the Department to conduct urgent
studies of housing issues related to the Southern California
earthquake, including minimizing residential damage and
monitoring and redirecting Federal emergency housing
response.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey: survey,
investigations, and research--$1,800,000.
This $1,8 million will support the activities of the
interagency Scientific and Assessment Team (SAST). Arising
from the consequences of the Midwest floods of 1993, the SAST
is due to deliver a floodplain study on May 30, 1994.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource management--$600,000.
These funds will be used to create computerized wetlands
maps of the Midwest areas flooded in 1993.
Construction--$400,000.
These construction funds will be used to repair Fish and
Wildlife Service facilities damaged in the Midwest floods of
1993.
Land acquistion--$3,900,000.
These funds will allow the Department to acquire
environmentally valuable wetlands in the Midwest. In the
absence of this proposal, the lands would revert to
agricultural production, which would be subject to repeated
flooding and associated crop losses.
National Park Service: Historic preservation fund--
$5,500,000.
This $5.5 million will be used to repair levee damage in
St. Genevieve, Missouri, caused by the flooding of 1993.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration: Training and employment services--
$28,000,000.
These funds will finance temporary jobs for dislocated
workers to support cleanup, repaid, and reconstruction of
property damaged by the January 17th earthquake in Southern
California.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration: Facilities and equipment--$2,000,000.
These funds will be used to repair air traffic control and
other facilities in Southern California damaged by the
January 17th earthquake.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Construction: Construction,
major projects--$47,500,000.
These funds are needed to construct a state-of-the-art
ambulatory care/research facility to replace the hospital
damaged at the Sepulveda California Medical Center by the
January 17th earthquake.
Corporation for National and Community Service: National
service initiative--$2,800,000.
This $2.8 million will enable the Corporation to expand and
coordinate service programs in Southern California areas
affected by the January 17th earthquake.
Small Business Administration: Disaster loans program
account--$75,000,000.
Public Law 102-368, the Dire Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1992, which was enacted into law on
September 23, 1992, provided $331.8 million in budget
authority to the Small Business Administration for the cost
of direct loans. Of this amount, $256.8 million was made
available immediately, and $75 million was made available
contingent upon the President submitting a budget request to
the Congress and designating the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement. This $75 million in budget
authority is now required and will support $326 million in
additional disaster lending to victims of the Southern
California earthquake.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Riegle, and Mr. Wofford):
S. 2129. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to preserve
personal privacy with respect to medical records and health care-
related information, and for other purposes; read the first time.
the health care privacy protection act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with Senators
Riegle and Wofford, the Health Care Privacy Protection Act of 1994,
legislation that I hope will be included in the health care reform
measure that we are considering this year.
President Clinton is showing tremendous leadership in tackling health
care reform. Because of his efforts, the country and the Congress are
engaged in a serious debate about how to make sure that every American
has health insurance and how to bring costs under control so that
health care is affordable for families and small businesses.
Vermonters are particularly focused on health care reform because of
our State's efforts to reform our system. I hear from hundreds of
Vermonters every week who share with me their ideas about what needs to
be done. They do not want a one-size-fits-all approach, and I have
worked to ensure that the President's bill allows individual States the
flexibility to tailor the plan to fit local needs. State flexibility
has been and remains an important component of any health care reform
plan if it is to be successful.
I have also concentrated my efforts on making sure that Americans'
expectations of privacy for their medical records are fulfilled. That
is the purpose of this bill. As intractable as questions of financing
and structure may seem, I have confidence that we will find a way to
respond to the American people's profound need for health security. My
fear has been that the Achilles heel of our health care reform efforts
would turn out to be a perception that such legislation would lead to a
loss of personal privacy.
A recent public opinion poll sponsored by Equifax and conducted by
Louis Harris indicated that 85 percent of those surveyed agreed that
protecting the confidentiality of medical records is extremely
important in national health care reform. I can assure you that if that
poll had been taken in Vermont, it would have come in at 100 percent or
close to it.
The distinguished Republican leader put his finger on this in his
response to the President's State of the Union Address earlier this
year. Senator Dole remarked then that a ``compromise of privacy'' that
sends information about health and treatment to a national data bank
without a person's approval would be something that none of us would
accept. I felt then and feel even more strongly now that health care
reform will only be supported by the American people if they are
assured that the personal privacy of their health care information is
protected.
Indeed, without confidence one's personal privacy will be protected
many will be discouraged from seeking help from an improved health care
system or taking advantage of the increased accessibility we are
working so hard to create.
In October last year we began a series of hearings before the
Technology and the Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I was
fascinated with smart card technology and the opportunities it presents
to deliver better and more efficient health care services, especially
in rural areas. The health security card can expedite care in medical
emergencies and eliminate paperwork burdens. But it will only be
accepted if it is used in a comprehensive and secure system protecting
confidentiality of sensitive medical conditions and personal privacy.
Fortunately, improved technology offers the promise of security and
confidentiality and can allow levels of access limited to information
necessary to the function of the person in the health care treatment
and payment system.
In January we continued our hearings and heard testimony from the
Administration, health care providers and privacy advocates about the
Health Security Act and the need to improve upon its privacy
protections.
In testimony I found among the most moving I have experienced in
nearly 20 years in the Senate, the Subcommittee heard first-hand from
Representative Nydia Velasquez, our House colleague who had sensitive
medical information leaked about her during her campaign. She and her
parents woke up to find disclosure of her attempted suicide smeared
across the front pages of the New York tabloids. If any of us have
reason to doubt how hurtful a loss of medical privacy can be, we need
only talk to our House colleague.
Unfortunately, this is not the only horrific story of a loss of
personal privacy. I have talked with the widow of Arthur Ashe about her
family's trauma when her husband was forced to confirm publicly that he
carried the AIDS virus and how the family had to live its ordeal in the
glare of media spotlight.
We have also heard testimony from Jeffrey Rothfeder, who described in
his book, Privacy for Sale, how a free-lance artist was denied health
coverage by a number of insurance companies because someone had
erroneously written in his health records that he was HIV-positive.
The unauthorized disclosure and misuse of personal medical
information has affected insurance coverage, employment opportunities,
credit, reputation and a host of services for thousands of Americans.
Let us not miss this opportunity to set the matter right through
comprehensive Federal privacy protection legislation.
As we began focusing on privacy and security needs last year, I was
shocked to learn how catch-as-catch-can are the patchwork of State laws
protecting privacy of personally identifiable medical records. A few
years ago we passed legislation protecting records of our videotape
rentals and library borrowings, but we have yet to provide even that
level of privacy protection for our personal and sensitive health care
data.
Now is the time to accept the challenge and legislate so that the
American people can have some assurance that their medical histories
will not be the subject of public curiosity, commercial advantage or
harmful disclosure.
In my examination of the Health Security Act, I was encouraged by the
fact that the administration clearly understands that health security
must include assurances that personal health information will be kept
private, confidential and secure from unauthorized disclosure. There is
no doubt that the increased computerization of medical information has
raised the stakes in privacy protection.
The American public cares deeply about protecting their privacy. This
has been demonstrated, again, most recently in the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation's Benchmark Survey on Privacy entitled
``Live and Let Live'' wherein three out of four people expressed
particular concern about computerized medical records held in databases
used without the individual's consent. As policymakers, we must
remember that the right to privacy is one of our most cherished
freedoms--it is the right to be left alone and to choose what we will
reveal of ourselves and what we will keep from others.
The administration's health care reform proposal provides that
privacy and security guidelines will be required for health data cards
and computerized medical records. In this regard, the President is to
be commended. The difficulties I had with the provisions of Health
Security Act, as originally introduced, is that it delayed
recommendations to Congress for consideration of comprehensive privacy
legislation for 3 years and did not include a criminal penalty for
unauthorized disclosure of someone's medical records.
The bill we introduce today, the Health Care Privacy Protection Act
seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for protecting the privacy
of our medical records from the outset.
This bill adds a number of important components necessary for health
care reform legislation. It establishes in law the principle that a
person's health information is to be protected and to be kept
confidential. It creates both criminal and civil remedies for invasions
of privacy for a person's health care information.
The bill creates a set of rules and norms to govern the disclosure of
personal health information and narrows the sharing of personal details
within the health care system to the minimum necessary to provide care,
allow for payment and to facilitate effective oversight. Special
attention is paid to emergency medical situations, public health
requirements and research.
Further, this legislation would provide patients with a comprehensive
set of rights of inspection and an opportunity to correct their own
records, as well as information accounting for disclosures of those
records.
I want to commend Representative Condit, who chairs the House
Subcommittee open Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture
of the House Committee on Government Operations, for the leadership he
is showing in this area. I have followed with interest the hearings he
has recently held and companion legislation that he and Representative
Velazquez introduced in the House. It is my hope and intention that
introduction of the Health Care Privacy Protection Act moves us closer
to our shared goal of enacting effective privacy protection for medical
records.
We have tried to simplify, clarify and strengthen the privacy
protection provisions currently under discussion. We have also sought
to accommodate legitimate oversight concerns so that we do not create
unnecessary impediments to health care fraud investigations. Effective
health care oversight is essential if a reformed health care system is
to function and fulfill its intended goals. Otherwise, we risk
establishing a publicly--sanctioned playground for the unscrupulous.
Too much is being invested in health care reform to allow the resulting
system to be the subject of undetected fraud or abuse.
We look forward to working with our colleagues both here in the
Senate and in the House as we refine this legislation. As Senator
Kennedy prepared to mark up a Labor Committee bill, I have been
consulting with him to ensure that privacy protection be included in
that bill. I thank him and his able staff for the opportunity to work
with them on this important issue and commend them for including health
care privacy protections in the Labor Committee markup and for their
longstanding commitment to personal privacy. I look forward to
consulting with Senator Moynihan, as well, as the Finance Committee
prepares for its markup and know of his strong resolve in this regard.
With the help of Senators Riegle and Wofford, who have each shown
sensitivity and leadership in this effort, we hope to provide a
consensus on these important issues.
I want to thank all of those who have been working with us on the
issue of health information privacy and, in particular, wish to commend
the Vermont Health Information Consortium, the American Hospital
Association, the American Medical Association, the American Health
Information Management Association, IBM, Equifax, the Working Group on
Electronic Data Interchange, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the
American Civil Liberties Union, and the Department of Health and Human
Services for their tireless efforts in working to achieve a significant
consensus on this important component of health care reform.
With continuing support form the administration, health care
providers and privacy advocates we can enact provisions to protect the
privacy of the medical records of the American people in a reformed
health care treatment and payment system in which health care security
becomes a reality for all Americans.
______
By Mr. EXON:
S. 2132. A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
federal railroad safety authorization act of 1994
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Surface
Transportation Subcommittee, I am pleased and honored to introduce the
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1994 by the request of the Clinton
administration. My highest priority as a member and chairman of the
subcommittee has been safety.
This Monday, the Nation arose to news of an unfortunate accident in
North Carolina. As safe as rail transportation has become, this
incident reminds us all that more needs to be done. My thoughts and
prayers go out to the family of the engineer who lost his life and the
passengers and crew who were injured in the accident. The good people
of Smithfield, NC, the passengers and crew of the Silver Meteor showed
great courage, compassion, and composure in coping with a difficult
ordeal. I assure my colleagues and the passengers of the Silver Meteor
that this accident will be carefully investigated by the Surface
Transportation Subcommittee. If there is a gap in the Federal
regulatory structure, especially as it relates to securing cargo, it
will be closed.
Rail transportation remains by far one of the safest modes
of transportation. It is impossible to anticipate every possible
circumstance that confronts any mode of transportation. While every
accident is different, we can study each one to find ways to reduce
risk. In general, the railroads and State and Federal Government have
done a good job. The overall trend for rail accidents is down.
On occasion, the Congress has had to nudge the Federal Rail
Administration into action. I am pleased to report that the current
Rail Administrator needs very little encouragement. Jolene Molitoris
has revitalized the FRA and has brought a much-needed energy and
enthusiasm to the work of the agency. The seriousness in which the
Administrator has taken her responsibilities with regard to mandated
rulemakings is most appreciated.
The administration's bill is a basic reauthorization with authority
to conduct, with the cooperation of labor and management, a pilot
project on hours of service.
This legislation is a very good start. I will of course have some
ideas of my own to add to this bill. In addition to addressing any
issues which may arise from the Silver Meteor crash, I would like to
enhance this legislation with a meaningful grade crossing safety
initiative. I have discussed this matter with members of the Clinton
administration and applaud the Secretary of Transportation for his
ambitious review of grade crossing safety measures.
We need to take advantage of improved technologies to advance safety
where the rails meet the roads. States must be encouraged to close or
upgrade crossings, drivers and children need to be educated as to the
dangers of crossings and held responsible for violating the law at
crossings, and new priorities must be created to assure that the most
dangerous crossings receive immediate attention.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with all interested parties
to continue the good work which has been done in rail safety and to
make America's railroads even safer. I ask unanimous consent that this
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2132
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 ``Federal Railroad Safety
Authorization Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 214(a) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970
(45 U.S.C. 444(a)) is amended by striking the first sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act not to
exceed $68,289,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998.
SEC. 3. HOURS OF SERVICE PILOT PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Hours of Service Act (45 U.S.C. 61 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section;
``SEC. 7. HOURS OF SERVICE PILOT PROJECT.
``(a) A railroad or railroads, and all labor organizations
representing any directly affected covered service employees
of the railroad or railroads, may jointly petition the
Secretary of Transportation for approval of one or more pilot
projects to demonstrate the possible benefits of implementing
alternatives to the requirements of this Act, including, but
not limited to, those concerning maximum on-duty and minimum
off-duty periods. Based on such a joint petition, the
Secretary, after notice and opportunity for comment, may
waive, in whole or in part, compliance with this Act for a
period of no more than 2 years, if the Secretary determines
that such waiver of compliance is in the public interest and
is consistent with railroad safety. Any such waiver may,
based on a new petition, be extended for additional periods
of up to 2 years, after notice and opportunity for comment.
An explanation of any waiver granted under this section shall
be published in the Federal Register.
``(b) The Secretary shall submit to Congress no later than
June 1, 1996, a report that explains and analyzes the
effectiveness of any pilot projects approved under this
section.''
(b) Civil Penalty.--The first sentence of section 5(a)(1)
of the Hours of Service Act (45 U.S.C. 64a(a)(1) is amended
by inserting immediately before `` shall be liable'' the
following: ``or that violates any provision of a waiver
applicable to that person that has been granted under section
7 of this Act.''
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL RAILROAD SAFETY ACT OF
1970.
The first sentence of section 209(f) of the Federal
Railroad Safety act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 438(f)) is amended by
inserting ``any of the Federal railroad safety laws, as
defined in section 212(e) of this title (except for the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), or'' immediately
after ``individual's violation of''.
SEC. 5. BIENNIAL REPORTING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL
RAILROAD SAFETY ACT OF 1970.
(a) In General.--Section 211(a) of the Federal Railroad
Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 440(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``on or before July
1 of each year a comprehensive report on the administration
of this title for the preceding calendar year'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``every 2 years, on or before July 1 of the
year due, a comprehensive report on the administration of
this title for the preceding 2 calendar years'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``occurring in such
year'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``occurring during each
of the 2 preceding calendar years, by calendar year'';
(3) in paragraphs (2), (3), and (6), respectively, by
striking ``year'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``years'';
and
(4) in paragraphs (9) and (10), by striking ``during the
preceding calendar year'' each place it appears and inserting
in lieu thereof ``during the preceding 2 calendar years''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The section heading for section
211 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C.
440) is amended by striking ``ANNUAL REPORT'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``BIENNIAL REPORT''.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Metzenbaum, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Brown, Mr. DeConcini,
Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Bond, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lieberman, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Robb, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Nunn, and
Mr. Cochran):
S.J. Res. 192. A joint resolution to designate October 1994 as
``Crime Prevention Month''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
national crime prevention month
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure
that declares October 1994 to be National Crime Prevention Month. The
purpose of this bill is to encourage Americans to join in the fight
against crime.
We all know that too many Americans live their lives in fear. We know
of the tragic statistics that have caused us to question what kind of
society we have become. Day after day we are reminded of how crime--and
especially juvenile crime--has twisted the American dream.
Well, Mr. President, the time has come for us to stop lamenting this
fact and start taking bold steps to make our streets and neighborhoods
safe. And we need to encourage preventative measures that stop crime
before it happens.
Crime Prevention Month does this by celebrating community
partnerships and encouraging individuals, families and neighbors to
come together in the fight against crime. Last year, during Crime
Prevention Month, over 27 million Americans participated in crime
prevention activities, established community watch groups, and took
part in self-protection courses. Together, through involvement in these
kinds of activities, we can stop crime before it occurs.
____________________