[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2096-S2111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 491. A bill to enable America's schools to use their computer
hardware to increase student achievement and prepare students for the
21st century workplace; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
the ``education for the 21st century act''
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``E-21''--the
Education for the 21st Century Act.
The E-21 Act will help ensure that all middle school graduates attain
basic computer literacy skills that will prepare them for high school
and beyond, and ultimately, for the 21st Century workplace. The E-21
Act will also allow all school districts to obtain and utilize the
latest high-quality educational software, free of charge.
Mr. President, the first piece of legislation I introduced in the
Senate was to provide financial assistance to introduce computers into
schools, to help students learn and expand their horizons. That was in
1983. Back then, it was the exceptional school that even had a
computer. It was an unusual teacher or student who knew how to use one.
That legislation was enacted into law. Along with other resources, it
helped bring computers into our schools as part of everyday learning.
Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I got my start in the
computing business. Back then, computers filled large rooms and were so
expensive that only the largest corporations could afford their own
computing centers. Today, even more powerful computers sit on a desktop
in millions of homes, schools and businesses across the nation.
Mr. President, we've made great strides toward introducing computers
into schools, but too many of these computers are not being utilized to
their potential due to lack of updated computer training for teachers.
Mr. President, a recent study by the Educational Testing Service
confirmed that computers do increase student achievement and improve a
school's learning climate. However--and this is critical--the study
specified that to achieve those results, teachers must be appropriately
trained and use effective educational software programs. Otherwise,
these computers become mere furniture in a classroom.
To boost student achievement through computers and technology, my
``Education for the 21st Century Act'' will provide up to $30 million
per year to train a team of teachers from every middle school in the
nation in the most up-to-date computing technology. These Teacher
Technology leaders could then share their training with the rest of the
faculty in their schools, so all teachers are ready to pass these
skills on to their students.
Mr. President, the E-21 Act will also create national educational
software competitions, open to high school and college students, to
work in partnership with university faculty and professional software
developers. The best of these software packages would be available
free-of-charge over the Internet through the Department of Education's
web page.
Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that this
emphasis on computer training is not at the expense of the fundamental,
basic skills that underlie education: reading, writing and arithmetic.
It's still important to master these traditional basics. But we should
also add a ``new basic'' to the list--computer literacy. Americans will
need those skills to compete in the 21st Century.
Mr. President, this proposal is part of President Clinton's FY 2000
Budget, and as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and a member of
the Appropriations Committee, I will work to see that it is funded for
years to come.
Mr. President, as a businessman who got his start at the beginning of
the computing age, I am proud to see the way our nation has led the
world in computer technology. I want to make sure that we continue to
lead--through the second computer century--the 21st Century.
I therefore ask my colleagues to support ``E-21''--the Education for
the 21st Century Act.
Mr. 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:
S. 491
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 ``Education for the 21st
Century (e-21) Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to enable America's schools
to use their computer hardware to increase student
achievement and prepare students for the 21st century
workplace.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Establishing computer literacy for middle school
graduates will help ensure that students are receiving the
skills needed for advanced education and for securing
employment in the 21st century.
(2) Computer literacy skills, such as information
gathering, critical analysis and communication with the
latest technology, build upon the necessary basics of
reading, writing, mathematics, and other core subject areas.
(3) According to a study conducted by the Educational
Testing Service (ETS), eighth grade mathematics students
whose teachers used computers for simulations and
applications outperformed students whose teachers did not use
such educational technology.
(4) Although an ever increasing amount of schools are
obtaining the latest computer hardware, schools will not be
able to take advantage of the benefits of computer-based
learning unless teachers are effectively trained in the
latest educational software applications.
(5) The Educational Testing Service (ETS) study showed that
students whose teachers received training in computers
performed better than other students. The study also found
that schools that provide teachers with professional
development in computers enjoyed higher staff morale and
lower absenteeism rates.
(6) Some of the most exciting applications in educational
technology are being developed not only by commercial
software companies, but also by university faculty and
secondary school and college students. The fruit of this
academic talent should be channeled more effectively to
benefit our Nation's elementary and secondary schools.
SEC. 4. MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LITERACY CHALLENGE.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is
authorized to award grants to States that integrate into the
State curriculum the goal of making all middle school
graduates in the State technology literate.
(b) Uses.--Grants awarded under this section shall be used
for teacher training in technology, with an emphasis on
programs that prepare 1 or more teachers in each middle
school in the State to become technology leaders who then
serve as experts and train other teachers.
(c) Matching Funds.--Each State shall encourage schools
that receive assistance under this section to provide
matching funds, with respect to the cost of teacher training
in technology to be assisted under this section, in order to
enhance the impact of the teacher training and to help ensure
that all middle school graduates in the State are computer
literate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
SEC. 5. HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR ALL SCHOOLS.
(a) Competition Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is
authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to
secondary school and college students working with university
faculty, software developers, and experts in educational
technology for the development of high-quality educational
software and Internet web sites by such students, faculty,
developers, and experts.
(b) Recognition.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall recognize
outstanding educational software and Internet web sites
developed with assistance provided under this section.
(2) Certificates.--The President is requested to, and the
Secretary shall, issue an official certificate signed by the
President and Secretary, to each student and faculty member
who develops outstanding educational software or Internet web
sites recognized under this section.
[[Page S2097]]
(c) Focus.--The educational software or Internet web sites
that are recognized under this section shall focus on core
curriculum areas.
(d) Priority.--
(1) First year.--For the first year that the Secretary
awards grants under this section, the Secretary shall give
priority to awarding grants for the development of
educational software or Internet web sites in the areas of
mathematics, science, and reading.
(2) Second and third years.--For the second and third years
that the Secretary awards grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to awarding grants for the
development of educational software or Internet web sites in
the areas described in paragraph (1) and in social studies,
the humanities, and the arts.
(e) Judges.--The Secretary shall designate official judges
to recognize outstanding educational software or Internet web
sites assisted under this section.
(f) Downloading.--Educational software recognized under
this section shall be made available to local educational
agencies for free downloading from the Department of
Education's Internet web site. Internet web sites recognized
under this section shall be accessible to any user of the
World Wide Web.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb,
and Mr. Santorum):
S. 492. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to assist in
the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with a
number of my colleagues, a bill to continue and enhance the efforts to
clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are my
colleagues from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Senators
Mikulski, Warner, Robb, and Santorum.
Mr. President, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the
United States and the key to the ecological and economic health of the
mid-Atlantic region. The Bay, in fact, is one of the world's great
natural resources. We tend to take it for granted because it is right
here at hand, so to speak, and I know many Members of this body have
enjoyed the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay provides thousands of jobs for the
people in this region and is an important component in the national
economy. The Bay is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for
the region and for much of the eastern United States. It supports a
world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the
country's fin fish and shellfish catch. The Bay and its waters also
maintain an enormous tourism and recreation industry.
The Chesapeake Bay is a complex system. It draws its life-sustaining
waters from a watershed that covers more than 64,000 square miles and
parts of six states. The Bay's relationship to the people, industries,
and communities in those six states and beyond is also complex and
multifaceted.
I could continue talking about these aspects of the Bay, but my
fellow Senators are aware of the Bay's importance and have consistently
regarded the protection and enhancement of the quality of the
Chesapeake Bay as an important national objective.
Through the concerted efforts of public and private organizations, we
have learned to understand the complexities of the Bay and we have
learned what it takes to maintain the system that sustains us. The
Chesapeake Bay Program is an extraordinary example of how local, State,
regional, and Federal agencies can work with citizens and private
organizations to manage complicated, vital, natural resources. Indeed,
the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a model across the country and
around the world.
When the Bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in
water quality and living resources in the 1970s, the people in my state
suffered. We lost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. We lost
much of the wilderness that defined the watershed. We began to
appreciate for the first time the profound impact that human activity
could have on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. We began to recognize that
untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, agricultural runoff,
and increased development were causing a degradation of water quality,
the loss of wildlife, and elimination of vital habitat. We also began
to recognize that these negative impacts were only part of a cycle that
could eventually impact other economic and human health interests.
Fortunately, over the last two decades we have come to understand
that humans can also have a positive effect on the environment. We have
learned that we can, if we are committed, help repair natural systems
so that they continue to provide economic opportunities and enhance the
quality of life for future generations.
We now treat sewage before it enters our waters. We banned toxic
chemicals that were killing wildlife. We have initiated programs to
reduce nonpoint source pollution, and we have taken aggressive steps to
restore depleted fisheries.
The States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania deserve much of
the credit for undertaking many of the actions that have put the Bay
and its watershed on the road to recovery. All three States have had
major cleanup programs. They have made significant commitments in terms
of resources. It is an important priority item on the agendas of the
Bay States. Governors have been strongly committed, as have State
legislatures and the public. There are a number of private
organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do
extraordinary good work in this area.
But there has been invaluable involvement by the Federal Government
as well. The cooperation and attention of Federal agencies has been
essential. Without the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal ban on DDT,
and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of Chesapeake Bay restoration and
cleanup activities, we would not have been able to bring about the
concerted effort, the real partnership, that is succeeding improving
the water quality of the Bay and is succeeding in bringing back many of
the fish and wildlife species.
The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be
complacent. There are still tremendous stresses on the Bay. This is a
fast-growing area of the country, with an ever increasing population,
development, and continuous changes in land use.
We need to remain vigilant in continuing to address the needs of the
Bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment, at
all levels, which has brought gains over the last three decades, must
not be allowed to lapse or falter.
The measure I am introducing today reauthorizes the Bay program and
builds upon the Federal Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay
Program and the highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to
which I made reference. The bill also establishes simple agency
disclosure and budget coordination mechanisms to help ensure that
information about Federal Bay-related grants and projects are readily
available to the scientific community and the public.
As I mentioned before, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a model of
efficient and effective coordination. Still, there is always room for
improvement as experience informs and enlightens our judgments. While
coordination between the various levels of government has been
exemplary, coordination among Federal agencies can be strengthened.
This legislation begins to develop a better coordination mechanism to
help ensure that all Federal agency programs are accounted for.
In addition, this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency
to establish a ``Small Watershed Grants Program'' for the Chesapeake
Bay region. These grants will help organizations and local governments
launch a variety of locally-designed and locally-implemented projects
to restore relatively small pieces of the larger Chesapeake Bay
watershed. By empowering local agencies and community groups to
identify and solve local problems, this grant program will promote
stewardship across the region and improve the whole by strengthening
the parts.
This bill was carefully crafted with the advise, counsel, and
assistance of many hard working organizations in the Chesapeake Bay
region, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and various offices
within the state governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
[[Page S2098]]
Mr. President, it is the hope of the cosponsors that this bill will
ultimately be incorporated into a larger piece of legislation that is
due to be reauthorized or considered this year. However, if such
legislation is not considered or should become stalled in the
legislative process--the larger legislation covers a wide range of
issues--it is our intention to try to move forward with this
legislation separately.
The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has been a major bipartisan
undertaking in this body. It has consistently, over the years, been
strongly supported by virtually all members of the Senate. I strongly
urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this legislation and
contributing to the improvement and the enhancement of one of our
Nation's most valuable and treasued natural resources.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support of the bill
be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 492
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a
resource of worldwide significance;
(2) over many years, the productivity and water quality of
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed were diminished by
pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline erosion, the
impacts of population growth and development in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
(3) the Federal Government (acting through the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the
Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as
Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories, have committed to a
comprehensive cooperative program to achieve improved water
quality and improvements in the productivity of living
resources of the Bay;
(4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3)
serves as a national and international model for the
management of estuaries; and
(5) there is a need to expand Federal support for
monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the
Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to
meet and further the original and subsequent goals and
commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore
and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
(2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by
striking section 117 (33 U.S.C. 1267) and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost'
means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in
administering a grant under this section.
``(2) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(3) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
``(4) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
``(5) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
``(6) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory
jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the
Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Program office.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the
Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall
provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research,
modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and
other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
``(ii) developing and making available, through
publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate
means, information pertaining to the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local authorities, assisting the signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities in developing strategies to--
``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of
the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(v) implementing outreach programs for public
information, education, and participation to foster
stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry
out this section.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical
assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit
organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies to carry out this
section, subject to such terms and conditions as the
Administrator considers appropriate.
``(2) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in
accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of
an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out
an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not
exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by
the Administrator.
``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under
paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project
costs, as determined by the Administrator.
``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved
and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects
of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief
executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator--
``(A) shall make a grant to the jurisdiction for the
purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established
under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate;
``(B) may make a grant to a signatory jurisdiction for the
purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Proposals.--
``(A) In general.--A signatory jurisdiction described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(B) Contents.--A proposal under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) a description of proposed management mechanisms that
the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time
period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed or meeting applicable water
quality standards or established goals and objectives under
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(ii) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be
taken during the fiscal year.
``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the
proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the national goals established under section 101(a), the
Administrator may approve the proposal for an award.
``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an
implementation grant under this subsection shall not exceed
50 percent of the cost of implementing the management
mechanisms during the fiscal year.
``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under
this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of
implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal
year.
``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(7) Reporting.--On or before October 1 of each fiscal
year, the Administrator shall make available to the public a
document that lists and describes, in the greatest
practicable degree of detail--
[[Page S2099]]
``(A) all projects and activities funded for the fiscal
year;
``(B) the goals and objectives of projects funded for the
previous fiscal year; and
``(C) the net benefits of projects funded for previous
fiscal years.
``(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal
agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the
Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall
participate in regional and subwatershed planning and
restoration programs.
``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal
agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions
taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies Chesapeake
Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any subsequent agreements and
plans.
``(3) Budget coordination.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the annual budget submission
of each Federal agency with projects or grants related to
restoration, planning, monitoring, or scientific
investigation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the head of
the agency shall submit to the President a report that
describes plans for the expenditure of the funds under this
section.
``(B) Disclosure to the council.--The head of each agency
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall disclose the report
under that subparagraph with the Chesapeake Executive Council
as appropriate.
``(g) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in
coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and
implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to achieve and maintain--
``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed;
``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and
Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input
of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on
human health;
``(D) habitat restoration, protection, and enhancement
goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for
wetlands, riparian forests, and other types of habitat
associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(E) the restoration, protection, and enhancement goals
established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for
living resources associated with the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem.
``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator,
in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall--
``(A) establish a small watershed grants program as part of
the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
``(B) offer technical assistance and assistance grants
under subsection (d) to local governments and nonprofit
organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to
implement--
``(i) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address
the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem; and
``(ii) locally based protection and restoration programs or
projects within a watershed that complement the tributary
basin strategies.
``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than April 22, 2000, and every
5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in coordination with
the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and
submit to Congress a comprehensive report on the results of
the study.
``(2) Requirements.--The study and report shall--
``(A) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(B) assess the appropriateness of commitments and goals
of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the management strategies
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement for improving
the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) assess the effectiveness of management strategies
being implemented on the date of enactment of this section
and the extent to which the priority needs are being met;
``(D) make recommendations for the improved management of
the Chesapeake Bay Program either by strengthening strategies
being implemented on the date of enactment of this section or
by adopting new strategies; and
``(E) be presented in such a format as to be readily
transferable to and usable by other watershed restoration
programs.
``(i) Special Study of Living Resource Response.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
commence a 5-year special study with full participation of
the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay to establish
and expand understanding of the response of the living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to improvements in
water quality that have resulted from investments made
through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
``(A) determine the current status and trends of living
resources, including grasses, benthos, phytoplankton,
zooplankton, fish, and shellfish;
``(B) establish to the extent practicable the rates of
recovery of the living resources in response to improved
water quality condition;
``(C) evaluate and assess interactions of species, with
particular attention to the impact of changes within and
among trophic levels; and
``(D) recommend management actions to optimize the return
of a healthy and balanced ecosystem in response to
improvements in the quality and character of the waters of
the Chesapeake Bay.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.''.
____
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999--Sectional Summary
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This section establishes the title of the bill as the
``Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999.''
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
This section states that the purpose of the Act is to
expand and strengthen the cooperative efforts to restore and
protect the Chesapeake Bay and to achieve the goals embodied
in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
SECTION 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY
(a) Definitions
This section defines the terms ``Administrative Cost,''
``Chesapeake Bay Agreement,'' ``Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem,''
``Chesapeake Bay Program,'' ``Chesapeake Executive Council,''
and ``Signatory Jurisdiction.''
(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program
This section provides authority for EPA to continue to lead
and coordinate the Chesapeake Bay Program, in coordination
with other members of the Chesapeake Executive Council, and
to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is required to provide
support to the Chesapeake Executive Council for implementing
and coordinating science, research, modeling, monitoring and
other efforts that support the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The section requires the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, in
cooperation with Federal, State and local authorities, to
assist Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories in developing
specific action plans, outreach efforts and system-wide
monitoring, assessment and public participation to improve
the water quality and living resources of the Bay.
(c) Interagency Agreements
This section authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to
enter into interagency agreements with other Federal agencies
to carry out the purposes and activities of the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office.
(d) Technical Assistance And Assistance Grants
This section authorizes the EPA Administrator to provide
technical assistance and assistance grants to nonprofit
private organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies.
(e) Implementation And Monitoring Grants
The section authorizes the EPA to issue grants to signatory
jurisdictions for the purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem.
The section establishes criteria for proposals and
establishes limits on administrative costs (no more than 10%
of grant amount) and the allowable ``Federal Share'' (no more
than 50% of total project cost).
The EPA Administrator is required to produce a public
document each year that describes all projects funded under
this section.
(f) Federal Facilities And Budget Coordination
The Section requires Federal agencies that own or operate a
facility within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to participate
in regional and subwatershed planning and restoration
programs, and to ensure that federally owned facilities are
in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The section establishes a mechanism for budget coordination
to ensure efficiency across government programs.
(f) Chesapeake Bay Program
This section directs the Administrator, in consultation
with other members of the Executive Council, to ensure that
management plans are developed and implementation is begun by
signatory jurisdictions to achieve and maintain: the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals for reducing and capping
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem Bay; water
quality requirements needed to restore living resources in
the bay mainstem and tributaries; the Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxins Reduction and Prevention Strategy goals; and
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement habitat restoration, protection,
and enhancement goals are achieved.
This section also authorizes the EPA Administrator, in
consultation with other members of the Executive Council, to
offer the technical assistance and financial grants
[[Page S2100]]
assistance grants to local governments, nonprofit
organizations, colleges, and universities to implement
locally-based watershed protection and restoration programs
or projects that complement the Chesapeake Bay tributary
basin strategy.
(h) Study Of The Chesapeake Bay Program
This section requires the Administrator and other members
of the executive Council to study and evaluate the
effectiveness the Chesapeake Bay program management
strategies and to periodically (every 5 years) submit a
comprehensive report to Congress.
(i) Special Study Of Living Resources Response
The section requires the EPA Administrator to conduct a
five-year study of the Chesapeake Bay and report to Congress
on the status of its living resources and to make
recommendations on management actions that may be necessary
to ensure the continued recovery of the Chesapeake Bay and
its ecosystem.
(j) Authorization Of Appropriations
The section authorizes appropriations to the Environmental
Protection Agency of $30,000,000 for each fiscal year from
2000 through and including 2005.
____
State of Maryland,
Office of the Governor,
February 23, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Paul: Thank you for your continuing to support
environmental initiatives that benefit Maryland citizens. You
have long been a champion of our great Chesapeake Bay, and an
outstanding advocate for the protection and restoration of
all our State's natural treasures. Your current proposed
legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to assist in restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is just
another example of how you have been able to translate your
concern into action. The work you have facilitated through
the Chesapeake Bay Program has been an outstanding example of
interstate cooperation and progressive environmental programs
that have been invaluable to Maryland and Bay restoration.
If we are to be successful in the next century, we must
look ahead and be ready to face new challenges as well as
continue to meet the old ones. Your proposed legislation
embodies that vision and therefore has my full support. Its
content demonstrates your understanding of the needs of
Maryland and the other states in the watershed. It also
recognizes the critical role played by local governments and
citizen groups. The legislation clearly moves the Bay cleanup
in the direction needed. In addition to my personal support,
the bill has been reviewed by the Maryland Bay Cabinet and
received its endorsement as well. We are all eager to see the
legislation move forward and would be happy to assist you.
Thank you again for taking this initiative. Should you
require our assistance, you may contact John Griffin,
Secretary, Department of Natural Resources at (410) 260-8101.
Sincerely,
Parris N. Glendening,
Governor.
____
Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Governor,
February 23, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Commonwealth of Virginia
supports the language of the proposed Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act, as shown in the attached copy dated February
8, 1999.
The cooperative Chesapeake Bay Program has been and will
continue to be essential to the restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay system. Reauthorization will strengthen an already
successful Program and help support an increased level of
effort.
The proposed increase in Federal support is already more
than matched by state monies put into the recently created
Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund. Since its creation
in 1997 the Virginia General Assembly approves Governor
Gilmore's current legislative initiative, it will appropriate
an additional $45.15 million for 1999.
We thank you for being the sponsor of this bill, and we
will assist in whatever way is appropriate to help ensure its
passage by Congress.
Very truly yours,
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
____
Citizens Advisory Committee to
the Chesapeake Executive Council,
February 22, 1999.
Senator Paul Sarbanes,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Citizens Advisory
Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council (CAC), I would
like to express our appreciation for your leadership in
developing the draft Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act.
Provisions such as those embodied in this proposed
legislation are vital to building upon one of the most
successful partnerships ever assembled, involving every level
of government and the private sector, to restore the health
of an entire ecosystem.
The Citizens Advisory Committee was created by the
Chesapeake Executive Council to represent residents and
stakeholders of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the Bay
restoration efforts. By serving as a link with stakeholder
communities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the
District of Columbia, CAC provides a non-governmental
perspective on the Bay cleanup effort and on how Bay Program
policies affect citizens who live and work in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
The successes of the past twelve years in restoring the
health of the Bay are a direct result of hard work, funding,
and the dedicated commitment of the partners. Each and every
one of these factors is essential to continue fulfilling the
long-term restoration goals, particularly as the Bay Program
partners embrace a renewed Bay agreement in the next year.
Reauthorization and enhancement of Bay Program legislation
will signal to the states, local governments and citizens
that the Congress and the federal government will continue to
be a strong partner with them as they renew their commitment
to these goals and to a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay. I
am particularly encouraged by the provisions to continue the
Small Watershed Grant program which provides a mechanism for
local groups and governments to take an active, hands-on role
in the Bay restoration activities.
The members of CAC look forward to working with you and the
other members of Congressional delegations from the Bay
Program jurisdictions toward successful passage of this
legislation. Again, thank you for your leadership. Please
feel free to call upon CAC if there is any assistance that we
can provide.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Loftus,
Chair.
____
Chesapeake Bay Commission,
Annapolis, MD, February 19, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing, in my new capacity as
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to commend you for
your endeavors to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program
through the introduction of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 1999. The Commission strongly supports this
legislation. We commit to you our resources and expertise in
working to secure its passage.
We believe that the cooperation of government at the
federal, state and local level is, and will continue to be,
essential to protecting and restoring the Bay. Your bill
helps to establish the blueprint and financial support for
that collaboration.
We strongly support the small watershed provisions of the
bill. The health of the Bay depends on the cumulative effect
of thousands of daily decisions that either compromise or
improve water quality in our subwatersheds. Offering
community groups financial support and direct access to the
tremendous informational resources of the Chesapeake Bay
Program can only help them to make environmentally-sound
decisions.
We would also like to commend you for pursuing improved
coordination of federal agency budgets. One of the great
hallmarks of the Program is EPA's close coordination with the
states in its expenditure of Bay Program monies. The Act
calls for each federal agency with projects related to the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to submit a plan detailing how the
expenditure of these funds will proceed. This enhanced
communication can only help to avoid unnecessary duplication
and cultivate cooperation among our federal partners.
Finally, we are encouraged by your inclusion of a special
study to better relate the health of our living resources to
water quality improvements. Establishing better linkages will
improve the public's support of restoration efforts.
Again and again you have proven yourself to be a tremendous
leader for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. We hope
that this legislation, with your support, will be enacted by
the 106th Congress.
With gratitude, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Arthur D. Hershey,
Chairman.
____
Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee,
Easton, MD, February 17, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Chesapeake Bay Local Government
Advisory Committee supports all efforts to sustain and
enhance Chesapeake Bay Program activities through renewal of
Federal legislation in the ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act
of 1999.''
To date, the Chesapeake Bay Program has made great strides
in solidifying multijurisdictional efforts to improve the
condition of watershed resources in and around the Bay. It
has magnified the importance of continued efforts to enhance
water quality and to restore the living resources native to
the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program has elevated the role and
importance of local governments participating not only in the
Bay Program, but in completing watershed restoration projects
in their own jurisdiction.
On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee, I thank you for your continuing leadership and
commitment to the Bay Restoration effort. If there is any way
that the Committee or its staff can assist you, please don't
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Russ Pettyjohn,
Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee.
[[Page S2101]]
Lititz Borough,
Mayor, Pennsylvania.
____
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
February 25, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the board of directors
of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, I am writing to you
to express our support for your efforts to draft new
legislation to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Your leadership has been vital over the years in keeping
congressional attention focused on the work being conducted
in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania to restore the Bay.
There is ample evidence that the unique collaborative effort
which was formalized in the 1987 amendment to the Clean Water
Act is producing positive results for the Bay. It is also
apparent that there is much left to do. The bill you have
drafted adds some significant features to the Bay Program;
the increase in the authorization level to $30 million will
substantially enhance the ability of the Bay partners to meet
the needs of the Bay in the next decade.
We are conveying our support for the reauthorization of the
Bay Program to other members of Congress from the Bay states
in the hope that all will join as co-sponsors.
Again, thank you for your vigilance and your vision with
regard to the Bay.
Sincerely,
John T. Kauffman,
President.
____
Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
March 3, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to express the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation's support for the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act of 1999. Although I realize that no single
piece of legislation can save the Chesapeake Bay, I believe
this bill will help push the Bay Program towards an increased
effort to carrying out the commitments made by the
signatories.
I am particularly glad to see the section enhancing the
oversight and reporting responsibilities of the Environmental
Protection Agency. CBF has long felt that it is important for
the Environmental Protection Agency to take a stronger
leadership role in assuring that the participants are held
accountable for their commitments.
I am also enthusiastic about the provisions providing for a
small watershed grant program. Restoration of the Bay's
essential habitat--its forests, wetlands, oysters, and
underwater grass beds--is a critical component of the effort
to save the Bay, and this legislation should help move that
effort forward.
In summary, this legislation provides a step forward for
the Bay Program, and will help steer it in the right
direction. I would like to thank you and your cosponsors for
your efforts on behalf of this legislation and on behalf of
the Chesapeake Bay.
Very truly yours,
William C. Baker,
President.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Edwards):
S. 493. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, to evaluate, develop, and implement pilot
projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to address problems
associated with toxic microorganisms in tidal and non-tidal wetlands
and waters; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
TOXIC MICROORGANISMS ABATEMENT PILOT PROJECT ACT
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last Thursday's Baltimore Sun reported
that Pfiesteria, a sometimes toxic microorganism, has been found in
five more Maryland rivers. The article explained that new research is
proving what scientists have suspected since serious outbreaks of toxic
Pfiesteria first occurred in 1997--namely that Pfiesteria exists in a
wide area. While the organism isn't always toxic, the fact that it has
been found in a wide area coupled with the fact that it has proved
injurious in the past, strongly supports the assertion that Pfiesteria
poses a potential threat to the economic well-being of thousands of
businesses in the fishing, recreation, and tourism industries along the
east coast.
In 1997, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina suffered from several
separate incidents that involved fish behaving in an erratic manner, a
large number of fish with lesions, and fish kills. State and outside
scientists concluded that Pfiesteria was the most likely cause of the
problem. In Maryland, the fishing industry alone, lost millions of
dollars in revenue.
In 1998, the magnitude of reported Pfiesteria outbreaks was
considerably less, however, we cannot become complacent. The report in
the Baltimore Sun confirms that the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreaks may not
have been a one-time phenomenon. We must begin to safeguard the
economy, both regional and national, from the impacts of Pfiesteria.
Today, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski,
and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards in introducing a
bill, entitled the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act,
which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to begin developing
tools and techniques to abate the flow of nutrients into our waters and
thereby prevent or at least minimize the effects of future toxic
Pfiesteria outbreaks.
In 1997, the Administration directed that an interagency research and
monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of
Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Several Federal agencies participated
in the development of this strategy including the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control, and the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding to implement the plan
was included in the fiscal 1998 and 1999 budgets. Unfortunately, the
key federal agency with expertise in habitat maintenance, water
resources and engineering principles--the Army Corps of Engineers--was
not included in the interagency task force and the agency's unique
qualifications were not integrated into the strategic plan. While
research into the exact causes of toxic Pfiesteria blooms is
imperative, it is just as important that we take early, aggressive, and
concrete steps to prevent such blooms if we can.
This bill is designed to ensure that all available expertise is
brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation would
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an evaluation and to
engage in pilot projects to develop tools and techniques for combating
Pfiesteria and other toxic microorganisms. At the end of each pilot
project, the Army Corps of Engineers will be required to submit a
report to Congress that describes the project, its success, and the
general applicability of the methods used in the project.
Because of its expertise in construction and watershed management,
the Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to
the threats posed by toxic microorganisms. This legislation provides
the funding and authority for the agency to do so.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the
Baltimore Sun article be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 493
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 ``Toxic Microorganism
Abatement Pilot Project Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) effective protection of tidal and nontidal wetlands and
waters of the United States is essential to sustain and
protect ecosystems, as well as recreational, subsistence, and
economic activities dependent on those ecosystems;
(2) the effects of increasing occurrences of toxic
microorganism outbreaks can adversely affect those ecosystems
and their dependent activities;
(3) the Corps of Engineers is uniquely qualified to develop
and implement engineering solutions to abate the flow of
nutrients;
(4) because nutrient flow abatement is a new challenge, it
is desirable to have the Corps of Engineers conduct a series
of pilot projects to test technologies and refine techniques
appropriate to nutrient flow abatement; and
(5) since the States of Maryland, North Carolina, and
Virginia have recently experienced serious outbreaks of
waterborne microorganisms and there is a large store of
scientific data about outbreaks in those States, pilot
projects in those States can be effectively evaluated.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means Maryland, North
Carolina, and Virginia.
(3) Toxic microorganism.--The term ``toxic microorganism''
means Pfiesteria piscicida and any other potentially harmful
aquatic dinoflagellate.
SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC HABITAT REMEDIATION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the
[[Page S2102]]
Secretary shall evaluate, develop, and implement a pilot
project in each State (on a watershed basis) to address and
control problems associated with the degradation of
ecosystems and their dependent activities resulting from
toxic microorganisms in tidal and nontidal wetlands and
waters.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the completion of
the pilot project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report describing--
(1) the pilot project; and
(2) the findings of the pilot project, including a
description of the relationship between the findings and the
applications of the tools and techniques developed under the
pilot project.
(c) Federal and Non-Federal Shares.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project
under subsection (a) shall be 75 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project
under subsection (a) shall be provided in the form of--
(A) cash;
(B) in-kind services;
(C) materials; or
(D) the value of--
(i) land;
(ii) easements;
(iii) rights-of-way; or
(iv) relocations.
(d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--Subject to subsection
(c), in carrying out this section, the Secretary shall enter
into local cooperation agreements with non-Federal entities
under which the Secretary shall provide financial assistance
to implement actions taken to carry out pilot projects under
this section.
(e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section in cooperation with--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(4) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration;
(5) the heads of other appropriate Federal, State, and
local government agencies; and
(6) affected local landowners, businesses, and commercial
entities.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
____
[From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 25, 1999]
Pfiesteria Found in 5 Md. Rivers--Presence Widespread in Rivers,
Streams But Not Always Harmful
no ``one-time phenomenon''
toxic microorganism detected for first time in Ocean City area
(By Heather Dewar)
New research is proving what scientists long suspected:
that the toxic microorganism Pfiesteria piscicida lives in
many Maryland rivers and streams, even though it doesn't
always kill fish or make people sick.
Pfiesteria expert Dr. JoAnn Burkholder has found the
dangerous dinoflagellates in samples taken from the bottom
muck of five Maryland waterways, including two where it had
not been found before. One of those waterways, the St. Martin
River, flows into the state's coastal bays west of Ocean
City.
It was the first time the toxic microorganism had turned up
in a river that flows toward the Atlantic Coast tourist
mecca, though it has not caused any known fish kills or human
illnesses there, said David Goshorn of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.
``We have suspected all along that Pfiesteria is pretty
widespread,'' Goshorn said, ``and what she has done is to
confirm our suspicion.''
A spokesman for the Maryland Coastal Bays Program said the
finding of Pfiesteria cells in local waters was ``not
surprising, but it is worrisome at the very least.''
``My guess is that Pfiesteria being there, as long as it
isn't toxic in the real world, is not that harmful,'' said
Dave Wilson Jr., a spokesman for the coastal bays
conservation effort. ``Hopefully, people will understand that
Pfiesteria is not running rampant in the coastal bays, but it
does have the potential to do so.''
The aquatic organism has been found in coastal waters from
New Jersey to Georgia, but it causes fish kills or human
illnesses only when conditions are just right or just wrong,
Burkholder said.
Pfiesteria ``is probably all over the bay,'' said
Burkholder, who presented preliminary findings to Maryland
officials at a two-day scientific meeting of Pfiesteria
experts near Baltimore-Washington International Airport
yesterday. ``It's just that most of the time it's going to be
pretty benign.''
weather as a factor
Experts say Pfiesteria seems most likely to multiply,
attack fish and sicken people in warm, shallow, still waters
that are a mix of fresh and salt, are rich in nutrients--like
the pollutants that come from human sewage, animal manure or
farm fertilizer--and also rich in fish, especially oily fish
like menhaden. Weather also plays a role, but scientists
aren't certain what it is.
Maryland experts think unusual weather patterns, combined
with high nutrient levels, helped trigger significant
Pfiesteria outbreaks in the Pocomoke River and two other
Eastern Shore waterways in 1997. The three waterways were
closed, and 13 people were diagnosed with memory loss and
confusion after being on the water during the outbreaks.
Researchers think a different set of weather quirks helped
limit Pfiesteria to three small incidents last year, none of
which killed fish or caused confirmed cases of human illness.
A spokesman for Gov. Parris N. Glendening, who pushed for
controversial controls on farm runoff after the 1997
incidents, said Burkholder's latest findings show that action
was justified.
``What they point to is that this is not a one-time
phenomenon,'' said Ray Feldmann of the governor's office.
``We cannot take a bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approach to the
phenomenon we saw in the summer of 1997. We still need to be
concerned about this.
``We're encouraged that we've got a plan in place that has
the potential for helping to hold off future outbreaks.''
Burkholder, a North Carolina State University researcher
who helped discover Pfiesteria in the late 1980s, said
Maryland waters do not seem to be as prone to toxic outbreaks
as the waters of North Carolina, which has experienced 88
Pfresteria-related fish kills in the past eight years.
The latest finding ``tells me that Chesapeake Bay is not
ideal for toxic Pfiesteria, but you have the potential to go
a lot more toxic unless you take appropriate precautions,''
Burkholder said. ``Do you want to be a center for toxic
outbreaks, or do you not?''
The preliminary results are part of a study for the DNR,
which is trying to map the extent of Pfiesteria in Maryland
waters.
In October and November, when the dinoflagellate is usually
burrowed into bottom mud, DNR workers took 100 sediment
samples from 12 rivers. They were the Patuxent and Potomac on
the Western Shore; the Chester, Choptank, Chicamacomico,
Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manokin, Big Annemessex and Pocomoke,
all flowing into the Chesapeake Bay on the Eastern Shore; and
the St. Martin, which flows into Assawoman Bay near Ocean
City, and Trappe Creek, which enters Chincoteague Bay near
Assateague Island National Seashore.
In the first 30 samples, Burkholder found Pfiesteria
piscicida in concentrations high enough to kill fish in the
Big Annemessex, Chicamacomico, Pocomoke, and St. Martin. She
found the same organism on the Wicomico, but the cells did
not kill fish in her laboratory. In Trappe Creek, she found a
dinoflagellate that did not kill fish and has not been
identified.
Burkholder and other experts stressed that there have been
no recent fish kills or signs that people have gotten sick at
the sites where DNR workers took the Pfiesteria-infested
samples in October and November.
The Patuxent, Potomac, Chester and Choptank turned up no
traces of Pfiesteria, but Burkholder said she has about 70
more sediment samples waiting to be analyzed, and expects to
find signs of the microorganism in at least some of them.
rhode river discovery
Another marine scientist discovered Pfiesteria almost by
accident in the Rhode River south of Annapolis this fall.
Park Roblee of the University of North Carolina has
developed a test that can spot Pfiesteria in the water, but
he cannot tell whether the organism is in its toxic stage. He
told scientists at this week's meeting that he got samples
from the Rhode River expecting them to be Pfiesteria-free but
to his surprise they came up positive. Again, there were no
signs of a fish kill in the area.
Roblee said workers from his laboratory traveled the coast
from New Jersey to Florida, taking water samples ``basically
wherever I-95 crossed a river or stream that flowed into an
estuary.'' The samples showed signs of Pfiesteria at eight
out of 100 sites, he said.
In other findings reported yesterday, University of
Maryland researcher David Oldach said no signs of serious
illness were found in 1998, the first year of a five-year
study of people who might come in contact with Pfiesteria.
Oldach said 90 Eastern Shore watermen and 25 people who don't
work near the water have volunteered for the study and
undergone testing.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Roth, Mr. Moynihan,
Mr. Chafee, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Mack, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Kerrey,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Robb):
S. 494. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
prohibit transfers or discharges of residents of nursing facilities as
a result of a voluntary withdrawal from participation in the Medicaid
program; to the Committee on Finance.
nursing home resident protection amendments of 1999
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend Senator Grassley, Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their
bipartisan commitment to protect our nation's seniors from
indiscriminate dumping by their nursing homes. I would like to request
that their statements be added to the Record.
The Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 has the support of
the
[[Page S2103]]
nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with their
support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this important
piece of legislation. I also have letters of support from the American
Health Care Association, the National Seniors Law Center, and the
American Association for Retired Persons which I will include in the
Record.
Mr. President, last year, it looked like 93-year-old Adela Mongiovi
might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living
facility that she had called home for the last four years. Her son
Nelson and daughter-in-law Geri feared that they would have to move
Adela when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of
Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would
have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete
``renovations.''
As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their
mother in Tampa last April, the real story far exceeded their worst
fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent
eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by
the Medicaid program. Ms. Mongiovi passed away during the holiday
season and I send my heartfelt condolences to her family.
The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several
others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of
Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers
and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident.
This may have been a good financial decision in the short run,
however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a
widespread basis, would be even more disastrous.
In an April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal article, several nursing
home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame
for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursements too
low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised,
playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way
to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a
discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, my
colleagues and I are not willing to allow nursing home facilities to
dump patients indiscriminately.
The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice
elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What
is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions.
The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in
the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law
allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay.
If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, state and
federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected
residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously
dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay.
Nursing home evictions have a devastating effect on the health and
well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent
University of Southern California study indicated that those who are
uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon knows as ``transfer
trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate
among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for
individuals who receive continuous care.
Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents
are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans need to
think again. A three year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of
$125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who
enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and
lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many
retirees' last refuge of financial support.
On April 19, 1998, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence
of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep $260,000 fine against
the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but
it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared
responsibility of states and the federal government.
While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid
dumping is not just a Florida problem. Nursing homes which were once
locally-run and family-owned are increasingly administered by multi-
state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect
seniors across the United States.
Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of
nursing homes in America treat residents well and are responsible
community citizens. Our bill is simple and fair and designed to prevent
future abuses by bad actors. It would prohibit current Medicaid
beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being
evicted from their homes.
Adele Mongiovi was not just a ``beneficiary.'' She was also a mother
and grandmother. To Ms. Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care
Center of Tampa was not just an ``assisted living facility''--it was
her home.
Mr. President, let us provide security and peace of mind for all of
our nation's seniors and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Health Care Association,
Washington, DC, February 3, 1999.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to lend the support of
the American Health Care Association to the Nursing Home
Protection Amendments of 1999, which you introduced as S.
2308 last year and plan to reintroduce this year. This
legislation helps to ensure a secure environment for
residents of nursing facilities which withdraw from the
Medicaid program.
We know firsthand that a nursing facility is one's home,
and we strive to make sure resident are healthy and secure in
their home. We strongly support the clarifications your bill
will provide to both current and future nursing facility
residents, and do not believe residents should be discharged
because of inadequacies in the Medicaid program.
The bill addresses a troubling symptom of what could be a
much larger problem. The desire to end participation in the
Medicaid program is a result of the unwillingness of some
states to adequately fund the quality of care that residents
expect and deserve. Thus, some providers may opt out of the
program to maintain a higher level of quality than is
possible when relying on inadequate Medicaid rates. Nursing
home residents should not be the victims of the inadequacies
of their state's Medicaid program.
In 1996, the Congress voted to retain all standards for
nursing facilities. We support those standards. In 1997,
Congress voted separately to eliminate requirements that
states pay for those standards. These two issues are
inextricably linked, and must be considered together. We
welcome the opportunity to have this debate as Congress moves
forward on this issue.
Again, we appreciate the chance to work with you to provide
our residents with quality care in a home-like setting that
is safe and secure. We also feel that it would be most
effective when considered in the context of the relationship
between payment and quality and access to care.
Finally, we greatly appreciate the inclusive manner in
which this legislation was crafted, and strengthened. When
the views of consumers, providers, and regulators are
considered together, the result, as with your bill, is
intelligent public policy.
We look forward to working with you to further clarify
Medicaid policy and preserve our ability to provide the best
care and security for our residents.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce Yarwood,
Legislative Counsel.
____
National Senior Citizens
Law Center,
Washington, DC, February 3, 1999.
Senator Bob Graham,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: Last spring, the Vencor Corporation
began to implement a policy of withdrawing its nursing
facilities from participation in the Medicaid program. The
abrupt, involuntary transfer of large numbers of Medicaid
residents followed. Although Vencor reversed its policy, in
light of Congressional concern, state agency action, and
adverse publicity, the situation highlighted an issue in need
of an explicit federal legislative solution--the rights of
Medicaid residents to remain in their home when their nursing
facility voluntarily ceases to participate in the federal
payment program.
I supported the legislation you introduced in the last
Congress and have read the draft bill that you will introduce
to address this issue in this session. The bill protects
residents who were admitted at a time when their facility
participated in Medicaid by prohibiting the facility from
involuntarily transferring them later when it decides to
discontinue its participation. As you know, many people in
nursing facilities begin their residency paying privately for
their care and
[[Page S2104]]
choose the facility in part because of promises that they can
stay when they exhaust their private funds and become
eligible for Medicaid. In essence, your bill requires the
facility to honor the promises it made to these residents at
the time of their admission. It continues to allow facilities
to withdraw from the Medicaid program, but any withdrawal is
prospective only. All current residents may remain in their
home.
This bill gives peace of mind to older people and their
families by affirming that their Medicaid-participating
facility cannot abandon them if it later voluntarily chooses
to end its participation in Medicaid.
The National Senior Citizens Law Center supports this
legislation. We look forward to working with your staff on
this legislation and on other bills to protect the rights and
interests of nursing facility residents and other older
people. In particular, we suggest that you consider
legislation addressing a related issue of concern to Medicaid
beneficiaries and their families--problems of nursing
facilities' discriminatory admissions practices.
Many facilities limit the extent of their participation in
the Medicaid program by certifying only a small number of
beds for Medicaid. As a consequence of their limited
participation in the Medicaid program, they discriminate
against program beneficiaries by denying them admission. In
addition, residents who pay privately and become eligible for
Medicaid during their residency in the facility because of
the high cost of nursing facility care are also affected by
limited bed, or distinct part, certification. Once such
residents become impoverished and need to rely on Medicaid to
help pay for their care, they are often told that ``no
Medicaid beds are available'' and that they must move.
Facilities engage in other practices that discriminate
against people who need to rely on Medicaid for their care.
We would be happy to work with your staff in developing
legislative solutions to these concerns.
Thank you for your work and leadership on these important
issues.
Sincerely,
Toby S. Edelman.
____
AARP
Washington, DC, February 25, 1999.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Graham: AARP appreciates your leadership in
sponsoring the Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999,
a bill that protects low-income nursing home residents from
discharge when a nursing home withdraws from the Medicaid
program.
Across the country, some nursing home operators have been
accused of dumping Medicaid residents--among the most
defenseless of all health care patients. As with similar
complaints about hospitals and physicians, these violations
can be serious threats to people's health and safety. Yet,
federal and state governments have been limited to their
oversight and enforcement capacities. This bill would
establish clear legal authority to prevent inappropriate
discharges, even when a nursing home withdraws from the
Medicaid program. AARP believes that this is an important and
necessary step in protecting access to nursing homes for our
nation's most vulnerable citizens.
This bill offers important protections because of the
documented that Medicaid patients face, especially people
seeking nursing home care. For years, there has been strong
evidence demonstrating that people who are eligible for
Medicaid have a harder time gaining entry to a nursing home
than do private payers. In some parts of the country, there
is a shortage of nursing home beds. Under such circumstances,
only private-pay patients have real choice among nursing
homes. Medicaid patients are often forced to choose a home
that they would not have otherwise chosen, despite concerns
about its quality of care or location.
Under the proposed legislation, government survey,
certification, and enforcement authority would continue, even
after the facility withdraws from the Medicaid program, and
the facility would be required to continue to comply with it.
The bill also protects prospective residents by requiring
oral and written notice that the nursing home has withdrawn
from the Medicaid program. Thus, the prospective nursing home
resident would be given notice that the home would be
permitted to transfer or discharge a new resident at such
time as the resident is unable to pay for care.
Access to quality nursing homes has been a long-standing
and serious concern for AARP. It is an issue that affects, in
a real way, our members and their families. The current
patchwork system of long-term care forces many Americans to
spend down to pay for expensive nursing home care. Therefore,
it is unfair to penalize such order, frail nursing home
residents who must rely on Medicaid at a critical time in
their lives.
Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. If we
can be of further assistance, please give me a call or have
your staff contact Maryanne Keenan of our Federal Affairs
staff at (202) 434-3772.
Sincerely,
Horace B. Deets.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators
Graham, Roth, and Moynihan in introducing legislation that will be an
important step in safeguarding our most vulnerable citizens. The
Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 will protect nursing home
residents who are covered by Medicaid from being thrown out of a
facility to make room for a more lucrative, private-pay patient.
It is hard to believe that a facility would uproot a frail individual
for the sole purpose of a few extra dollars. However, in the past year
there have been documented cases of Medicaid beneficiaries who have
been at risk of being forced to leave a facility based solely on
reimbursement status. The result is often severe trauma and a mortality
rate that is two to three times higher than other nursing home
residents. This is no way to treat our elderly.
I want to make it clear that these situations are rare. The vast
majority of nursing homes are compassionate and decent facilities. My
state of Iowa has been privileged to have many nursing homes that stand
as models of quality care. Unfortunately, a few bad apples can damage
the reputation of an entire industry. That is why I am pleased that
this bipartisan legislation has the support of the nursing home
industry as well as senior citizens' advocates.
This commonsense proposal would prevent nursing homes who have
already accepted a Medicaid patient from evicting or transferring the
patient based solely on payment status. Nursing homes would still be
entitled to decide who gains access to their facilities, however, they
would be required to inform new residents that if they spend down to
Medicaid, they are entitled to discharge or transfer them to another
facility.
This legislation is an important step in protecting these frail
individuals. People move into nursing homes for around-the-clock health
care in a safe environment. The last thing they expect is to be put out
on the street. That's also the last thing they deserve. This bill
prevents residents from getting hurt if their nursing home pulls out of
Medicaid and ensures that people know their rights up front, before
they enter a facility.
This commonsense proposal has also been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressman Bilirakis where it has received strong
bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to
cosponsor this worthwhile proposal. And, I look forward to the passage
of this resolution this year.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator
Moynihan, Senator Graham, and Senator Grassley to introduce important
legislation to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens--nursing
home residents. Our bill will keep nursing home residents who rely on
Medicaid from being ``dumped'' out of the facility they call home,
should that facility decide to drop participation in the Medicaid
program.
The problem we will solve with this bill does not occur often. In
fact, nearly 90 percent of all nursing homes participate in the
Medicaid program. Pullouts are very rare and usually result from
facilities deciding to close. But when a still-functioning facility
decides to stop serving Medicaid clients, our bill will ensure that
current residents do not find themselves pushed out of the place they
view as home.
Recently, Medicaid beneficiaries in facilities in Indiana and Florida
found themselves in precisely this horrible situation. They were forced
out of nursing homes that decided to drop participation in the Medicaid
program. Residents' well-being was disrupted and families were forced
to scramble to develop other care alternatives.
Our new legislation, and H.R. 540, its companion bill in the House,
will protect current residents from displacement. The bill simply
requires that facilities withdrawing from the Medicaid program continue
to care for current residents under the terms and conditions of the
Medicaid program until those residents no longer require care.
Facilities would essentially phase-down participation in Medicaid
rather than dropping from the program overnight.
Both the nursing home industry and senior citizens' advocates support
our legislation. This is a common sense, good-government bill that will
enhance the peace of mind of low-income elderly and disabled
individuals.
I applaud the House Conference Committee for having already held a
hearing on H.R. 540, and Representatives
[[Page S2105]]
Bilirakis and Davis are to be congratulated for their leadership on
this important issue. As we introduce our bill in the Senate today, I
would like to particularly thank Senator Bob Graham, whose commitment
to this legislation has been pivotal. Working with him, Senator
Moynihan, Senator Grassley, and other original Finance Committee
cosponsors Senators Chafee, Mack, Rockefeller, Breaux, Bryan, and
Kerrey, I look forward to taking up the bill up in our committee.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues
Senators Graham, Roth and Grassley in introducing this legislation--the
Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999. It is a modest
modification providing an enormous protection for nursing home
residents.
The situation today is as follows. Frail elderly individuals who
require nursing home care are faced with costs of $40,000 to $50,000 on
average per year. These sums quickly deplete family savings. As a
result, about two-thirds of nursing home residents at some point spend
down their assets and require the assistance of Medicaid coverage.
Because Medicaid typically has low reimbursement rates, nursing homes,
in turn, must carefully balance their finances by screening which
patients to accept, limiting the number of Medicaid residents. When
nursing homes can no longer operate with low Medicaid rates, they may
choose to reduce the number of beds available for Medicaid residents or
no longer participate in the Medicaid program altogether.
What, then, happens to the residents who depend on Medicaid to cover
their nursing home costs? The Wall Street Journal first reported on
April 7 of last year what has occurred: Vencor Inc., with the nation's
largest nursing home chain of 310 facilities, decided to withdraw
participation in the Medicaid program. Residents covered by Medicaid
were so notified and told they would have to leave the nursing homes--
their homes.
Industry analysts had predicted that some other companies may follow
Vencor's lead in jettisoning Medicaid residents. For example,
Renaissance Healthcare Corp. withdrew from Medicaid the year before due
to rising expenses.
The evictions in Vencor's Indiana and Florida nursing homes caused
panic among residents and their families, and aggravated some patients'
frail medical conditions. In all, it was a wrenching experience for
residents and their families.
Our legislation is a small modification amid an otherwise larger
problem. The bill would merely protect current Medicaid residents in
nursing homes from evictions if their nursing home decides to withdraw
from the Medicaid program. Nursing homes will be able to continue to
screen patients for acceptance into their facility. The screening
process is quite sophisticated and includes collection of information
about assets and income to determine when the individual will likely
spend down his or her resources before requiring Medicaid coverage.
The larger dilemma still exists. We need a system that both covers
our frail elderly in nursing homes after they spend themselves into
poverty due to nursing home costs and ensures that nursing homes can
stay in business in order to provide such services.
Momentum is moving behind this legislation. Our bill enjoys
bipartisan support in Congress as well as support from the nursing home
industry and advocates. On the Senate side, we introduce this bill
today with a total of 15 sponsors. Last week, the House Commerce
Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing on this
legislation. Chairman Roth and I are committed to marking up this bill
in our Committee in the near future. I commend Senator Graham for his
leadership in initiating this proposal, and urge its early adoption.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 495. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the highway
sanctions; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
legislation to repeal clean air act to repeal the highway sanctions
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is simple and
clear. The only thing the bill does is to repeal the highway sanction
provisions in the Clean Air Act.
I want to start by saying that I know what the so-called
environmental community is going to say. Actually, they have already
said it. I recall a press release that said, ``Another smoggy stealth
attack is in the works,'' and ``sharpening the dirty-air knives.''
Well, that sounds fancy and exciting, but it is just flat wrong.
Mr. President, I ask you, where is the common sense? I do not want
dirty air. And I do not think anybody in this room, in this body, wants
dirty air. But any attempt to change the status quo gets some
spinmeisters at work.
Let me explain where there is a real problem. There is a provision in
the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA Administrator, with the approval
of the Secretary of Transportation, to halt highway funding for a
nonattainment area. For instance, if a State does not have an approved
clean air plan, after a certain period of time sanctions apply, and
those sanctions include halting highway funding. Now, transit funding
can continue and bike path money can go forward. There is also a
``safety'' exemption where the Secretary of Transportation determines
that a ``project is an improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated
safety problem and likely will result in a significant reduction in, or
avoidance of, accidents.''
I have several problems with that provision.
First, highway funding is a matter of safety. We dedicate
transportation funds to specific improvement programs, like railroad
crossings and programs on drunk driving. But highway safety is also an
issue when it comes to road conditions.
In my own State of Missouri, I can tell you that highway fatality
rates are higher than the national average because roads are more
dangerous. In the period 1992 to 1996, 5,279 people died on Missouri
highways. Nationally, Federal Highways estimates that road conditions
are a factor in about 30 percent of traffic fatalities. Well, I believe
that figure is higher in Missouri, because I have been on the narrow
two-lane roads and have seen the white crosses where people have died.
Highway improvements, such as wider lanes and shoulders, adding or
improving medians, and upgrading roads from two lanes to four lanes can
reduce traffic fatalities and accidents. The Secretary can grant
exemptions from the current law to allow a project to go forward, but
he can also deny them. I have a problem with the Government, the
Federal Government, micromanaging a State's transportation plan.
The law also says the State will have to submit data to justify that
the ``principal purpose of the project is an improvement in safety.''
Tell that to the grandmother who has lost her granddaughter on a
stretch of highway. She will never go to the prom, because she was
killed on that highway.
I would argue that highway construction and improvements are almost
always a matter of safety and that to have to seek an exemption is an
unnecessary and inappropriate delay. Any further delay imposed by the
Federal Government on highway projects which are necessary for safety
is unacceptable.
Second, taking away or imposing any kind of delay on highway funding
does nothing to improve air quality or to reduce congestion. According
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, ``Congestion damages air quality, increases travel times,
costs an estimated $43 billion annually in delays in the country's 50
largest urban areas, and generates additional delay costs in rural and
suburban areas.''
Some will argue, ``If you build it, they will come.'' That normally
applies to baseball diamonds, but they are talking about highways. I am
not denying that there is some truth to that, but congestion already
exists. They are already there. People in our State and rural Missouri
are driving, and they are driving on narrow highways because they have
to. There are no trolleys; there are no regularly scheduled buses.
Halting or delaying funds to address the problem is inappropriate.
I think the cliche, ``Pay now or pay more later,'' is appropriate.
What we would be ``paying'' for is potentially the loss of life, loss
of economic opportunities, and the loss of convenience for the
traveling public. Isn't this an issue of quality of life? I think so.
[[Page S2106]]
Third, the Highway Trust Fund is supported by highway users for
highway construction and maintenance. It is a dedicated tax for a
dedicated purpose. The people of Missouri are paying highway fund taxes
and not getting a full dollar back for their highways. And to take away
some of the money that they have put in because of totally unrelated
concerns is inappropriate as a punitive sanction.
The 105th Congress spent the entire Congress, almost, working on a
transportation policy.
One of the most contentious debates we had at the time and the
significant outcomes of that debate was the issue of the trust fund.
The Congress finally agreed to and the President signed into law what I
refer to as the Bond-Chafee provision which says that the money goes in
as the money comes out the next year for transportation and programs
authorized by law.
Included in TEA-21--highway dollars being spent on--is $8.1 billion
over 6 years for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program. This is money dedicated to helping States and local
governments meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Under current
law, CMAQ--as it is called--funding will continue without interruption,
but highway construction could be halted or face a delay.
Using a ``dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose'' as a hammer in this
instance is, I believe, inappropriate and unfair.
I do not view this legislation as an attack on the Clean Air Act. It
is a matter of common sense.
Some may ask, if they do not already know, what precipitated the
introduction of this legislation. I contemplated introducing this bill
in the past but had other matters that were more important. But on
November 8, 1998, the San Francisco-based Sierra Club filed suit in the
District of Columbia District Court against the EPA to force the EPA to
mandate sanctions not just on St. Louis and the nonattainment area but
on the entire State of Missouri and to make these sanctions
retroactive. That action, I believe, is irresponsible and extreme.
The EPA itself chose not to impose sanctions on the St Louis area or
the State of Missouri because the State and the nonattainment area are
doing everything that is necessary to come into compliance. The St.
Louis area has adopted an inspection/maintenance program. They have
instituted a plan to reduce volatile organic compound emissions by at
least 15 percent. They have opted into EPA's reformulated gasoline
program. And the St. Louis Regional Clean Air Partnership has been
formed to encourage voluntary actions. In these circumstances, the
Sierra Club lawsuit is purely punitive and purely unwarranted, but it
is possible as long as we have this legislation on the books.
I do not personally know one Member of the Senate who fought for
highway funding for his or her State's highway needs who would support
actions to take that funding away, especially in a frivolous lawsuit by
a group with a different agenda, with different priorities than the
citizens of the State who are paying in the money. If this provision of
law is left in place, what is happening in Missouri could happen
elsewhere. Highway sanctions are in place for Helena, MT, and a
situation is developing in Atlanta, GA, which has been brought to my
attention.
There are those who say you can count the number of times highway
sanctions have been imposed on one hand, but that still is too many. I
disagree with the linking of highway funds and clean air attainment. We
must address both. Quality of life requires both clear air and safe
highways. I am dedicated to both. I hope we can have hearings and move
on this measure in the near future.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 496. A bill to provide for the establishment of an assistance
program for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
the health care consumer assistance act
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care
Consumer Assistance Act, along with my colleague from Oregon, Mr.
Wyden. This legislation creates a consumer assistance program that is
key to patient protections in the health insurance market.
In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the
need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to
accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making
informed decisions about health plans and providers. Today, only a
loose patchwork of consumer assistance services exists. And, while a
number of sources provide assistance, most are limited. Many consumer
groups have advocated for the establishment of consumer assistance
programs to support consumers' growing need of information.
The legislation I am introducing today gives states grants to
establish nonprofit, private health care ombudsman programs designed to
help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights,
and responsibilities. Under my bill, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will offer funds for states to select an independent,
nonprofit agency to provide the following services to consumers:
information relating to choices, rights, and responsibilities within
the plans they select; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to
consumer requests for information, advice and assistance; produce and
disseminate educational materials about patients' rights; provide
assistance and representation to people who wish to appeal the denial,
termination, or reduction of health care services, or a refusal to pay
for health services; and collect and disseminate data about inquiries,
problems and grievances handled by the consumer assistance program.
This program has been championed by Ron Pollack of Families USA and
Beverly Malone of the American Nurses Association, who served as
members of the President's Commission on Quality, as well as numerous
other consumer advocates.
Mr. President, I have joined with many of my Democratic colleagues in
sponsoring S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I am pleased
that S. 6 would establish a consumer assistance program, similar to
that established by my legislation. My purpose today is to emphasize
the importance of such a consumer protection program. This legislation
is not without controversy, but I believe that American consumers
deserve protection and assistance as they attempt to navigate the often
confusing and complex world of health insurance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 496
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 ``Health Care Consumer
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award
grants to States to enable such States to enter into
contracts for the establishment of consumer assistance
programs designed to assist consumers of health insurance in
understanding their rights, responsibilities and choices
among health insurance products.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including a State plan that describes--
(1) the manner in which the State will solicit proposals
for, and enter into a contract with, an entity eligible under
section 3 to serve as the health insurance consumer office
for the State; and
(2) the manner in which the State will ensure that advice
and assistance services for health insurance consumers are
coordinated through the office described in paragraph (1).
(c) Amount of Grant.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 5
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a
State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts
as the number of individuals within the State covered under a
health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears
to the total number of individuals covered under a health
insurance plan in all States (as determined by the
Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this
section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to
the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this
paragraph.
(2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided
to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year
be less
[[Page S2107]]
than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount appropriated
for such fiscal year under section 5.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE ENTITIES.
To be eligible to enter into a contract with a State and
operate as the health insurance consumer office for the State
under this Act, an entity shall--
(1) be an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated
experience in serving the needs of health care consumers
(particularly low income and other consumers who are most in
need of consumer assistance);
(2) prepare and submit to the State a proposal containing
such information as the State may require;
(3) demonstrate that the entity has the technical,
organizational, and professional capacity to operate the
health insurance consumer office within the State;
(4) provide assurances that the entity has no real or
perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and
assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that
the entity is independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care; and
(5) demonstrate that, using assistance provided by the
State, the entity has the capacity to provide assistance and
advice throughout the State to public and private health
insurance consumers regardless of the source of coverage.
SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) By State.--A State shall use amounts received under a
grant under this Act to enter into a contract described in
section 2(a) to provide funds for the establishment and
operation of a health insurance consumer office.
(b) By Entity.--
(1) In general.--An entity that enters into a contract with
a State under this Act shall use amounts received under the
contract to establish and operate a health insurance consumer
office.
(2) Noncompliance.--If the State fails to enter into a
contract under subsection (a), the Secretary shall withhold
amounts to be provided to the State under this Act and use
such amounts to enter into the contract described in
paragraph (1) for the State.
(c) Activities of Office.--A health insurance consumer
office established under this Act shall--
(1) provide information to health insurance consumers
within the State relating to choice of health insurance
products and the rights and responsibilities of consumers and
insurers under such products;
(2) operate toll-free telephone hotlines to respond to
requests for information, advice or assistance concerning
health insurance in a timely and efficient manner;
(3) produce and disseminate educational materials
concerning health insurance consumer and patient rights;
(4) provide assistance and representation (in nonlitigative
settings) to individuals who desire to appeal the denial,
termination, or reduction of health care services, or the
refusal to pay for such services, under a health insurance
plan;
(5) make referrals to appropriate private and public
individuals or entities so that inquiries, problems, and
grievances with respect to health insurance can be handled
promptly and efficiently; and
(6) collect data concerning inquiries, problems, and
grievances handled by the office and periodically disseminate
a compilation and analysis of such information to employers,
health plans, health insurers, regulatory agencies, and the
general public.
(d) Availability of Services.--The office shall not
discriminate in the provision of services regardless of the
source of the individual's health insurance coverage or
prospective coverage, including individuals covered under
employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare
or medicaid programs under title XVIII or XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any
other Federal or State health care program.
(e) Subcontracts.--An office established under this section
may carry out activities and provide services through
contracts entered into with 1 or more nonprofit entities so
long as the office can demonstrate that all of the
requirements of this Act are met by the office.
(f) Training.--
(1) In general.--An office established under this section
shall ensure that personnel employed by the office possess
the skills, expertise, and information necessary to provide
the services described in subsection (c).
(2) Contracts.--To meet the requirement of paragraph (1),
an office may enter into contracts with 1 or more nonprofit
entities for the training (both through technical and
educational assistance) of personnel and volunteers. To be
eligible to receive a contract under this paragraph, an
entity shall be independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(3) Limitation.--Not to exceed 7 percent of the amount
awarded to an entity under a contract under subsection (a)
for a fiscal year may be used for the provision of training
under this section.
(g) Administrative Costs.--Not to exceed 1 percent of the
amount of a block grant awarded to the State under subsection
(a) for a fiscal year may be used for administrative expenses
by the State.
(h) Term.--A contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall be for a term of 3 years.
SEC. 5. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary in each
fiscal year to carry out this Act.
(b) Report of Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report that contains--
(1) a determination by the Secretary of whether amounts
appropriated to carry out this Act for the fiscal year for
which this report is being prepared are sufficient to fully
fund this Act in such fiscal year; and
(2) with respect to a fiscal year for which the Secretary
determines under paragraph (1) that sufficient amounts are
not appropriated, the recommendations of the Secretary for
fully funding this Act through the use of additional funding
sources.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 498. A bill to require vessels entering the United States waters
to provide earlier notice of the entry, to clarify the requirements for
those vessels and the authority of the Coast Guard over those vessels,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the coastal protection and vessel control improvement act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we speak, rescue crews are fighting
valiantly to contain the damage from the wreck of the tanker New
Carissa off of Coos Bay, Oregon three weeks ago. But the clock is
ticking, the water is rising, and time is running short. An
environmental disaster of truly alarming proportions is staring my
state in the face.
Thousands of gallons of fuel oil have already leaked out of the
wrecked ship and thousands more may be spilled along our precious
coastline within days, if not hours.
As Oregonians struggle to make the best of a bad situation, it is not
too early to start talking about how we prevent the next addition to
the legacy of New Carissa. It seems clear to me that we need to look at
the pernicious practice of foreign flagging. How many gallons of oil
need to spill and how many miles of coastline have to be destroyed
before we stop allowing unseaworthy vessels manned by untrained crews
into our coastal waters.
It seems easier to register a supertanker in some foreign countries
than it is to register an automobile in Portland, Oregon. As long as
this so-called Flag of Convenience system continues, it's only a matter
of time before the next New Carissa runs aground on a local beach. Yet
our maritime policy continues to allow it.
Grave concerns have also been raised about the amount and quality of
information being released to the public about this disaster. People
who live in the area simply have not been told what to expect. That is
unacceptable. When disaster strikes, government has an ironclad
responsibility to give people as much information as possible.
Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on avoiding
disasters like the New Carissa. We need to stop playing Russian
roulette with our coastal resources and the communities that depend on
them.
Congressman DeFazio has authored companion legislation in the House
of Representatives, which was adopted as an amendment to the Coast
Guard Reauthorization Bill.
This legislation requires all vessels, foreign and domestic, to
notify the Coast Guard when they intend to enter our country's
territorial waters, allows the Coast Guard to bar them from entry if
there are safety concerns, and gives the Coast Guard the authority to
direct the movements of such vessels in our waters in hazardous
situations. This bill would have given the Coast Guard the ability to
block the New Carissa from allowing its deadly course of sailing so
close to shore during a hazardous gale, a practice that local pilots
shun.
In other words, had this bill been in place, the Coast Guard would
have had the ability to stop this tragedy before it occurred, instead
of having to clean up after it.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask
unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 498
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S2108]]
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF COAST GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTROL
VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 15. ENTRY OF VESSELS INTO TERRITORIAL SEA; DIRECTION
OF VESSELS BY COAST GUARD.
``(a) Notification of Coast Guard.--
``(1) Notification.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, a commercial vessel entering the territorial sea
of the United States shall notify the Secretary not later
than 24 hours before that entry.
``(2) Information.--The regulations under paragraph (1)
shall specify that the notification shall contain the
following information:
``(A) The name of the vessel.
``(B) The port or place of destination in the United
States.
``(C) The time of entry into the territorial sea.
``(D) With respect to the fuel oil tanks of the vessel--
``(i) the capacity of those tanks; and
``(ii) the estimated quantity of fuel oil that will be
contained in those tanks at the time of entry into the
territorial sea.
``(E) Any information requested by the Secretary to
demonstrate compliance with applicable international
agreements to which the United States is a party.
``(F) If the vessel is carrying dangerous cargo, a
description of that cargo.
``(G) A description of any hazardous conditions on the
vessel.
``(H) Any other information requested by the Secretary.
``(b) Denial of Entry.--The Secretary may deny entry of a
vessel into the territorial sea of the United States if--
``(1) the Secretary has not received notification for the
vessel in accordance with subsection (a); or
``(2) the vessel is not in compliance with any other
applicable law relating to marine safety, security, or
environmental protection.
``(c) Direction of Vessel.--The Secretary may direct the
operation of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United
States as necessary during hazardous circumstances, including
the absence of a pilot required by Federal or State law,
weather, casualty, vessel traffic, or the poor condition of
the vessel.''.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Levin,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 499. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative medal for
organ donors and their families; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
the gift of life congressional medal act of 1999
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take great pleasure today in introducing
the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 1999. With this
legislation, which doesn't cost taxpayers a penny, Congress has the
opportunity to recognize and encourage potential donors, and give hope
to over 52,000 Americans who have end-stage disease. As a heart and
lung transplant surgeon, I saw one in four of my patients die because
of the lack of available donors. Public awareness simply has not kept
up with the relatively new science of transplantation. As public
servants, we need to do all we can to raise awareness about the gift of
life.
Under this bill, each donor or donor family will be eligible to
receive a commemorative Congressional medal. It is not expected that
all families, many of whom wish to remain anonymous, will take
advantage of this opportunity. The program will be coordinated by the
regional organ procurement organizations [OPO's] and managed by the
entity administering the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
Upon request of the family or individual, a public official will
present the medal to the donor or the family. This creates a wonderful
opportunity to honor those sharing life through donation and increase
public awareness. Some researchers have estimated that it may be
possible to increase the number of organ donations by 80 percent
through public education.
Any one of us, or any member of our families, could need a life
saving transplant. We would then be placed on a waiting list to
anxiously await our turn, or our death. The number of people on the
list has more than doubled since 1990--and a new name is added to the
list every 18 minutes. In my home State of Tennessee, 62 Tennesseans
died in 1998 while waiting, and more than 775 people are in need of a
transplant. Nationally, because of a lack of organs, close to 5,000
listed individuals died in 1998.
However, the official waiting list reflects only those who have been
lucky enough to make it into the medical care system and to pass the
financial hurdles. If you include all those reaching end-stage disease,
the number of people potentially needing organs or bone marrow, very
likely over 120,000, becomes staggering. Only a small fraction of that
number would ever receive transplants, even if they had adequate
insurance. There simply are not enough organ and tissue donors, even to
meet present demand.
Federal policies surrounding the issue of organ transplantation are
difficult. Whenever you deal with whether someone lives or dies, there
are no easy answers. There are between 15,000 and 20,000 potential
cadaveric donors each year, yet inexcusably, in 1997 there were only
some 5,400 actual donors. That's why we need you to help us educate
others about the facts surrounding tissue and organ donation.
Mr. President, there has been unprecedented cooperation, on both
sides of the aisle, and a growing commitment to awaken public
compassion on behalf of those who need organ transplants. It is my very
great pleasure to introduce this bill on behalf of a group of Senators
who have already contributed in extremely significant ways to the cause
of organ transplantation. And we are proud to ask you to join us, in
encouraging people to give life to others.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr.
Helms):
S. 500. A bill to amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States
Code, to require certain members of the United States Sentencing
Commission to be selected from among individuals who are victims of a
crime of violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
united states sentencing commission legislation
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill
that I sponsored in the last Congress to give victims of crime a
greater voice in sentencing. My bill, which is being cosponsored by
Senators Jeffords and Helms, would reserve two of the seven seats on
the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crimes.
Mr. President, the Sentencing Commission is an independent entity
within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and
practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines
that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for
offenders convicted of Federal crimes.
The U.S. sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members
who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the
Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting
members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission,
three must be Federal judges.
Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission
that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of
a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family
member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the definition of a crime of
violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States
Code.
All seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Now
is the right time to give victims of crime a voice by requiring that
two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been
victimized by violent crimes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was order to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 500
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Section 991(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after ``same political party,''
the following: ``Of the members who are not Federal judges,
not less than 2 members shall be individuals who are victims
of a crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16
of title 18) or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate
family member of such a victim.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to
[[Page S2109]]
any appointment made on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 501. A bill to address resource management issues in Glacier Bay
National Park, Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
glacier bay fisheries act
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing--together with
my good friend Senator Stevens--new legislation to ensure that the
marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain open to the fisheries
that have been conducted there for many, many years.
For a number of years, the Park Service has attempted to seize
authority over fisheries management in Glacier Bay from the State of
Alaska, which holds title to the marine waters and submerged lands
within Glacier Bay National Park. This is an infringement of the
State's sovereignty under the constitutional doctrine of equal footing,
as confirmed by Congress in the Submerged Lands Act, and the Alaska
Statehood Act.
As my colleagues should all be aware, commercial fisheries have been
conducted in these waters for well over 100 years, since long before
the federal government became interested in them. Subsistence fishing
and gathering by local residents has been practiced for up to 9,000
years, and perhaps longer.
Yet today, officials of the National Park Service want Glacier Bay
off limits to those who have depended on it for their sustenance and
livelihoods for generations.
Most recently, agents of the Park Service harassed a number of
commercial crab fishermen who were fishing in areas which have always
been open to them. Some of these were areas which may be closed under
legislation adopted last year, but for which the Park Service has not
yet promulgated regulations to effect the closure.
Although Park Service officials now say they merely asked for
voluntary compliance and attempted to educate fishermen about their
plans, the fishermen tell a different, and more sinister, story.
This particular crab fishery is only six days long, with the first
two days being crucial to a fisherman's financial success. Because of
this, fishermen must work literally around the clock for the first 48
to 72 hours. After the first two days, their earning potential--even
for a top fisherman--drops from almost $60,000 per day to less than
$20,000.
It is important to note that these are not large scale fisheries. We
are talking about a small handful of fishermen, some working solely
with their families.
Out of the 14 vessels working in the Bay during the recent fishery,
11 were boarded--right in the middle of those crucial first two days--
by armed and intimidating Park Service agents. Many were either told
they were in closed waters, or threatened that if they did not move,
they would be prosecuted. Needless to say, these fishermen are law-
abiding members of society, so they pulled up their fishing gear and
moved, taking very serious financial losses as a result.
Mr. President, let me ask you how difficult it would have been to
write a letter before the season opened and send it to these 14
fishermen? How hard would it be to send a letter to 20 fishermen? or to
50? In other words, Mr. President, how hard would it have been to avoid
such confrontational and damaging tactics?
It would not have been hard at all, Mr. President, and the fact that
the agency did not choose to do so is just one more example of how
unfairly the Park Service has behaved to those who live and work in
Alaska.
It is time for this to stop, and to ensure that it does, I am today
offering a simple, clean solution. First, the bill authorizes
subsistence fishing and gathering under the existing federal governing
authority for such activities. Second, the bill authorizes the State of
Alaska to conduct its marine fisheries without interference, except a
fishery for Dungeness crab, for which a compensation plan has already
been adopted. And third, the bill authorizes the use of up to
$2,000,000 per year--which the Park Service is already collecting but
which it has failed to use for the purpose intended by Congress--to be
used to pay damages to fishermen who were unfairly harmed.
Mr. President, this is a matter of simple fairness. These are not
new fisheries, but old ones--fisheries which throughout their long
history have never caused a problem, and are today more tightly
controlled than ever by State of Alaska law and regulation.
Fishermen have caused no harm here. The only harm has been caused
either by the arrogant demands of those who want the park to
themselves, or those who are well-meaning but ignorant of the facts. It
is time the former become better neighbors, and time for the latter to
learn the truth.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 501
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 ``Glacier Bay Fisheries Act''.
SAEC. 2. RESOURCE HARVESTING.
(a) In Glacier Bay National Park, the Secretary of the
Interior shall accommodate--
(1) the conduct of subsistence fishing and gathering under
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 3111 et. seq.); and
(2) the conduct by the State of Alaska, in accordance with
the principles of sustained yield, of marine commercial
fisheries, except fishing for Dungeness crab in the waters of
the Beardslee Islands and upper Dundas Bay.
SEC. 3. CLAIMS FOR LOST EARNINGS.
Section 3(g) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(g)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end'
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) to pay an aggregate of not more than $2,000,000 per
fiscal year in actual and punitive damages to persons that,
at any time after January 1, 1999, suffered or suffer a loss
in earnings from commercial fisheries legally conducted in
the marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park, due to any
action by an officer, employee, or agent of any Federal
department or agency, that interferes with any person legally
fishing or attempting to fish in such commercial fisheries.
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 502. A bill to protect social security; to the Committee on the
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be
discharged.
The protect social security benefits act of 1999
Mr. ASCHROFT. Mr. President, there is no more worthy government
obligation than ensuring that those who paid a lifetime of Social
Security taxes will receive their full Social Security benefits. Social
Security is a national, cultural and legal obligation. Social Security
is our most import social program, a contact between the government and
its citizens. Americans, including one million Missourians, depend on
this commitment.
This is more than just a governmental commitment. We have a
responsibility as a culture to care for the elderly. Social Security is
the only retirement income most of our seniors receive. It is our
obligation, passed down from generation to generation, to provide
retirement security for every American.
As individuals, all of us care about Social Security because we know
the benefits it pays to our mothers and fathers, relatives and friends.
And we think of the Social Security taxes we and our children pay--up
to 12.4 percent of our income. We pay these taxes with the
understanding that they help our parents and their friends, and we hope
that our taxes will somehow, someday make it possible to help pay for
our own retirements.
In my case, thinking of Social Security brings to mind friends and
constituents such as Lenus Hill of Bolivar, MO, who relies on her
Social Security to meet living expenses. Billy Yarberry lives on a farm
near Springfield and depends on Social Security. And there is Rev.
Walter Keisker of Cape Girardeau, who will be 100 years old next July
and lives on Social Security. These faces bring meaning to Social
Security.
[[Page S2110]]
Whenever I meet with folks in Missouri, I am asked, ``Senator, you
won't let them use my Social Security taxes to pay for the United
Nations, will you?'' Or, ``Why can't I get my full benefits if I work
after 65?'' Or, ``You know I need my Social Security, don't you?''
And then there are the letters on Social Security I get every day.
Ed and Beverly Shelton of Independence, MO, write: ``Aren't the
budget surpluses the result of Social Security taxes generating more
revenue than is needed to fund current benefits? Therefore, the Social
Security surplus is the surplus!* * * Yes, we are senior citizens and
receive a very limited amount of Social Security. We are children who
survived the Great Depression and World War II so we know how to
stretch a dollar and rationed goods--just wish Congress were as careful
with spending our money as we are!''
These concerns are why I am introducing today the Protect Social
Security Benefits Act. Americans who have devoted 12% of their wages to
the Social Security Trust Fund deserve their full Social Security
payments now and in the century to come. The bill is part of a five
part package that, taken together, seeks to provide greater protection
for the Social Security Trust Fund.
The substance and message of these provisions is that Social Security
must be protected: protected from politicians who raid Social Security
to finance additional deficits; protected from those who want to gamble
with Social Security in the stock market; protected so that investment
decisions ensure current and future benefits; protected so that seniors
who work get full benefits; protected so that we keep our commitment to
America's retirees.
The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 prevents
the use of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds to finance
deficits in the rest of the federal budget. We must build a wall so
high around the Social Security Trust Funds so that it cannot be used
to pay for new government spending. Social Security should not finance
new spending. But that is exactly what has happened in the past, is now
happening, and will continue happening in the future, unless changes
are made. It must end.
Specifically, the bill makes it out of order for the House or Senate
to pass, or even debate, a budget or bill that uses Social Security
surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the budget. In both the
House and Senate, a three-fifths vote, or a super majority, would be
required to change that. Let me assure you that this is extremely
unlikely. We have enough trouble getting 51 Senators to agree to
anything, let alone 60. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to use
the Social Security surplus to fund new deficit spending.
Two other bills I am supporting will also reduce debt and thereby
strengthen our economy, Social Security and our future. The first bill
structures the payment of the national debt by amortizing it--paying it
off in installments--over the next 30 years. The second bill reduces
the public debt limit every two years as an additional incentive to
reduce borrowing. Additional surpluses in the Social Security Trust
Fund can buy down publicly-held debt. By reducing the public debt, my
plan will make it easier for America to meet its Social Security
obligations in three ways. First, over the long run, paying off the
debt will lower interest payments, which are now over $200 billion
annually, equaling about 15% of the budget. Second, by relieving
America of the burden of the $3.8 trillion national debt over the next
30 years, it will free up more resources that may be able to meet
Social Security obligations in the future. Finally, a debt-free America
will have a stronger, faster-growing economy, and will be better
equipped to come up with the money to redeem the Trust Fund when we
need it.
We must remember that federal debt incurs very real costs, in the
form of interest payments and higher interest rates. With that in mind,
we cannot afford not to pay off the debt. While it will cost money to
pay off the debt, it is better to budget for those costs now. On this
point, I agree with President Clinton. His idea to use Social Security
surpluses to pay down our existing debt is a wise one, and I am
offering a responsible plan to make it happen.
Finally, and given the fact that Social Security surpluses are
routinely being used to finance deficits in the rest of the budget of
the federal government, it is time to decide carefully how Social
Security should be treated in any proposed constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. I have always supported a balanced budget
amendment. In the past, I have supported an effort that did not
distinguish between Social Security accounts and the rest of the
federal budget. However, last year's raid of the Social Security
surplus to fund other government spending under the guise of
``emergency spending'' has convinced me that Social Security must be
protected under our constitution. Social Security must be walled off
for special treatment in any proposed balanced budget amendment. We
must make clear that the federal budget should be balanced without
counting any Social Security surpluses.
Walling off the trust funds is the first step, not the only step,
needed to protect Social Security. This is the right way to start the
effort to improve Social Security so it is strong for our children and
grandchildren.
To do this, we need to be honest, realizing that, for now, time is on
our side to make thoughtful improvements. For the past few months, I
have comprehensively reviewed Social Security. My conviction is that
understanding must always come before reforming. The following
summarizes the facts about Social Security.
Social Security does now and will in the near future accumulate
annual surpluses. Together, income from payroll taxes and interest is
greater than the amount of benefits being paid out. The Social Security
Trustees believe that these surpluses will continue each year for the
next 14 years. In that time, a $2.8 trillion total surplus will
accumulate.
In the year 2013, however, when more baby boomers will be in
retirement, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received
by Social Security through taxes and interest. As a result, Social
Security will run an annual deficit. By 2021, annual benefit payments
will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security and interest
earned on the accumulated surpluses. In the year 2032, Social Security
payroll taxes will not only be insufficient to pay benefits; the
surpluses will be used up. Social Security will be bankrupt.
Bipartisan efforts are underway to address this long-term situation.
I will take an active part in this work. We must strengthen Social
Security's capacity to pay benefits in full beyond the year 2032.
But there is no getting around the fact that a key to the long-term
solvency of Social Security is how the current mushrooming Social
Security surplus is invested, managed and spent. That's why the Protect
Social Security Benefits Act focuses on how the current Social Security
surplus is invested and managed.
Where is the Social Security surplus? This question helps us
understand what the Social Security surplus is, and is not. In truth,
the Trust Funds have no money, only interest-bearing notes. It would be
foolish to have money in the trust fund that earned no interest or had
no return. In return for the Social Security notes, Social Security
taxes are sent to the U.S. Treasury and mingled with other government
revenues, where the entire pool of cash pays the government's day-to-
day expenses. While the Trust Funds records now show a total of $857
billion in the fund, these assets exist only in the form of government
securities, or debt. According to the Washington Post, ``The entire
Social Security Trust Fund, all [$857] billion or so of it, fits
readily in four ordinary, brown, accordion-style folders that one can
easily hold in both hands. The 174 certificates reside in a plain
combination-lock filing cabinet on the third floor of the bureau's
office building.''
In recent years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance
deficit spending in the rest of the federal budget. Take Fiscal Year
1998 for example. The Social Security surplus was $99 billion. The
deficit in the rest of the government budget was $29 billion. So $29
billion--or 30% of the Social Security surplus--financed other
government programs that were not paid for with general tax revenues.
this occurred despite President Clinton's promise to save ``every penny
of any surplus'' for Social Security.
[[Page S2111]]
For next year, this money shuffling is even greater. To quote the
Senate Budget Committee's February 1, 1999, analysis:
Conclusion: the President's budget, despite the rhetoric,
not only spends all the non-Social Security surplus over the
next five years, while providing no meaningful tax relief to
American families, but also dips in the Social Security
surplus for $146 billion to pay for the President's spending
priorities.
This kind of money shuffling must end. I cannot go back to Lenus Hill
or Billy Yarberry and tell them that I stood by silently as the
government devoted--spent half of their retirement money to paying for
the President's new spending initiatives. We must stop the dishonest
practice of hiding new government deficits with Social Security
surpluses.
The Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 is designed to
cripple attempts to use surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds to
pay for deficits in the rest of the federal budget. Specifically, the
bill states that it is out of order for the House and Senate to pass--
or even debate--a budget that uses Social Security surpluses to finance
new debt in the rest of the budget. This provision could only be
overridden if three-fifths of the House or Senate openly vote to bypass
this rule.
Three times Congress has passed laws that tried to take Social
Security off-budget. These efforts have called for accounting
statements that require the government to keep the financial status of
Social Security separate from the rest of the budget. But these efforts
are inadequate unless Congress puts in place safeguards that protect
surpluses in Social Security from financing new government spending.
Right now, such procedures do not exist in current law or in senate
rules. On the contrary, current law and senate rules create 21 separate
points of order that apply to spending increases and tax increases,
making it difficult to protect Social Security surpluses. But none
actually stop these surpluses from paying for new budget deficits. We
need a point of order protecting Social Security surpluses from
irresponsible government raiding.
The Protect Social Security Benefits Act would create precisely such
a point of order. This would prohibit the federal government from
running a federal funds (on-budget) deficit without 60 votes, or what
is known as a super-majority. With no on-budget deficit to finance, we
would use the entire Social Security surplus to shrink the publicly-
held federal debt. Reducing the publicly-held debt would cut annual
interest costs that now cost $200 billion and 15% of the entire federal
government budget. Eliminating this interest cost would provide more
flexibility to address the long-term financing difficulties Social
Security now faces that could someday jeopardize payment of full
benefits.
The only exception to this point of order would be in time of war. If
Congress were to declare war, and the government needed to go into
deficit in order to protect our national security, then the point of
order would not apply. It would remain in effect at all other times. In
the event that the House or Senate did not pass a budget resolution,
the point of order would apply to all appropriations bills passed after
September 1. This fail-safe would ensure that the President and the
Congress could not raid the Social Security fund for irresponsible
spending, as they did last year to the tune of $22 billion.
The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act is the first
provision in a multi-part Social Security package that will address
vital issues relating to the management, investment, and taxation of
Social Security. This plan is designed to protect the Social Security
system. More importantly, it is designed to protect the American
people--from debt, from bad investments, from misinformation, and from
attempts to spend our retirement dollars on current government
spending. While I value the Social Security system, I value the
American people, people like Lenus Hill and the one million other
Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, more. My primary
responsibility is to them. My plan to protect the Social Security
system will protect the American people first, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in support of this plan.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 503. A bill designating certain land in the San Isabel National
Forest in the State of Colorado as the ``Spanish Peaks Wilderness''; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, wilderness is described in the law as
lands that are, ``* * * in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, * * * an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain.'' With today's introduction of the Spanish
Peaks Wilderness bill congressmen Scott McInnis, Bob Schaffer and I are
setting aside around 18,000 acres of land that more than meets the
intent of the authors of the 1964 Wilderness Act. This land will be an
important addition to wilderness in Colorado.
Spanish Peaks had been considered for inclusion in previous
wilderness bills. However, because of unresolved issues it was not
appropriate to designate it in the past. Those issues included various
inholdings, the use of an old access road in the wilderness area, as
well as the potential coal bed methane production on portions of the
land. Those issues have either been resolved in this bill or they have
been resolved through other methods. The resolution of these issues has
maintained the integrity of the proposed wilderness area as well as
protecting the needs of the local community.
Because of this, the legislation should have the backing of the local
community, Colorado environmental groups, and the majority of the
Colorado delegation. There is no reason why it cannot be passed
quickly.
All Colorado wilderness bills should go through the process this bill
went through. Congressman McInnis, Congressman Schaffer and I decided
that cooperation, consensus, and communication were essential to
success. Therefore, we casted our net broadly for concerns, and when
they were raised in good faith we actually sat down and worked them
out. I have been struck by the fact that when people are given the
opportunity to be part of the process they feel like they have a stake
in the outcome and they try to be constructive in their criticisms.
Because of constructive critics like the Huerfano County Commissioners,
this legislation is better now then it was when they first looked at
it.
Whil the legislation is complete, we are still seeking clarification
on one point. The Huerfano County Commissioners are seeking to have a
trail that is slightly inside the wilderness area, as designated in the
legislation, excluded. My staff has spoken with the local Forest
Service staffer and they appear to have no objection to this change. It
is still uncertain whether we actually need to change the legislation
to do this or whether the map can be adjusted by the Forest Service
without any legislative changes. If it is the former than we will make
that change prior to passing it out of the Senate. If it is the latter,
we will exchange letters with the Forest Service to ensure we are
talking about the same trail in the same place. This change should not
be of concern. It is only slightly inside the boundaries and any
changes we make to exclude it would be of only a slight impact on the
entire designation.
I want to thank Congressman McInnis, Congressman Schaffer, and the
local community for working through this process. When the Colorado
delegation works as a team they work the best for the State of
Colorado.
______
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 504. A bill to reform Federal election campaigns; to the Committee
on Rules and Administration.
____________________