[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 60 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4433-S4465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 909. A bill to provide for the review and classification of
physician assistant positions in the Federal Government, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
physician assistant equity act
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by
Senators Nickles, Rockefeller, Inouye, and Harkin to introduce
legislation that directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to
develop a classification standard appropriate to the occupation of
physician assistant.
Physician assistants are a part of a growing field of health care
professionals that make quality health care available and affordable in
underserved areas throughout our country. Because the physician
assistant profession was very young when OPM first developed employment
criteria in 1970, the agency adapted the nursing classification system
for physician assistants. Today, this is no longer appropriate.
Physician assistants have different education and training requirements
than nurses and they are licensed and evaluated according to different
criteria.
The inaccurate classification of physician assistants had led to
recruitment and retention problems of physician assistants in federal
agencies, usually caused by low starting salaries and low salary caps.
Because it is recognized that physician assistants provide cost-
effective health care, this is an important problem to resolve.
This legislation mandates that OPM review this classification in
consultation with physician assistants and the organizations that
represent physician assistants. The bill specifically states that OPM
should consider the educational and practice qualifications of the
position as well as the treatment of physician assistants in the
private sector in this review.
Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will make an important
correction that will help federal agencies make better use of these
providers of cost-effective, high quality health care.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 910. A bill to streamline, modernize, and enhance the authority of
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and
quarantine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
noxious weed coordination and plant protection act
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
``Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a
comprehensive bill which will focus the effort of federal agencies in
fighting noxious weeds and other plant pests.
In January I introduced the Plant Protection Act, S. 321. This bill
generated a lot of discussion and several suggestions for improvement,
much of which is reflected in the bill I am introducing today. The
Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999 retains most
of S. 321 but includes a section on federal coordination of noxious
weed removal.
Mr. President, I ask that the bill and a section-by-section analysis
be printed in the Record.
The material follows:
S. 910
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Noxious
Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION
Sec. 101. Regulation of movement of plant pests.
Sec. 102. Regulation of movement of plants, plant products, biological
control organisms, noxious weeds, articles, and means of
conveyance.
Sec. 103. Notification and holding requirements on arrival.
Sec. 104. General remedial measures for new plant pests and noxious
weeds.
Sec. 105. Extraordinary emergencies.
Sec. 106. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities.
Sec. 107. Control of grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets.
Sec. 108. Certification for exports.
[[Page S4434]]
TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 201. Inspections and warrants.
Sec. 202. Collection of information.
Sec. 203. Subpoena authority.
Sec. 204. Penalties for violation.
Sec. 205. Enforcement actions of Attorney General.
Sec. 206. Court jurisdiction.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Cooperation.
Sec. 302. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements.
Sec. 303. Reimbursable agreements.
Sec. 304. Protection for mail handlers.
Sec. 305. Preemption.
Sec. 306. Regulations and orders.
Sec. 307. Repeal of superseded laws.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL COORDINATION
Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Invasive Species Council.
Sec. 403. Advisory committee.
Sec. 404. Invasive Species Action Plan.
TITLE V--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 502. Transfer authority.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the detection, control, eradication, suppression,
prevention, and retardation of the spread of plant pests and
noxious weeds is necessary for the protection of the
agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States;
(2) biological control--
(A) is often a desirable, low-risk means of ridding crops
and other plants of plant pests and noxious weeds; and
(B) should be facilitated by the Secretary of Agriculture,
Federal agencies, and States, whenever feasible;
(3) the smooth movement of enterable plants, plant
products, certain biological control organisms, or other
articles into, out of, or within the United States is vital
to the economy of the United States and should be facilitated
to the extent practicable;
(4) markets could be severely impacted by the introduction
or spread of plant pests or noxious weeds into or within the
United States;
(5) the unregulated movement of plants, plant products,
biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, and
articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds
would present an unacceptable risk of introducing or
spreading plant pests or noxious weeds;
(6) the existence on any premises in the United States of a
plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely
prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United
States could threaten crops, other plants, and plant products
of the United States and burden interstate commerce or
foreign commerce; and
(7) all plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles capable of
harboring plant pests or noxious weeds regulated under this
Act are in or affect interstate commerce or foreign commerce.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Article.--The term ``article'' means a material or
tangible object that could harbor a plant pest or noxious
weed.
(2) Biological control organism.--The term ``biological
control organism'' means an enemy, antagonist, or competitor
organism used to control a plant pest or noxious weed.
(3) Enter.--The term ``enter'' means to move into the
commerce of the United States.
(4) Entry.--The term ``entry'' means the act of movement
into the commerce of the United States.
(5) Export.--The term ``export'' means to move from the
United States to any place outside the United States.
(6) Exportation.--The term ``exportation'' means the act of
movement from the United States to any place outside the
United States.
(7) Import.--The term ``import'' means to move into the
territorial limits of the United States.
(8) Importation.--The term ``importation'' means the act of
movement into the territorial limits of the United States.
(9) Interstate.--The term ``interstate'' means--
(A) from 1 State into or through any other State; or
(B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(10) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce''
means trade, traffic, movement, or other commerce--
(A) between a place in a State and a point in another
State;
(B) between points within the same State but through any
place outside the State; or
(C) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(11) Means of conveyance.--The term ``means of conveyance''
means any personal property that could harbor a pest,
disease, or noxious weed and that is used for or intended for
use for the movement of any other personal property.
(12) Move.--The term ``move'' means to--
(A) carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport;
(B) aid, abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering,
importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
(C) offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(D) receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(E) release into the environment; or
(F) allow an agent to participate in any of the activities
referred to in this paragraph.
(13) Movement.--The term ``move'' means the act of--
(A) carrying, entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or
transporting;
(B) aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing the carrying,
entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
(C) offering to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(D) receiving to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(E) releasing into the environment; or
(F) allowing an agent to participate in any of the
activities referred to in this paragraph.
(14) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' means a plant
or plant product that has the potential to directly or
indirectly injure or cause damage to a plant or plant product
through injury or damage to a crop (including nursery stock
or a plant product), livestock, poultry, or other interest of
agriculture (including irrigation), navigation, natural
resources of the United States, public health, or the
environment.
(15) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means a written
(including electronic) or oral authorization by the Secretary
to move a plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance
under conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
(16) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual,
partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, or
other legal entity.
(17) Plant.--The term ``plant'' means a plant (including a
plant part) for or capable of propagation (including a tree,
tissue culture, plantlet culture, pollen, shrub, vine,
cutting, graft, scion, bud, bulb, root, and seed).
(18) Plant pest.--The term ``plant pest'' means--
(A) a living stage of a protozoan, invertebrate animal,
parasitic plant, bacteria, fungus, virus, viroid, infection
agent, or pathogen that has the potential to directly or
indirectly injure or cause damage to, or cause disease in, a
plant or plant product; or
(B) an article that is similar to or allied with an article
referred to in subparagraph (A).
(19) Plant product.--The term ``plant product'' means--
(A) a flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed, or other
plant part that is not covered by paragraph (17); and
(B) a manufactured or processed plant or plant part.
(20) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(21) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION
SEC. 101. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.
(a) Prohibition of Unauthorized Movement of Plant Pests.--
Except as provided in subsection (b), no person shall import,
enter, export, or move in interstate commerce a plant pest,
unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is
authorized under general or specific permit and is in
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may
promulgate to prevent the introduction of plant pests into
the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within
the United States.
(b) Authorization of Movement of Plant Pests by
Regulation.--
(1) Exception to permit requirement.--The Secretary may
promulgate regulations to allow the importation, entry,
exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified
plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary
finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.
(2) Petition to add or remove plant pests from
regulation.--A person may petition the Secretary to add a
plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations
promulgated under paragraph (1).
(3) Response to petition by the secretary.--In the case of
a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall--
(A) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
(B) notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary
takes on the petition.
(4) Basis for determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
(c) Prohibition of Unauthorized Mailing of Plant Pests.--
(1) In general.--Subject to section 304, a letter, parcel,
box, or other package containing a plant pest, whether or not
sealed as letter-rate postal matter, is nonmailable and shall
not knowingly be conveyed in the mail or delivered from any
post office or by any mail carrier, unless the package is
mailed in
[[Page S4435]]
compliance with such regulations as the Secretary may
promulgate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests into
the United States or interstate.
(2) Application of postal laws.--Nothing in this subsection
authorizes a person to open a mailed letter or other mailed
sealed matter except in accordance with the postal laws
(including regulations).
(d) Regulations.--Regulations promulgated by the Secretary
to implement subsections (a), (b), or (c) may include
provisions requiring that a plant pest imported, entered, to
be exported, moved in interstate commerce, mailed, or
delivered from a post office--
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
before the importation, entry, exportation, movement in
interstate commerce, mailing, or delivery of the plant pest;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by
appropriate officials of the country or State from which the
plant pest is to be moved;
(3) be raised under post-entry quarantine conditions by or
under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of
determining whether the plant pest may be infested with other
plant pests, may pose a significant risk of causing injury
to, damage to, or disease in a plant or plant product, or may
be a noxious weed; and
(4) be subject to such remedial measures as the Secretary
determines are necessary to prevent the dissemination of
plant pests.
SEC. 102. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS,
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, NOXIOUS WEEDS,
ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the
importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate
commerce of a plant, plant product, biological control
organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if
the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction
is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed
within the United States.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations
to carry out this section, including regulations requiring
that a plant, plant product, biological control organism,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported,
entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce--
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in
interstate commerce;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by
appropriate officials of the country or State from which the
plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance is to be moved;
(3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary
determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant
pests or noxious weeds; and
(4) in the case of a plant or biological control organism,
be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by
or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purpose of
determining whether the plant or biological control organism
may be infested with a plant pest or noxious weed, or may be
a plant pest or noxious weed.
(c) List of Restricted Noxious Weeds.--
(1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation,
a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted
from entering the United States or that are subject to
restrictions on interstate movement within the United States.
(2) Petitions to add plant species to or remove plant
species from list.--
(A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add
a plant species to, or remove a plant species from, the list
authorized under paragraph (1).
(B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
(i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
(ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the
Secretary takes on the petition.
(C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
(d) List of Biological Control Organisms.--
(1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation,
a list of biological control organisms the movement of which
in interstate commerce is not prohibited or restricted.
(2) Distinctions.--In publishing the list, the Secretary
may take into account distinctions between biological control
organisms, such as whether the organisms are indigenous,
nonindigenous, newly introduced, or commercially raised.
(3) Petitions to add biological control organisms to or
remove biological control organisms from list.--
(A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add
a biological control organism to, or remove a biological
control organism from, the list authorized under paragraph
(1).
(B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
(i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
(ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the
Secretary takes on the petition.
(C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
SEC. 103. NOTIFICATION AND HOLDING REQUIREMENTS ON ARRIVAL.
(a) Duty of Secretary of the Treasury.--
(1) Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
promptly notify the Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival
of a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, or noxious weed at a port of entry.
(2) Holding.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, or noxious weed, for which notification is made under
paragraph (1) at the port of entry until the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious
weed is--
(A) inspected and authorized by the Secretary of
Agriculture for entry into or movement through the United
States; or
(B) otherwise released by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(3) Exceptions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to
a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, or noxious weed that is imported from a country or
region of a country designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture, by regulation, as exempt from the requirements
of those paragraphs.
(b) Notification by Responsible Person.--The person
responsible for a plant, plant product, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance required to have a permit under section 101 or 102
shall, as soon as practicable on arrival at the port of entry
and before the plant, plant product, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance is moved from the port of entry, notify the
Secretary of Agriculture or, at the Secretary of
Agriculture's direction, the proper official of the State to
which the plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is
destined, or both, as the Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe, of--
(1) the name and address of the consignee;
(2) the nature and quantity of the plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance proposed to be moved; and
(3) the country and locality where the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance was grown, produced, or
located.
(c) Prohibition of Movement of Items Without Inspection and
Authorization.--No person shall move from a port of entry or
interstate an imported plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance unless the imported plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance has been--
(1) inspected and authorized by the Secretary of
Agriculture for entry into or movement through the United
States; or
(2) otherwise released by the Secretary of Agriculture.
SEC. 104. GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR NEW PLANT PESTS AND
NOXIOUS WEEDS.
(a) Authority To Hold, Treat, or Destroy Items.--If the
Secretary considers it necessary to prevent the dissemination
of a plant pest or noxious weed that is new to or not known
to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout
the United States, the Secretary may hold, seize, quarantine,
treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or
otherwise dispose of a plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance that--
(1)(A) is moving into or through the United States or
interstate, or has moved into or through the United States or
interstate; and
(B)(i) the Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest
or noxious weed or is infested with a plant pest or noxious
weed at the time of the movement; or
(ii) is or has been otherwise in violation of this Act;
(2) has not been maintained in compliance with a post-entry
quarantine requirement; or
(3) is the progeny of a plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed that is moving
into or through the United States or interstate, or has moved
into the United States or interstate, in violation of this
Act.
(b) Authority To Order an Owner To Treat or Destroy.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may order the owner of a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject
to action under subsection (a), or the owner's agent, to
treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or
otherwise dispose of the plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance, without cost to the Federal Government and in
a manner the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) Failure to comply.--If the owner or agent of the owner
fails to comply with an order of the Secretary under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may take an action authorized by
subsection (a) and recover from the owner or agent of the
owner the costs of any care, handling, application of
remedial measures, or disposal incurred by the Secretary in
connection with actions taken under subsection (a).
(c) Classification System.--
(1) In general.--To facilitate control of noxious weeds,
the Secretary may develop a
[[Page S4436]]
classification system to describe the status and action
levels for noxious weeds.
(2) Categories.--The classification system may include the
geographic distribution, relative threat, and actions
initiated to prevent introduction or distribution.
(3) Management plans.--In conjunction with the
classification system, the Secretary may develop integrated
management plans for noxious weeds for the geographic region
or ecological range where the noxious weed is found in the
United States.
(d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed,
exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or
ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the
shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the
opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action
that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the
dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States.
SEC. 105. EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCIES.
(a) Authority To Declare.--Subject to subsection (b), if
the Secretary determines that an extraordinary emergency
exists because of the presence of a plant pest or noxious
weed that is new to or not known to be widely prevalent in or
distributed within and throughout the United States and that
the presence of the plant pest or noxious weed threatens
plants or plant products of the United States, the Secretary
may--
(1) hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial
measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, a plant, plant
product, biological control organism, article, or means of
conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
(2) quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to
any premises, including a plant, plant product, biological
control organism, article, or means of conveyance on the
premises, that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
(3) quarantine a State or portion of a State in which the
Secretary finds the plant pest or noxious weed or a plant,
plant product, biological control organism, article, or means
of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed; or
(4) prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, article,
or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the
dissemination of the plant pest or noxious weed or to
eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed.
(b) Required Finding of Emergency.--The Secretary may take
action under this section only on finding, after review and
consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official
of the State affected, that the measures being taken by the
State are inadequate to prevent the dissemination of the
plant pest or noxious weed or to eradicate the plant pest or
noxious weed.
(c) Notification Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Before any action is taken in a State
under this section, the Secretary shall--
(A) notify the Governor or another appropriate official of
the State;
(B) issue a public announcement; and
(C) except as provided in paragraph (2), publish in the
Federal Register a statement of--
(i) the findings of the Secretary;
(ii) the action the Secretary intends to take;
(iii) the reason for the intended action; and
(iv) if practicable, an estimate of the anticipated
duration of the extraordinary emergency.
(2) Time sensitive actions.--If it is not practicable to
publish a statement in the Federal Register under paragraph
(1) before taking an action under this section, the Secretary
shall publish the statement in the Federal Register within a
reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 business days,
after commencement of the action.
(d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed,
exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or
ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the
shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the
opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action
that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the
dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States.
(e) Payment of Compensation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may pay compensation to a
person for economic losses incurred by the person as a result
of action taken by the Secretary under this section.
(2) Amount.--The determination by the Secretary of the
amount of any compensation to be paid under this subsection
shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.
SEC. 106. RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Recovery Action.--The owner of a plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance destroyed or otherwise
disposed of by the Secretary under section 104 or 105 may
bring an action against the United States to recover just
compensation for the destruction or disposal of the plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance (not including
compensation for loss due to delays incident to determining
eligibility for importation, entry, exportation, movement in
interstate commerce, or release into the environment) if the
owner establishes that the destruction or disposal was not
authorized under this Act.
(b) Time for Action; Location.--
(1) Time for action.--An action under this section shall be
brought not later than 1 year after the destruction or
disposal of the plant, plant product, biological control
mechanism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance involved.
(2) Location.--The action may be brought in a United States
District Court where the owner is found, resides, transacts
business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated.
(c) Payment of Judgments.--A judgment in favor of the owner
shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury appropriated
for plant pest control activities of the Department of
Agriculture.
SEC. 107. CONTROL OF GRASSHOPPERS AND MORMON CRICKETS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds under
this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out a
program to control grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on all
Federal land to protect rangeland.
(b) Transfer Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), on the request
of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the
Interior shall transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture, from
any no-year appropriations, funds for the prevention,
suppression, and control of actual or potential grasshopper
and Mormon Cricket outbreaks on Federal land under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Use.--The transferred funds shall be available only for
the payment of obligations incurred on the Federal land.
(3) Transfer requests.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
make a request for the transfer of funds under this
subsection as promptly as practicable.
(4) Limitation.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not use
funds transferred under this subsection until funds
specifically appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture for
grasshopper and Mormon Cricket control have been exhausted.
(5) Replenishment of transferred funds.--Funds transferred
under this section shall be replenished by supplemental or
regular appropriations, which the Secretary of Agriculture
shall request as promptly as practicable.
(c) Treatment for Grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds under
this section, on request of the head of the administering
agency or the agriculture department of an affected State,
the Secretary of Agriculture, to protect rangeland, shall
immediately treat Federal, State, or private land that is
infested with grasshoppers or Mormon Crickets at levels of
economic infestation, unless the Secretary of Agriculture
determines that delaying treatment will not cause greater
economic damage to adjacent owners of rangeland.
(2) Other programs.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall work in conjunction with other
Federal, State, and private prevention, control, or
suppression efforts to protect rangeland.
(d) Federal Cost Share of Treatment.--
(1) Control on federal land.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay
100 percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket
control on Federal land to protect rangeland.
(2) Control on state land.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay 50
percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control
on State land.
(3) Control on private land.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay
33.3 percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket
control on private land.
(e) Training.--From funds made available or transferred by
the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture
to carry out this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
provide adequate funding for a program to train personnel to
accomplish effectively the purposes of this section.
SEC. 108. CERTIFICATION FOR EXPORTS.
The Secretary may certify a plant, plant product, or
biological control organism as free from plant pests and
noxious weeds, and exposure to plant pests and noxious weeds,
according to the phytosanitary or other requirements of the
countries to which the plant, plant product, or biological
control organism may be exported.
TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 201. INSPECTIONS AND WARRANTS.
(a) In General.--Consistent with guidelines approved by the
Attorney General, the Secretary may--
(1) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means
of conveyance moving into the United States to determine
whether the
[[Page S4437]]
person or means of conveyance is carrying a plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance subject to this Act;
(2) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means
of conveyance moving in interstate commerce on probable cause
to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying
a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject
to this Act;
(3) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means
of conveyance moving in intrastate commerce or on premises
quarantined as part of an extraordinary emergency declared
under section 105 on probable cause to believe that the
person or means of conveyance is carrying a plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance subject to this Act;
and
(4) enter, with a warrant, a premises in the United States
for the purpose of conducting investigations or making
inspections under this Act.
(b) Warrants.--
(1) In general.--A United States judge, a judge of a court
of record in the United States, or a United States magistrate
judge may, on proper oath or affirmation showing probable
cause to believe that there is on certain premises a plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance regulated under
this Act, issue a warrant for entry on the premises to
conduct an investigation or make an inspection under this
Act.
(2) Execution.--The warrant may be applied for and executed
by the Secretary or a United States marshal.
SEC. 202. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.
The Secretary may gather and compile information and
conduct such investigations as the Secretary considers
necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act.
SEC. 203. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority To Issue.--The Secretary may require by
subpoena--
(1) the attendance and testimony of a witness; and
(2) the production of all documentary evidence relating to
the administration or enforcement of this Act or a matter
under investigation in connection with this Act.
(b) Location of Production.--The attendance of a witness
and production of documentary evidence may be required from
any place in the United States at any designated place of
hearing.
(c) Enforcement of Subpoena.--If a person fails to comply
with a subpoena, the Secretary may request the Attorney
General to invoke the aid of a court of the United States
within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is
conducted, or where the person resides, is found, transacts
business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated, in
obtaining compliance.
(d) Fees and Mileage.--
(1) In general.--A witness summoned by the Secretary shall
be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to a witness
in a court of the United States.
(2) Depositions.--A witness whose deposition is taken, and
the person taking the deposition, shall be entitled to the
same fees that are paid for similar services in a court of
the United States.
(e) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall publish procedures for
the issuance of subpoenas under this section.
(2) Legal sufficiency.--The procedures shall include a
requirement that a subpoena be reviewed for legal sufficiency
and signed by the Secretary.
(3) Delegation.--If the authority to sign a subpoena is
delegated, the agency receiving the delegation shall seek
review for legal sufficiency outside that agency.
(f) Scope of Subpoena.--A subpoena for a witness to attend
a court in a judicial district or to testify or produce
evidence at an administrative hearing in a judicial district
in an action or proceeding arising under this Act may run to
any other judicial district.
SEC. 204. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.
(a) Criminal Penalties.--A person that knowingly violates
this Act, or that knowingly forges, counterfeits, or, without
authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or
destroys a certificate, permit, or other document provided
under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on
conviction, shall be fined in accordance with title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--A person that violates this Act, or that
forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the
Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys a certificate,
permit, or other document provided under this Act may, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, be
assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary that does not
exceed the greater of--
(A) $50,000 in the case of an individual (except that the
civil penalty may not exceed $1,000 in the case of an initial
violation of this Act by an individual moving regulated
articles not for monetary gain), or $250,000 in the case of
any other person for each violation, except the amount of
penalties assessed under this subparagraph in a single
proceeding shall not exceed $500,000; or
(B) twice the gross gain or gross loss for a violation or
forgery, counterfeiting, or unauthorized use, defacing or
destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document
provided for in this Act that results in the person's
deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another
person.
(2) Factors in determining civil penalty.--In determining
the amount of a civil penalty, the Secretary--
(A) shall take into account the nature, circumstance,
extent, and gravity of the violation; and
(B) may take into account the ability to pay, the effect on
ability to continue to do business, any history of prior
violations, the degree of culpability of the violator, and
any other factors the Secretary considers appropriate.
(3) Settlement of civil penalties.--The Secretary may
compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, a
civil penalty that may be assessed under this subsection.
(4) Finality of orders.--
(A) In general.--An order of the Secretary assessing a
civil penalty shall be treated as a final order reviewable
under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Collection action.--The validity of an order of the
Secretary may not be reviewed in an action to collect the
civil penalty.
(C) Interest.--A civil penalty not paid in full when due
under an order assessing the civil penalty shall (after the
due date) accrue interest until paid at the rate of interest
applicable to a civil judgment of the courts of the United
States.
(c) Liability for Acts of an Agent.--For purposes of this
Act, the act, omission, or failure of an officer, agent, or
person acting for or employed by any other person within the
scope of employment or office of the officer, agent, or
person, shall be considered to be the act, omission, or
failure of the other person.
(d) Guidelines for Civil Penalties.--The Secretary shall
coordinate with the Attorney General to establish guidelines
to determine under what circumstances the Secretary may issue
a civil penalty or suitable notice of warning in lieu of
prosecution by the Attorney General of a violation of this
Act.
SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Attorney General may--
(1) prosecute, in the name of the United States, a criminal
violation of this Act that is referred to the Attorney
General by the Secretary or is brought to the notice of the
Attorney General by any person;
(2) bring a civil action to enjoin the violation of or to
compel compliance with this Act, or to enjoin any
interference by a person with the Secretary in carrying out
this Act, if the Attorney General has reason to believe that
the person has violated or is about to violate this Act, or
has interfered, or is about to interfere, with the Secretary;
and
(3) bring a civil action for the recovery of an unpaid
civil penalty, funds under a reimbursable agreement, late
payment penalty, or interest assessed under this Act.
SEC. 206. COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 204(b), a
United States district court, the District Court of Guam, the
District Court of the Virgin Islands, the highest court of
American Samoa, and the United States courts of other
territories and possessions are vested with jurisdiction in
all cases arising under this Act.
(b) Location.--An action arising under this Act may be
brought, and process may be served, in the judicial district
where--
(1) a violation or interference occurred or is about to
occur; or
(2) the person charged with the violation, interference,
impending violation, impending interference, or failure to
pay resides, is found, transacts business, is licensed to do
business, or is incorporated.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. COOPERATION.
(a) In General.--To carry out this Act, the Secretary may
cooperate with--
(1) other Federal agencies or entities;
(2) States or political subdivisions of States;
(3) national governments;
(4) local governments of other nations;
(5) domestic or international organizations;
(6) domestic or international associations; and
(7) other persons.
(b) Responsibility.--The individual or entity cooperating
with the Secretary shall be responsible for--
(1) obtaining the authority necessary for conducting the
operations or taking measures on all land and property within
the foreign country or State, other than land and property
owned or controlled by the United States; and
(2) other facilities and means determined by the Secretary.
(c) Transfer of Biological Control Methods.--The Secretary
may transfer to a Federal or State agency or other person
biological control methods using biological control organisms
against plant pests or noxious weeds.
(d) Cooperation in Program Administration.--The Secretary
may cooperate with State authorities or other persons in the
administration of programs for the improvement of plants,
plant products, and biological control organisms.
SEC. 302. BUILDINGS, LAND, PEOPLE, CLAIMS, AND AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire and maintain
such real or personal
[[Page S4438]]
property, and employ such persons, make such grants, and
enter into such contracts, cooperative agreements, memoranda
of understanding, or other agreements, as are necessary to
carry out this Act.
(b) Tort Claims.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary may pay a tort claim (in the manner authorized in
the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, United
States Code) if the claim arises outside the United States in
connection with an activity authorized under this Act.
(2) Requirements of claim.--A claim may not be allowed
under paragraph (1) unless the claim is presented in writing
to the Secretary not later than 2 years after the claim
arises.
SEC. 303. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.
(a) Preclearance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a
reimbursable fee agreement with a person for preclearance (at
a location outside the United States) of plants, plant
products, biological control organisms, articles, and means
of conveyance for movement to the United States.
(2) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection
shall be credited to an account that--
(A) may be established by the Secretary; and
(B) if established, shall remain available for preclearance
activities until expended.
(b) Overtime.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the
Secretary may pay an employee of the Department of
Agriculture performing services under this Act relating to
imports into and exports from the United States, for all
overtime, night, or holiday work performed by the employee,
at a rate of pay determined by the Secretary.
(2) Reimbursement of secretary.--The Secretary may require
a person for whom the services are performed to reimburse the
Secretary for funds paid by the Secretary for the services.
(3) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection
shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and
remain available until expended.
(c) Late Payment Penalty and Interest.--
(1) Collection.--On failure of a person to reimburse the
Secretary in accordance with this section, the Secretary may
assess a late payment penalty against the person.
(2) Interest.--Overdue funds due the Secretary under this
section shall accrue interest in accordance with section 3717
of title 31, United States Code.
(3) Account.--A late payment penalty and accrued interest
shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 304. PROTECTION FOR MAIL HANDLERS.
This Act shall not apply to an employee of the United
States in the performance of the duties of the employee in
handling the mail.
SEC. 305. PREEMPTION.
(a) Regulation of Foreign Commerce.--No State or political
subdivision of a State may--
(1) regulate in foreign commerce a plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance; or
(2) in order to control a plant pest or noxious weed--
(A) eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or
(B) prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
(b) Regulation of Interstate Commerce.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the Secretary has promulgated a regulation or order to
prevent the dissemination of a plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed
within the United States, no State or political subdivision
of a State may--
(A) regulate the movement in interstate commerce of the
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance; or
(B) in order to control the plant pest or noxious weed--
(i) eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed; or
(ii) prevent the introduction or dissemination of the
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
(2) Exceptions.--
(A) Regulations consistent with federal regulations.--
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State or a
political subdivision of a State may impose a prohibition or
restriction on the movement in interstate commerce of plants,
plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests,
noxious weeds, articles, or means of conveyance that are
consistent with and do not exceed the requirements of the
regulations promulgated or orders issued by the Secretary
under this Act.
(B) Special local need.--A State or political subdivision
of a State may impose a prohibition or restriction on the
movement in interstate commerce of plants, plant products,
biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds,
articles, or means of conveyance, that are in addition to a
prohibition or restriction imposed by the Secretary, if the
State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the
Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special
need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on
sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.
SEC. 306. REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.
The Secretary may promulgate such regulations, and issue
such orders, as the Secretary considers necessary to carry
out this Act.
SEC. 307. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED LAWS.
(a) Repeal.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Subsections (a) through (e) of section 102 of the
Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C.
147a).
(2) Section 1773 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
148f).
(3) The Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150 et seq.).
(4) The Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq).
(5) The Joint Resolution of April 6, 1937 (56 Stat. 57,
chapter 69; 7 U.S.C. 148 et seq.).
(6) The Act of January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40, chapter 31; 7
U.S.C. 149).
(7) The Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the
``Plant Quarantine Act'') (37 Stat. 315, chapter 308; 7
U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(8) The Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act (7 U.S.C. 1651 et
seq.).
(9) The Act of August 28, 1950 (64 Stat. 561, chapter 815;
7 U.S.C. 2260).
(10) The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.), other than the first section and section 15 of that
Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 note, 2814).
(b) Effect on Regulations.--Regulations promulgated under
the authority of a provision of law repealed by subsection
(a) shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary
promulgates a regulation under section 306 that supersedes
the earlier regulation.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL COORDINATION
SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Action plan.--The term ``Action Plan'' means the
National Invasive Species Action Plan developed and submitted
to Congress under section 404, including any updates to the
Action Plan.
(2) Alien species.--The term ``alien species'' means, with
respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its
seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of
propagating the species, that is not native to that
ecosystem.
(3) Control.--The term ``control'' means--
(A) the suppression, reduction, or management of invasive
species populations;
(B) the prevention of the spread of invasive species from
areas where the species are present; and
(C) the taking of measures such as the restoration of
native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive
species and to prevent further invasions.
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Invasive
Species Council established by section 402.
(5) Ecosystem.--The term ``ecosystem'' means the complex of
a community of organisms and the community's environment.
(6) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the
meaning given the term ``agency'' in section 551 of title 5,
United States Code, except that the term does not include an
independent establishment (as defined in section 104 of title
5, United States Code).
(7) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'' means the
intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination,
or placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of
human activity.
(8) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means
an alien species the introduction of which causes or is
likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health.
(9) Native species.--The term ``native species'' means,
with respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other
than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or
currently occurs in the ecosystem.
(10) Species.--The term ``species'' means a group of
organisms all of which--
(A) have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity;
(B) generally interbreed only among themselves; and
(C) show persistent differences from members of allied
groups of organisms.
(11) Stakeholder.--The term ``stakeholder'' means an entity
with an interest in invasive species, including--
(A) a State, tribal, or local government agency;
(B) an academic institution;
(C) the scientific community; and
(D) a nongovernmental entity, including an environmental,
agricultural, or conservation organization, trade group,
commercial interest, or private landowner.
SEC. 402. INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an advisory
council to be known as the ``Invasive Species Council''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall be composed of--
(A) the Secretary of State;
(B) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(C) the Secretary of Defense;
(D) the Secretary of the Interior, who shall be a
cochairperson of the Council;
(E) the Secretary of Agriculture, who shall be a
cochairperson of the Council;
(F) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be a cochairperson
of the Council;
(G) the Secretary of Transportation;
(H) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
[[Page S4439]]
(I) a representative of State government appointed by the
National Governors' Association.
(2) Other federal agency representatives.--The Council
may--
(A) invite other representatives of Federal agencies to
serve as members of the Council, including representatives
from subcabinet bureaus or offices with significant
responsibilities concerning invasive species; and
(B) prescribe special procedures for the participation by
those other representatives on the Council.
(c) Duties.--The Invasive Species Council shall--
(1) provide national leadership regarding invasive species;
(2) oversee the implementation of this title and make
recommendations designed to ensure that the activities of
Federal agencies concerning invasive species are coordinated,
complementary, cost-efficient, and effective, relying to the
maximum extent practicable on organizations addressing
invasive species, such as--
(A) the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force established by
section 1201 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4721);
(B) the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of
Noxious and Exotic Weeds; and
(C) the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(3) encourage planning and action at local, tribal, State,
regional, and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and
objectives of the Action Plan, in cooperation with
stakeholders and organizations addressing invasive species;
(4) develop recommendations for international cooperation
in addressing invasive species;
(5) develop, in consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) concerning prevention and control of invasive species,
including the procurement, use, and maintenance of native
species in a manner designed to affect invasive species;
(6) facilitate development of a coordinated network among
Federal agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts
from invasive species on the economy, the environment, and
human health;
(7) facilitate establishment of a coordinated, up-to-date
information-sharing system that--
(A) uses, to the maximum extent practicable, the Internet;
and
(B) facilitates access to and exchange of information
concerning invasive species, such as--
(i) information on the distribution and abundance of
invasive species;
(ii) life histories of invasive species and invasive
characteristics;
(iii) economic, environmental, and human health impacts
from invasive species;
(iv) techniques for management of invasive species; and
(v) laws and programs for management, research, and public
education concerning invasive species; and
(8) develop and submit to Congress the Action Plan.
(d) Executive Director; Staff.--With the concurrence of the
other cochairpersons, the Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) appoint an Executive Director of the Council; and
(2) provide staff and administrative support for the
Council.
SEC. 403. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) establish an advisory committee to provide information
and advice for consideration by the Council; and
(2) after consultation with other members of the Council,
appoint members of the advisory committee to represent
stakeholders.
(b) Duties.--The duties of the advisory committee shall
include making recommendations for plans and actions at
local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels to
achieve the goals and objectives of the Action Plan.
(c) Cooperation.--The advisory committee shall act in
cooperation with stakeholders and organizations addressing
the problem of invasive species.
(d) Administrative and Financial Support.--The Secretary of
the Interior shall provide administrative and financial
support for the advisory committee.
SEC. 404. INVASIVE SPECIES ACTION PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Council shall develop and submit
to Congress a National Invasive Species Action Plan, which
shall--
(1) detail and recommend performance-oriented goals and
objectives and specific measures of success for Federal
agency efforts concerning invasive species;
(2) detail and recommend measures to be taken by the
Council to carry out its duties under section 402; and
(3) identify the personnel, other resources, and additional
levels of coordination needed to achieve the goals and
objectives of the Action Plan.
(b) Public Participation and Coordination.--The Action Plan
shall be--
(1) developed through a public process and in consultation
with Federal agencies and stakeholders; and
(2) coordinated with any State plans concerning invasive
species.
(c) Special Requirements for First Action Plan.--
(1) In general.--The first Action Plan submitted under
subsection (a) shall--
(A) include a review of existing and prospective approaches
and authorities for preventing the introduction and spread of
invasive species, including approaches for--
(i) identifying pathways for the introduction of invasive
species; and
(ii) minimizing the risk of introductions by means of those
pathways; and
(B) identify research needs and recommend measures to
minimize the risk that introductions will occur.
(2) Recommended processes.--The measures recommended under
paragraph (1)(B) shall provide for--
(A) a science-based process to evaluate risks associated
with the introduction and spread of invasive species; and
(B) a coordinated and systematic risk-based process to
identify, monitor, and interdict pathways that may be
involved in the introduction of invasive species.
(3) Recommendations for legislation.--If any measure
recommended under paragraph (1)(B) is not authorized by law
in effect as of the date of the recommendation, the Council
shall develop and submit to Congress legislative proposals
for necessary changes in law.
(d) Updates and Evaluations of Action Plan.--The Council
shall--
(1) develop and submit to Congress biennial updates of the
Action Plan; and
(2) concurrently evaluate and report on success in
achieving the goals and objectives specified in the Action
Plan.
(e) Response by Federal Agencies.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of submission to Congress of the Action Plan,
each Federal agency that is required to implement a measure
recommended under subsection (a)(1) or (c)(1)(B) shall--
(1) take the recommended action; or
(2) provide to the Council an explanation of why the action
is not feasible.
TITLE V--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(b) Compensation.--Except as provided in section 106 and as
specifically authorized by law, no part of the amounts
appropriated under this section shall be used to provide
compensation for property injured or destroyed by or at the
direction of the Secretary.
SEC. 502. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority To Transfer Certain Funds.--In connection
with an emergency in which a plant pest or noxious weed
threatens a segment of the agricultural production of the
United States, the Secretary may transfer from other
appropriations or funds available to the agencies or
corporations of the Department of Agriculture such amounts as
the Secretary considers necessary to be available in the
emergency for the arrest, control, eradication, and
prevention of the dissemination of the plant pest or noxious
weed and for related expenses.
(b) Availability.--Any funds transferred under this section
shall remain available for such purposes until expended.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--The first section of Public Law
97-46 (7 U.S.C. 147b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``plant pests or''; and
(2) by striking ``section 102 of the Act of September 21,
1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 147a), and''.
____
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant
Protection Act
Sections 1, 2, and 3--The first three sections of the bill
serve as a ``road map'' to the rest of the legislation.
Section 1 consists entirely of the title and table of
contents. Section 2 outlines certain findings as to why the
legislation is necessary. Section 3 provides the definitions
used throughout the rest of the bill.
title one--plant protection
Section 101--Outlaws the importation or interstate movement
of a plant pest (defined in Section 3 as anything that has
the potential to directly or indirectly injure or cause
damage to or disease in a plant product) without a permit
from the Secretary of Agriculture.
Section 102--Grants USDA the authority to block or regulate
the importation or movement of a noxious weed, or other
plant, if the Secretary determines that such a prohibition is
necessary to prevent the weed's introduction into a new area.
In addition, USDA is required to publish a list of noxious
weeds that are prohibited from entering the country or whose
interstate movement is restricted and allows a procedure to
have weeds added to or removed from the list. USDA would also
publish a list of control agents which may be transported
without restriction.
Section 103--Requires the Secretary of the Treasury (who
oversees the Customs Service) to notify USDA of the arrival
of any plant or noxious weed upon its arrival at a port of
entry and to hold it at the border until it can be inspected
and authorized for entry.
Section 104--Authorizes USDA to hold, seize, quarantine,
treat, or destroy any noxious weed or plant pest that it
finds in violation of this law.
Section 105--Authorizes USDA to declare ``extraordinary
emergencies'' when necessary to confront the importation or
to
[[Page S4440]]
fight the spread of a noxious weed. In addition, the bill
outlines what actions are authorized during such an
emergency.
Section 106--Allows a plant owner to seek compensation from
USDA if the owner ``establishes that the destruction or
disposal'' of this plant or other property ``was not
authorized under this Act'' if he does so within one year of
the action.
Section 107--Makes USDA the federal department in charge of
the fight against grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on all
federal lands. In addition to the authority, funds to carry
out the program would be transferred from other federal
agencies and departments to USDA. It also establishes a cost
sharing program in which the federal govenrmetn will assume
the entire cost of fighting grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets
on federally owned land, one-half of the cost on state owned
land, and one-third the cost on private land.
Section 108--Allows the USDA to develop a means by which it
can certify plants to be free of pests or noxious weeds.
title two--inspection and enforcement
Section 201--Allows USDA inspectors to stop and inspect
persons and items entering the country or moving from one
state to another in search of noxious weeds or plant pests.
In addition, USDA is authorized to seek a warrant to search
private premises for weeds and pests.
Section 202--Allows USDA to ``gather and compile
information'' needed to carry out its investigations.
Section 203--Authorizes and restricts how USDA may issue a
subpoena in its investigations.
Section 204--Establishes criminal and civil penalties for
anyone who ``knowingly violates this Act,'' forges or
counterfeits a permit, or uses a permit unlawfully. Such a
violation would be a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum
penalty of 1 year in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000
(limits are set in the case that the action is taken by an
individual [$50,000] or done without the intention of
monetary gain [$1,000]).
Section 205--Authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the
Act.
Section 206--Locates enforcement at a federal court where
the violation occurs or where the defendant lives.
title three--miscellaneous provisions
Sections 301, 302, and 303--Authorizes USDA to seek
cooperation with other agencies, states, associations, and
individuals in fulfilling its responsibilities.
Section 304--Stipulates that the regulations against
mailing a plant pest or noxious weed included in the bill
will not interfere with an employee of the U.S. Postal
Service and his responsibility in handling the mail.
Section 305--Authorizes USDA to issue regulations and
orders needed to carry out the Act.
Section 306--Repeals federal laws which have been
superseded or replaced by the Act.
title four--federal coordination
Section 401--Provides the definitions used throughout the
rest of the title.
Section 402--Establishes a multi-agency Invasive Species
Council and outlines the duties of the Council.
Section 403--Directs the Secretary of the Interior to
establish an advisory committee to provide information and
advice to the Council.
Secton 404--Gives the Council nine months to develop a
National Invasive Species Action Plan with public
participation and coordination with State plans concerning
invasive species.
title five--authorization for appropriations
Secton 501--Authorizes Congress to appropriate the funds
necessary to carry out the Act.
Section 502--Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
transfer other USDA funds to the programs authorized by the
Act.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Abraham, and
Mr. Kyl):
S. 912. A bill to modify the rate of basic pay and the classification
of positions for certain United States Border Patrol agents, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
border patrol recruitment and retention act of 1999
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison to introduce the Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Act
of 1999.
In 1996, the Congress passed unanimously, and the President signed,
my amendment to the Immigration Reform Act requiring that 1,000 Border
Patrol agents be hired each year between the years 1997 and 20001. Last
year, Congress provided the Immigration and Naturalization Service with
$93 million to hire, train, and deploy 1,000 agents during 1999.
We have now learned that the INS will not come close to hiring the
required 1,000 agents during this year; and, in fact, may only hire 200
to 400. As a result, states that need the increased personnel the most
will not receive them. Arizona, which itself was slated to receive 400
new agents, will now receive only 100 to 150 new agents. That's not
nearly enough. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector apprehended
60,537 illegal immigrants last month and seized over 28,000 pounds of
marijuana, an all-time record in both areas. Project that annually and
then factor in the estimate that 3 times as many illegal aliens
successfully cross the border than are apprehended. The situation is so
out of control in Arizona that recently, 600 people attempted to cross
the border en masse in broad daylight. Some Arizonans are growing so
anxious about the upsurge of illegal activity in their community that
they have attempted to take matters into their own hands. Unless
Arizona is given more federal personnel and resources to get things
under control, many are worried about how this situation will develop.
What the INS says is that it is having recruitment and retention
problems, and so it cannot take on the added personnel at this time.
Couldn't the INS foresee some of these recruitment issues more than two
months before now? And couldn't INS do something to correct the problem
of recruitment?
We concluded Congress would have to initiate some solutions.
Therefore, Senator Hutchison and I introduce this bill today to try to
begin to address some of the Border Patrol's recruitment and retention
problems. It is not a panacea, and we need to continue to explore
additional ways of improving recruitment and retention; but it will
open the debate and will provide for a much-needed increase in salary
levels for the Border Patrol.
Currently Border Patrol agents are, for the most part, capped at a
GS-9 level (currently, only about 20 percent of agents, namely those
who perform special duties, are raised to the GS-11 level). The Border
Patrol Retention and Recruitment Enhancement Act would allow all agents
with a successful year's experience at a GS-9 level to move up to a GS-
11 level. This would enable agents to move from an approximate $34,000
annually salary to an approximate $41,000 annually salary. And that's
fair. These agents have a tough time in their assignments. They must
speak two languages. They deserve a raise.
The bill would also establish the Office of Border Patrol Recruitment
and Retention, which would allow the Border Patrol to be more involved
in recruiting and hiring and will direct the Border Patrol to make
policy suggestions about ways to improve recruitment and retention.
Currently, the INS and the Office of Personnel Management are
responsible for all such activity. We have heard testimony from Border
Patrol chiefs who say that the Border Patrol has unique and specific
knowledge about how to enhance these efforts.
Mr. President, this bill will not solve all of the Border Patrol's
recruiting and retention problems, but it will be a responsible start
toward increasing the numbers of agents who will so honorably protect
our nation's borders.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Kyl for his
leadership on this bill that we have just introduced.
Senator Kyl and I, along with Senators Domenici, Gramm, McCain, and
Bingaman, have been very concerned about the Border Patrol issue that
faces our border States. In fact, we were stunned this week to learn
that though Congress has authorized and authorized funding for 1,000
new Border Patrol agents that in fact only 200 to 400 are coming on
line this year.
Mr. President, that is stunning. That is stunning when you consider
that last year the Border Patrol apprehended 1.5 million persons
illegally crossing the border, and fully half of those were at my State
of Texas. In fact, the McAllen Border Patrol sector, which includes
Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen, had the largest number of drug
seizures of all Border Patrol Sectors in the United States--1,610 drug
seizures just in that one sector. The drugs apprehended have a value of
over $410 million. Two Border Patrol agents in the McAllen sector lost
their lives last year in a raid of a drug trafficker's hideout. It was
the first time Border Patrol agents had been killed during such a raid.
[[Page S4441]]
Senator Abraham held a hearing this week, and the Chief of the Border
Patrol told us that he has not been able to recruit and retain and, in
fact, is losing 10 percent of the agents. For every one that we are
bringing on, we are losing two, because our Border Patrol agents are
capped at a journeymen-9 level. That translates to roughly $34,000 a
year for an agent that has several years of experience. For an agent,
that is certainly a job of law enforcement at its toughest.
Under the bill that we have just introduced, the agents would be
eligible to be paid at a journeymen-11 level, which is approximately a
$7,000 increase.
This pay raise is also consistent with the pay of other law
enforcement agencies that work along the border. One significant
problem for the Border Patrol has been that many agents go to work for
the Customs Service, or the DEA when they reach the cap. So they get to
their cap, their experience, and they go over to another Federal agency
that pays better.
We must solve this discrepancy among Federal agencies in the same
place that are doing similar kinds of tough duty work for hazardous
pay. Yet, the Border Patrol is $7,000 less than Customs and DEA agents.
We must correct this discrepancy if we are going to get control of our
borders, which are a sieve right now with drugs moving through at an
alarming rate.
This is not just a Texas-Arizona-New Mexico-California problem. The
drugs that come in from our borders go right up into Ohio, Michigan,
New Hampshire, Oregon--all over our country, because we don't have the
proper control of our border.
Mr. President, there is not a higher priority for the Federal
Government than to have the sovereign borders of the United States safe
from illegal drugs coming into our country, and most certainly illegal
immigrants that have not gone through the proper procedures so that we
know who is coming into our country and what their record is so that we
have the control that any sovereign nation would have.
Mr. President, this is an emergency. It is why Senator Kyl and I have
introduced this legislation today, because we are in a crisis. This is
a war. It is a war on drugs, and we are losing. We are losing our young
people in this country. Part of the problem is that we are not putting
the resources into law enforcement.
I have to say, Mr. President, that I am disappointed to the maximum
that our INS has money from Congress and authorization from Congress to
hire 1,000 agents and they have only been able to come up with 200 to
400 agents this year. That means we are 600 to 800 short, as we speak,
from what was allocated this year, and which was given priority by
Congress. I think the INS needs to make this a priority. We are going
to give them the pay increases with the bill that we have just
introduced today.
Senator Gregg, who has been a strong supporter of our efforts to beef
up the border, has said he will work with us to reprogram money from
this year's budget for these pay increases so that we will hopefully be
able to do this on an expedited basis by October 1 of this year.
Hopefully, we will be able to retain agents knowing that this pay
raise is in the pipeline. But, Mr. President, it also takes an effort
by the INS to make it a priority to fill these slots, because if they
don't look at a little more creative approach to recruiting, the $7,000
increase is not going to be enough.
I am at my wit's end. Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, Senator Gramm,
Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman are at their wit's end, and
certainly Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer are at their wit's end
with promises made and not fulfilled by the Border Patrol to keep the
illegal drugs out of our country that are preying on our young people.
This is a priority. It is an emergency. It is a war that we are
losing, and we are going to try to fix it. But we must have the support
of the INS to do it. We are going to give them pay raises. We are going
to create another office in the Border Patrol for recruitment and
retention to tell us what else we need to do, and we are going to fix
this problem if we can have a hand-to-hand relationship with the INS
and the Border Patrol.
It is inexcusable that they did not come to us earlier to tell us
they were this far behind. We are going to fix this problem. We are not
going to sit back and let the children of our country be absorbed in
drugs that are illegally crossing the border and made available to
young people who are not yet mature enough to know what to do when they
are approached.
Mr. President, we are trying to do our part. I call on the INS and
the Border Patrol and this administration to do their part, because we
are not going to take it anymore. We are going to solve this problem.
We are going to put the resources in it. If the INS will put those
resources to work and be creative and innovative and dogged in their
determination, we will make a difference, but we can't do it without
their commitment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for the introduction. I ask
unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be pleased to add Mr. Hollings as an original
cosponsor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to say a word about this particular
problem.
Is the Senator yielding the floor?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, because he
has provided leadership and support in our committee and because he has
the training agency that is sitting empty right now in his State. They
do a great job training our agents. He knows what a problem this is. I
look forward to his remarks. I appreciate his support, and I appreciate
his leadership in the past on trying to help us recruit. I think this
is something that is in the interest of all of us to solve so that
every school in America will be drug free.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator
from Texas. She is right on target. We have graduated over 2,000 agents
from the finest school down there for Border Patrol agents. Two who
trained there have already been killed.
I have visited from time to time. The matter of pay is the issue. We
advertise and we solicit in the local area over the entire State--and
nationally--and it is a pay problem.
I hope we can confront it.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Kyl and the other co-
sponsors in introducing legislation that I hope will significantly
improve the Border Patrol's ability to recruit and retain the talented
individuals we need to guard our nation's borders against illegal
immigration and illicit drugs. This legislation is timely and
important. I hope we can act on it promptly.
As my colleagues know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated the addition of 1,000 new Border
Patrol agents annually through 2001 as a means of providing better
enforcement against illegal immigration, particularly along the
southwest border. Unfortunately, this Administration has seen fit to
request full funding for those authorized agents in only one year since
we passed that law.
Moreover, problems in recruiting and retaining Border Patrol agents
have resulted in a net increase of only several hundred new agents
annually. Thus, during the current fiscal year, for which we did in
fact appropriate funds for 1,000 new agents, the recruiting and
retention problems are such that the Border Patrol will see a net
increase in its ranks of only several hundred agents. Indeed, Border
Patrol Chief Gus de la Vina testified before the Senate Immigration
Subcommittee only yesterday that, despite the Congressional mandate to
add 1,000 new agents this year, the Border Patrol only anticipates
hiring between 200 and 400 agents. Arizona, which had anticipated
receiving about 400 of the 1,000 new agents slated for FY 1999, will
now receive fewer than 150. We can and must do better than that.
The Border Patrol's Tucson sector last month recorded a record 60,537
illegal immigrant detentions, raising this year's total to more than
200,000. And the Tucson sector does not even cover the entire Arizona
border with Mexico. The immigration problem in my state is getting
worse, not better, as the President's decision to request funding for
no new agents in FY 2000 implies.
[[Page S4442]]
The Border Patrol's inability to hire the required number of new agents
even as towns like Douglas, Arizona face a rising tide of illegal
immigrants does not inspire confidence in its ability to properly carry
out its mission.
Our legislation would promote all Border Patrol agents who have
completed at least one year at the GS-9 level, and who are rated as
fully successful or higher, to the GS-11 rank, placing them on a
professional level commensurate with their peers in other Federal law
enforcement agencies. Our bill would also create an Office of Border
Patrol Recruitment and Retention to develop outreach programs for
prospective Border Patrol agents, develop programs to provide retention
incentives, and make recommendations about Border Patrol salaries and
benefits. It is our hope that this legislation will help reverse the
outflow of skilled agents from the Border Patrol, as well as make such
service more appealing to the talented men and women it relies on.
America's Border Patrol agents perform critical work but have been
underappreciated for years. It's time we changed that. The premise of
our legislation is the Border Patrol agents, whose duties involve
considerable risks and require unique abilities, perform work as
important as many of our other Federal law enforcement agents and
should be compensated accordingly. Similarly, the Border Patrol should
develop personnel policies to attract more of our best and brightest.
At a time when we are having trouble hiring and retaining new agents,
and as pressure from illegal immigration intensifies in some areas,
especially southern Arizona, we cannot afford not to take better care
of the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. Our legislation makes
meaningful progress toward that end.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 913. A bill to require the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to distribute funds available for grants under title IV of
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to help ensure that
each State received not less than 0.5 percent of such funds for certain
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
THE HOMELESSNESS ASSISTANCE FUNDING FAIRNESS ACT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Homelessness Assistance Funding Fairness Act. I introduce this bill in
conjunction with my House colleague, Congressman John Baldacci, who is
sponsoring a companion bill in the House. Congressman Baldacci and I
have been working on issues involving the homeless for some time, in
our attempt to devise an approach that will distribute federal funds
more equitably and effectively.
Congress has taken important steps to begin to address the root
causes of homelessness in America. Some of the most important are the
Continuum of Care programs which provide grants that link neighborhood
partnerships and community services with shelter. The goal of Continuum
of Care programs is self-sufficiency for people who are homeless, an
approach that goes well-beyond the ``band aid'' solutions of yesteryear
which provided the homeless only a bed for the night. Continuum of Care
programs support treatment and counseling programs in conjunction with
shelter, recognizing the hard reality that many homeless people must
overcome serious substance abuse, addiction, and mental health problems
before a life of permanent housing and stability is possible.
Under the leadership of VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman
Bond, Congress has recognized the great importance of Continuum of Care
programs, and has risen to the challenge to provide this broad spectrum
of care by appropriating $975 million last year for homeless assistance
grants, a large portion of which are Continuum of Care grants.
Although the strategy behind the Continuum of Care grant programs has
been saluted for its logic, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's administration of the competitive award process that
allocates this funding has not been similarly celebrated.
The unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last year is
illustrative of the problems in the distribution of funding. Maine
submitted two Continuum of Care grant applications in 1998, one to
address the needs of the City of Portland, and another to serve the
needs of much of the remainder of the state.
In December 1998, HUD announced the Continuum of Care grant
recipients and Maine was shocked to learn the State would receive no
funding through the grant process. After some investigation, my office
determined that the scores for both the Maine applications were within
two points of a passing grade. Nevertheless, Continuum of Care HUD
homeless assistance funding distributed to Maine went from $3.7 million
to zero, despite the fact that in 1998 Secretary Cuomo had awarded
programs which received funding through the Continuum of Care program
the ``best practices'' award of excellence.
Following a vigorous public campaign by Maine residents, and the
repeated intervention of Maine's congressional delegation, HUD provided
a small portion of the original request to the City of Portland outside
the competitive process. The money, though welcomed, was far from
enough to allow Portland to meet the needs of its homeless population.
The human cost of this bureaucratic determination is immense. In
light of the ongoing needs of the homeless in Maine, as well the often
harsh weather conditions in our region of the country, HUD's decision
was particularly troubling.
The experience of the state of Maine has convinced me not only of the
critical need for funding of these projects, but also of the need to
re-evaluate the process for distributing these funds. No state should
be wholly shut out of the funding award process, because it is an
unfortunate reality that all states have homeless people with
significant needs.
In response to the unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last
year, the legislation I am proposing specifically directs the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide a minimum
percentage of Continuum of Care competitive grant funding to each
state. This will create a safety net for the homeless of each state,
without ending the competitive process that recognizes programs of
special merit or need. My legislation also directs HUD to distribute
this funding to a state's priority programs should the state only
receive this mandatory minimum.
This legislation is not only driven by basic questions of fairness to
all states, but by the significant and often forgotten needs of
homeless people living in rural America.
The problem of homelessness is often mischaracterized as an exclusive
problem of urban areas. However, homelessness in Maine, and in many
rural communities across our country, is a large and growing problem.
From 1993 to 1996, Maine experienced an increase in its homeless
population of almost 20%--it is estimated that more than 14,000 people
are homeless in my home state today. In a state of only 1.2 million
people, this is a troubling percentage of the population.
A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor perhaps said it
best: ``If the urban homeless are faceless and nameless. . . then the
rural homeless are practically invisible.'' However, Mr. President,
that does not mean they do not exist. Unlike homeless individuals in
urban areas who are seen on busy streets everyday, rural individuals
living in poverty often subsist in relative isolation.
The 27,000 Maine households with incomes of less than $6,000 annually
teeter on a shadowy brink where income cannot guarantee shelter. When
fortune turns sour, it is these families who find themselves without
decent shelter. When substance abuse or mental illness afflicts the
parents, the likelihood of homelessness escalates. Indeed, in Maine, 24
percent of visitors to Maine homeless shelters are families with
children.
The problem of providing services to homeless people is compounded by
many challenges. In some areas of Maine, geographic isolation is the
most critical obstacle to receipt of services; in others, rising
housing costs makes obtaining housing exceedingly difficult for the
marginally employed. Both these circumstances are compounded by the
significant substance abuse and mental health problems prevalent among
the homeless population in Maine as in all areas of the country.
[[Page S4443]]
I am proud to say that the people of Maine have developed many
innovative programs to assist our homeless population. Through programs
like the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter, which fills the immediate needs
of outreach, shelter and counseling to area homeless, and more long
term programs like Shalom House, which provides services and shelter
for the mentally ill, the Preble Street Resource Center, which provides
job training, social services and medical care among its many services,
and the YWCA, which provides programs to assist teen age moms, Mainers
have worked hard to reach out and assist those in need and to provide
effective care and outreach for Maine's homeless people.
I recently had the opportunity to visit with the staff and clients of
a shelter in Alfred, Maine, that is making a real difference in the
lives of homeless men and women. As one man who has battled both severe
alcoholism and mental illness told me, ``The people at this shelter
saved my life. Without their help, I'd be dead on the street. But now,
I can see a future for myself.'' Significantly, 90 percent of the
homeless people served by this York County Shelter face serious
problems with substance abuse or mental illness.
These programs, and others like them, depend on federal funding, and
its unexpected loss last year has left my state scrambling to make up
for this serious shortfall. I hope you will join me in supporting this
legislation that will prevent other states from facing this same
misfortune. All states deserve at least a minimum percentage of
homeless funding available through the Continuum of Care grants,
because no state has yet solved the problems faced by its homeless men,
women and children.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being
introduced by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Homeless
Assistance Funding Fairness Act.
This bill will set a minimum allocation for state homeless funding by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in an effort
to prevent future repeats of a situation that Maine faced this year
when HUD denied applications for homeless funding from the Maine State
Housing Authority and the city of Portland, Maine's largest city.
Maine was one of just four states denied funding this year under HUD
homeless programs--and that is a situation that no state should have to
endure. HUD took steps to partially rectify this situation since the
original announcement, but this legislation will assure minimum funding
for every state and assure a fairer allocation of funding in the
future. The legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5
percent of funding to each state under Title IV of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
Mr. President, it may interest my colleagues to learn a little more
about the problem that inspired this legislation. In January, HUD
issued grant announcements for its Continuum of Care program--which
provides rental assistance for those who are or were recently
homeless--but denied applications by the Maine State Housing Authority
and by the city of Portland, leaving the state one of only four not to
receive funds.
The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision
to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo, and I wrote and spoke repeatedly with
Secretary Cuomo about the decision--to encourage HUD to work with Maine
homeless providers to find an acceptable solution. I also contacted the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development and asked committee members to examine the issue as
well.
HUD officials restored about $1 million in funding to the city of
Portland, but refused to restore State homeless funding. In 1998, Maine
homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 million from the
Continuum of Care Program, and this year the State had requested $1.2
million for renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs. MSHA,
which coordinates the program, estimates that many individuals with
mental illness or substance abuse problems who have been receiving rent
subsidies will lose those subsidies over the course of the next six
months as a result of HUD's failure to fund Maine programs. This in
spite of the ``proven track record'' of Maine homeless programs,
including praise by Secretary Cuomo during his visit to Maine in August
1998.
Without this homeless assistance, basic subsidized housing and
shelter programs suffer, and it is more difficult for the State to
provide job training, health care, child care, and other vital services
to the victims of homelessness, many of whom are children, battered
women, and others in serious need.
In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency
homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of
the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135
homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young
people are between 5\1/2\ with the average age being 13. Meanwhile,
Maine earmarks more funding per capita for the elderly, disabled,
mentally ill, and poor for services and support programs then the
majority of other states, even though it ranks 36th nationwide in per
capita income.
In closing, I would simply reiterate that Maine was not the only
state that was frozen out of the process this year. Without
congressional intervention, what state will be next? This makes it all
the more important that changes be made to our homeless policy to
ensure that no state falls through the cracks. As such, I urge my
colleagues to join Senator Collins and myself in a strong show of
support for this legislation.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Collins, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Hagel, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 914. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
require that discharges from combined storm and sanitary sewers conform
to the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
combined sewer overflow control and partnership act of 1999
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to take a few
minutes to introduce important environmental legislation that will have
a significant and positive impact on our nation's waterways. Today,
along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and seven other
cosponsors, I am introducing the Combined Sewer Overflow Control and
Partnership Act of 1999.
While the title of this bill, indeed, the subject matter itself, may
not be the most exciting, front-burner policy issue of the day, the
control of overflows from sewer systems is a serious environmental and
financial concern for hundreds of communities across this country. For
my own state of New Hampshire, there are six communities with combined
sewer overflow, or CSO, problems. The cities of Manchester, Nashua,
Portsmouth, Exeter, Berlin, and Lebanon are all facing this challenge.
I have worked closely with the mayors of these cities over the past
several years and have seen first-hand the environmental problems. This
legislation is aimed at helping CSO communities comply with Clean Water
Act mandates to reduce or eliminate overflows into nearby rivers and
streams. CSOs are the last permitted point source discharges of
untreated or partially treated sewage into the nation's waters. For
those colleagues who don't have CSO communities in their states, I'll
briefly explain what they are.
Combined sewer systems collect sanitary sewage from homes and office
buildings during periods of dry weather for conveyance to wastewater
treatment plants for treatment. However, these systems also receive
storm water during wet weather, which typically causes a hydraulic
overload of the system, triggering the discharge of untreated
wastewater to receiving waters through combined sewer overflow
outfalls. Not a pleasant sight.
Most combined systems were installed at the turn of the century when
they were state-of-the-art sewer technology, mainly in the Northeast
and Midwest regions of the country. Controlling or eliminating CSO
discharges is an enormously expensive proposition
[[Page S4444]]
that often requires communities to completely rebuild their sewer
systems. The national cost estimates to complete this job range from
$50 billion to $100 billion. Compounding the sheer financial magnitude
of the CSO problem is the fact that the vast majority of the
approximately 1,000 CSO communities nationwide have less than 10,000
residents, or ratepayers. These ratepayers could pay hundreds of
dollars more per year on their water bills without this legislation.
With these statistics, it is not surprising that a CSO control program
often poses the single largest public works project in a CSO
community's history.
Although the Federal Clean Water Act does not specifically speak to
the issue of combined sewers, it has been interpreted to require the
control and treatment of CSO discharges. Recognizing the financial
burden this would pose on small towns, in 1994, the Environmental
Protection Agency issued the ``Combined Sewer Overflow Policy,'' which
allowed CSO control programs to be developed in the most cost-
effective, flexible and site-specific manner possible. This policy was
developed with the input from many stakeholders, including local
governments, environmental groups, and engineering firms, and was
viewed as a major step forward in tackling this problem through
commonsense means.
Unfortunately, this policy is just an administrative policy and lacks
statutory authority. So, one of the most important provisions of this
bill would essentially codify or affirm EPA's CSO Policy. This
provision will give CSO communities the legal protection and regulatory
relief they so desperately need. A key component of the CSO Policy is
to ensure that water quality standards are consistent with whatever CSO
control plans are mandated.
The second part of the bill sets up a partnership between the Federal
Government and our local governments by authorizing five years of
funding assistance for these communities. While there is a State
revolving loan fund under the Clean Water Act that provides loan
assistance to municipalities for water treatment, the SRF cannot
possibly meet the needs of these CSO communities. The financial burden
of CSO control programs generally far exceed the capacity of local
ratepayers to assume the full cost.
I emphasize that ratepayers cannot assume the full cost of these
programs.
While this bill does authorize new funding assistance, I do not
intend for this funding to increase EPA's overall budget. As many of my
colleagues are aware, numerous earmarks for CSOs or other public works
projects are frequently included in appropriations bills. I am hoping
that the existence of a CSO assistance program at EPA will discourage
the practice of earmarking specific projects and seek competitive
funding through this program.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to add that this
legislation has been endorsed by the CSO Partnership, a recognized
coalition of CSO communities and mayors. I would also like to thank
Senator Snowe for her support and assistance on this legislation, as
well as the other original cosponsors: Senators Warner, Voinovich,
Collins, Abraham, Robb, Hagel, and Lugar. I am hopeful that we will
have an opportunity to consider this legislation in the Environment and
Public Works Committee and the full Senate sometime this year. It is
both proenvironment and procommunity and I ask for my colleagues
support and welcome their cosponsorship.
______
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Mack, and Mr.
Coverdell):
S. 915. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
expand and make permanent the Medicare subvention demonstration project
for military retirees and dependents; to the Committee on Finance.
Legislation expanding and making permanent the medicare subvention
demonstration project for military retirees and dependents
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, along with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Connie Mack, and Paul Coverdell, I am introducing legislation today
which will expand the opportunities for military retirees to use their
Medicare coverage to pay for treatment at military medical facilities.
By giving our military retirees this option, we fulfill a health care
promise that America has made to every man and woman who has retired
from our armed forces after a career of exemplary service.
Upon retirement after twenty or more years of military service, our
nation promises to provide military health care to our retirees for the
rest of their lives. This promise is one of the most important
commitments our country makes to its military retirees. Unfortunately,
for many military retirees age 65 and over, this promise is being
broken. More and more of the 65 and over retirees have found themselves
unable to receive care on a space-available basis at their local
military medical facility. For these retirees, America's promise of
health care for life is not being honored.
Ironically, many of these military retirees are entitled to Medicare
in addition to their military health care eligibility. An estimated 1.2
million Americans fit into this ``dual-eligible'' category, with over
300,000 of them regularly using military medical treatment facilities
for their health care. The result is that the Department of Defense
effectively subsidizes Medicare at the rate of approximately $1.4
billion per year to treat these dual-eligible beneficiaries.
As a first step toward fulfilling America's promise to military
retirees 65 and over, Congress passed my proposal for a three-year
demonstration project as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Under
this demonstration project, known as Medicare Subvention, over 28,000
dual-eligible military retirees are being treated in military
facilities at selected test locations across the country. For these
retirees, Medicare is reimbursing the Department of Defense up to 95%
of the amount Medicare would pay Health Maintenance Organizations for
similar care. Unfortunately, the limited scope of the demonstration
project means that the majority of dual-eligible retirees are still
unable to receive the treatment they have earned at the military
facilities in their hometowns.
The bill we introduce today will keep the health care promise America
made to her military retirees 65 and over by expanding the
demonstration project and by ultimately making Medicare Subvention
permanent across the country. Specifically, this bill will expand the
test locations for the demonstration project to 16 sites effective
January 1, 2000. At these 16 sites, the demonstration project will
become permanent. In addition, on October 1, 2002, the bill expands
Medicare Subvention to any military medical treatment facility approved
by the secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services.
This bill not only fulfills commitments America made in the past, it
gives meaning and credibility to promises America is making to our
military service members today. If America does not keep her word to
those served during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the cold war, how
can we expect America's best and brightest to dedicate their careers to
serve this country in the future? We must act now to ensure that
America's defense in the future will be as strong as it has been in the
past. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter of support
for the bill, signed by the Military Coalition, which is a consortium
of military and veterans associations, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Military Coalition,
Alexandria, VA, April 27, 1999.
Hon. Phil Gramm,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: The Military Coalition, a consortium of
military and veterans associations representing more than
five million current and former members of the uniformed
services, plus their families and survivors, is very grateful
for your leadership in developing legislation to expand and
make permanent TRICARE Senior Prime (the Medicare Subvention
demonstration project for Medicare-eligible uniformed
services beneficiaries). TRICARE Senior Prime has been
successfully implemented in all of the demonstration sites
and, by all accounts, has been very well received by eligible
beneficiaries at each site. The Department of Defense has
also expressed a strong desire to expand this program to
other sites across the country wherever feasible. Your
initiatives to expand TRICARE Senior Prime to ten additional
locations by January 1, 2001 and
[[Page S4445]]
then across the remaining TRICARE Prime catchment areas not
later than October 1, 2002 clearly meets a critical need for
our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
The Military Coalition is particularly pleased that your
bill takes the additional step of making TRICARE Senior Prime
a permanent program. The Coalition has been concerned that
some older retirees have refrained from participating in
TRICARE Senior Prime because of their perception that the
temporary nature of the demonstration program could place
participants at financial risk. Beneficiaries need assurance
that this program will not disappear abruptly as so many of
their other health care benefits have, especially since
TRICARE Senior Prime is an integral part of fulfilling the
promise of health care for life for uniformed services
beneficiaries. Your bill takes a great step toward providing
retirees this assurance.
The Military Coalition is also pleased that your
legislation would authorize non-enrollees to use TRICARE
Senior Prime services on a ``fee-for-service'' basis. The
Military Coalition believes this would be particularly useful
for the Department of Defense, as well as beneficiaries,
especially at some of the smaller facilities with little or
no inpatient capabilities where it might be difficult to
implement a Medicare HMO program.
The Military Coalition wholeheartedly endorses your bill,
and will take whatever steps are necessary to encourage other
members of the Senate to co-sponsor this bill and have it
enacted as soon as the data from the existing test sites
validate that Medicare subvention is as valuable to DoD,
Medicare and the beneficiaries as we believe it is.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition.
(Signatures of Associations enclosed).
Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association,
Army Aviation Assn. of America, Assn. of Military
Surgeons of the United States, Assn. of the US Army,
Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health
Service, Inc., CWO & WO Assn., US Coast Guard, Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the US, Fleet
Reserve Assn., Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Jewish
War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps Reserve Officers
Assn., National Guard Assn. of the US, National
Military Family Assn., National Order of Battlefield
Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn., Naval
Reserve Assn., Navy League of the US, Reserve Officers
Assn., Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed
Forces, The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA, The
Retired Enlisted Assn., The Retired Officers Assn.,
United Armed Forces Assn., USCG Chief Petty Officers
Assn., US Army Warrant Officers Assn., Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the US, and Veterans' Widows
International Network, Inc.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I am proud to join my esteemed
colleagues in introducing a bill that will expand and make permanent
the Medicare Subvention demonstration program passed as part of the
1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. I worked with Senator Gramm to pass
that measure then and I am pleased to join him again today to move this
program to its next level.
Military retirees have had an increasingly difficult time obtaining
the lifetime health care they were promised in return for 20 years of
service to their country. The problem, largely, has been access. The
number of military hospitals has decreased dramatically since the end
of the cold war and TRICARE/CHAMPUS, the health care plan created to
assist military retirees, not only is not available to a military
retiree who is Medicare eligible, but also when it is available its
reimbursement rates are so low many private practitioners will not
accept it, forcing military retirees back into military hospitals on a
``space available'' basis. Mr. President, you can see the vicious cycle
this creates. Simply, put, military retirees are being shut out of the
military health care system.
Congress, in turn, has been looking for solutions to this lack of
access. Last year I cosponsored a commonsense measure with Senator
Thurmond. Our simple proposal would have given military retirees the
option to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the
same plan in which you and I and our staffs are enrolled, Mr.
President. Congress acted on this idea by creating an FEHBP
demonstration program. While not a total solution, the program has
moved us in the right direction.
Another commonsense measure, Mr. President, is Medicare Subvention.
Currently, Medicare does not reimburse the Defense Department for
health care services. This makes little sense considering that Medicare
would reimburse any other private physician or medical care provider.
If a Medicare-eligible military retiree lives near a military hospital
he cannot use his Medicare and he cannot use TRICARE. He must find
another insurance provider to help pay for his medical care. This is
why, Mr. President, we passed a test of the Medicare Subvention in the
105th Congress.
Now we hope to move this concept forward. It is my understanding that
while the program is working, the connotation of the word ``test'' is
deterring military retirees who might otherwise enroll in a program
they know to be permanent. This bill would solve that problem. Our bill
also provides a fee-for-service Medicare option at certain Military
Treatment Facilities if this would be a more cost effective approach
for those facilities.
Mr. President, this bill enjoys widespread support. The Military
Coalition strongly favors an expansion of the Medicare subvention test.
My colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm introduced for the Record a
letter from the Coalition supporting this bill. Further, Congressman
Hefley's bill in the House has already garnered 69 cosponsors. I
believe this is a proposal Congress should move forward.
Congress must continue to increase access to health care for our
nation's military retirees. Medicare subvention is a commonsense
approach to achieving this end. Thus far, based on the demonstration
program, the parties involved feel that Medicare Subvention has been a
success. Now we must let our military retirees know that when they
enter this program the Government will not leave them in the lurch.
This bill will do exactly that.
______
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 916. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact provision; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
dairy compact repeal legislation
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Grams, in introducing a measure to repeal the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was
included in the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it
had been struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor
consideration.
Mr. President, support of this legislation is especially crucial as
compact proponents have recently introduced a measure to make permanent
and expand the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and establish a
southern dairy compact. In other words, a measure devised to control
three percent of the country's milk is now seeking 40% of the country's
milk. The cost to consumers, taxpayers, and farmers outside the compact
region are enormous.
Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact bill of 1996
established a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered
to set minimum prices for fluid milk above those established under
Federal Milk Marketing Orders. This sort or compact was unprecedented
and unnecessary because the Federal milk marketing order system already
provided farmers in the designated compact region with minimum milk
prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers
throughout the nation. But they wanted more.
This compact not only allows the six States to set artificially high
fluid milk prices for their producers, it also allows those States to
keep out lower priced milk from producers in competing States and
provides processors within the region with a subsidy to export their
higher priced milk to noncompact States.
Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme
are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting
barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential
price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers
nationally and may now extend that privilege to the south; It
encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing
effective supply control that drives down milk prices for producers
throughout the country; It imposes higher costs on the
[[Page S4446]]
millions of consumers in the Compact region; It imposes higher costs to
taxpayers who pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the
national school lunch programs which provide milk and other dairy
products and as a price-fixing mechanism, the compact it is
unprecedented in the history of this Nation.
Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that
the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the
Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against
dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal
orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they
are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky
Mountains.
Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently
discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast,
the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess
production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives
down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production
of cheese, butter, and dry milk.
Cheese and other manufactured dairy products constitute the pillar of
our dairy industry in Wisconsin. Competition for the production and
sale of these products by other regions spurred on by artificial
incentives under milk marketing orders has eroded our markets for
cheese and other products.
Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more dairy farms each year
than any other state. A recent survey by the National Milk Producers
Federation revealed that, between 1993 and 1998, Wisconsin lost over
7000 dairy farms--that's three dairy farms a day! The number of
manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in
1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination
and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide
artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational
economic grounds.
Lets look at their arguments: They claim this legislation is
necessary to save their small dairy farmers, yet the bill does not
target small operations. One year after the compact began, New England
dairy farms went out of business at a 41% faster rate than in the prior
two years.
They also claim that consumers in their regions are willing to pay a
higher price at the grocery store as a result of the compact. However,
studies show that higher milk prices at the retail level result in a
decline in milk consumption at home. According to economists, a 10%
increase in price can lead to as much as an 8% decline in consumption.
The spread of dairy compacts to include half of the U.S. population in
the Northeast, the South and parts of the Midwest could drive up milk
prices as much as 20%.
Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are
on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast
Dairy Compact reinforces the outrageous discrimination that has so
wounded the dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change
Federal milk marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the
Northeast Dairy Compact from becoming permanent and expanding, and
prevent the authorization of a southern compact. We will do all of
these things in the name of basic fairness, simple justice and economic
sanity in the marketplace. Upper Midwest dairy farmers have been bled
long enough.
When prices fall, as they have recently, all farmers feel the stress.
Why should one farmer in a region arbitrarily suffer or benefit more
than another farmer on a similar operation in another region because of
this artificial finger on the scale called the compact. Regional
inequities are the inherent assumption of compact proponents and a
basic economic premise of the compact idea. Shouldn't we be working
together to make conditions better for all dairy producers? Why should
one region, and now multiple regions be treated differently?
And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy
farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which
ordinary noncompact farmers have to live with. Compact proponents have
never been able to explain how conditions in the Northeast merit
greater protection from market price fluctuations than other regions of
the country. The fact that there are no compelling arguments made in
favor of the compact that justified special treatment for the Northeast
was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike the compact from
the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on approval or
disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed the compact
in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately included in
the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification for its
approval. Let me remind my colleagues that the compact was never
included in the House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part
of the bill after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation
which is patently unfair and difficult to defend must frequently be
negotiated behind closed doors rather than in the light of day.
Even the Secretary of Agriculture, after approving the compact, was
unable to come up with an economic justification for the compact. The
Secretary's finding of `compelling public interest' as a basis for
justifying his approval of the compact was so weak and unsupported by
the public record that a suit was filed by compact opponents in Federal
court charging that the Secretary violated the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Mr. President, authorizing dairy compacts is bad public policy
because it increases costs to taxpayers and consumers and currently
only benefits a few in privileged regions. It is bad dairy policy
because it exacerbates regional discrimination of existing Federal milk
marketing orders by providing artificial advantages to a small group of
producers at the expense of all others. And it is bad economic policy
because it establishes barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the
type the United States has been working hard to eliminate in
international markets.
Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman
with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper
and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was
irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate
compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this
matter. It is time to make it right.
It is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the 1996
farm bill. It's time to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy compact.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 917. A bill to equalize the minimum adjustments to prices for
fluid milk under milk marketing orders; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the dairy reform act
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in order to call attention to
one of the most onerous barriers currently facing American agriculture.
It is a regional price-fixing cartel, which benefits only those
producers within its own boundaries, at the direct expense of
consumers. It is a patently unfair, unabashed attempt to distort basic
principles of market forces. It is the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact, which has been in effect in New England States since July
1997.
Today, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and I introduce the Dairy
Fairness Act, which would repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact. As many southeastern States are passing enabling legislation
to lay the groundwork in forming their own compacts, we feel it is
necessary to once again review the notorious history of the Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact, and its negative impact on consumers and on
all dairy farmers--with the notable exception, of course, of the
largest dairy industries within the compact region.
The 1996 FAIR Act included significant reforms for diary policy. It
set the stage for greater market orientation in dairy, including reform
of the archaic Federal milk marketing orders. Yet despite a strong vote
by the Senate to strip the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from its
version of the FAIR Act, and the deliberate exclusion of any compact
language from the House version of the bill, a Northeast Interstate
Dairy Compact provision was slipped into the conference report. This
[[Page S4447]]
language called for the termination of the compact upon the completion
of the Federal milk marketing order process. That would have been in
April of 1999. Well, through last year's appropriations process, the
implementation of USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms have been
delayed by 6 months. Of course, this was not at the request of the
USDA. With the delay came an automatic extension of this compact. This
political maneuvering is outrageous, and it comes with a high price tag
attached--a high price tag to be paid by milk drinkers, and the rest of
the Nation's dairy farmers.
The goals of the Northeast Dairy Compact have been clear since its
inception. That was--to increase the profits of producers within the
compact region, but at the expense of everyone outside of the compact.
And by now, the obvious ramifications have been realized--higher milk
prices within the compact region. This, not surprisingly, has led to a
decrease in milk consumption. According to data from the Northeast
Dairy Compact Commission, the compact, since it has been in effect, has
added $46.5 million to the cost of milk in New England. As the fluid
milk prices which consumers pay rise, the burden falls
disproportionately on low-income families, particularly those with
small children. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their
income on food. They are harmed as a direct result of this compact.
The compact is having other dramatic effects as well. The increase in
prices which producers receive for their milk has led to surplus
production, which has had a negative effect on other producers around
the country. Conversion of this surplus milk into cheese, butter, and
powder drives down prices for these products in other non-compact
regions. Take milk powder, for instance. Some of the compact's excess
supply has been converted into nonfat milk powder. Between October 1997
and March 1998, New England produced 11 million more pounds of powder,
60 percent more than it did in the same period of the preceding year.
During that time, nonfat powder production in the U.S. increased by
only 2 percent. Furthermore, between October 1, 1997 and March 31,
1998, the nonfat milk powder glut in the U.S. drove prices so low that
USDA had to spend nearly $41 million to buy surplus milk powder from
dairy processors. Dairy producers outside of the compact region clearly
are harmed as a direct result of the compact.
In fact, the only real winners have been the largest industrial
dairies of the Northeast. It is really no surprise. Just consider it:
if the compact pays a premium per hundredweight of milk, and large
industrial dairies are able to produce, for example, 15 to 20 times
more than the ``typical'' traditional dairy farm that the compact was
supposedly going to protect, who do you think the big winners are? It
certainly isn't the traditional dairy farm. They are also put at a
competitive disadvantage, and thanks again to regional politics. And so
are dairies outside the compact region.
We must keep sight of the fact that a dairy compact, or any sort of
compact for that matter, is essentially a price-fixing scheme, which so
abuses interstate commerce that it requires a special authorization of
Congress. Otherwise it would violate Federal antitrust laws. We have
come to the point where we must ask ourselves, as a nation, in which
direction will we proceed concerning dairy policy. USDA has just
presented its recommendations for Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms.
It is not a great step in the way of reform, but at least it represents
a rational attempt to decrease Federal interference in the dairy
business and to treat producers all over the country a little more
fairly. A national patchwork of compacts would render the Federal Milk
Marketing Order reforms meaningless. It would essentially kill any hope
for the beginning of real Federal reform. Interstate commerce in the
milk industry would be so confusing it would be a confusing maze that
harms consumers. While dairy was not included in the farm bill, it was
always envisioned that a later dairy solution would conform to the free
market concept of that farm bill.
We all know that it is difficult in Washington to have the courage to
bypass any of those quick-fix issues in favor of a long-range view
which would produce better and sound dairy policies. But that is
exactly what we need today. That is where real leadership comes into
play. So let's be advocates for the traditional dairy farmers, not just
the mega-dairies. What is required now is a complete overhaul of this
backward-looking and just plain unfair compact legislation. Senator
Feingold and I will continue to fight the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact, and any other dairy compact that may be proposed. And we urge
our colleagues to give all dairy farmers, in all areas of our country,
the ability to compete on a level playing field.
To this end, and in order to underscore the need for significant
reform, Senator Feingold and I today also introduce the Dairy Reform
Act, which would equalize the minimum adjustments to prices for fluid
milk marketing orders at $1.80 per hundredweight of milk. This
legislation, again, represents real reform, and a level playing field
that will allow farmers to compete fairly and not have the Federal
Government stand on the neck of dairy farmers in one area of the
country while supporting those in others. It would allow producers to
compete in a system where efficiencies--efficiencies--would be rewarded
and they would be important according to market principles. The current
system is so weighted against the Upper Midwest that our dairy farmers
have to be twice as good just to be able to break even. The Dairy
Reform Act proposes a marketing system which would truly be fair.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Dairy
Reform Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator
Rod Grams.
The Federal Dairy Program was developed in the 1930's, when the Upper
Midwest was seen as the primary reserve for additional supplies of
milk. The idea was to encourage the development of local supplies of
fluid milk in areas of the country that had not produced enough to meet
local needs. Six decades ago, the poor condition of the American
transportation infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration
technology prevented Upper Midwest producers from shipping fresh fluid
milk to other parts of the country. Therefore, the only way to ensure
consumers a fresh local supply of fluid milk was to provide dairy
farmers in those distant regions with a boost in milk price large
enough to encourage local production--that higher price referred to as
the Class I differential. Mr. President, the system worked well--too
well. Wisconsin is no longer this country's largest milk producer. This
program has outlived its necessity and is now working only to
shortchange the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy
farmers.
The Dairy Reform Act of 1998 is very simple. It establishes that the
minimum Class I price differential will be the same, $1.80/
hundredweight, for each marketing order. As many of you know, the price
for fluid milk increases at a rate of approximately 21 cents per 100
miles from Eau Claire, WI. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are nearly
$3 higher in Florida than in Wisconsin, more than $2 higher in New
England, and more than $1 higher in Texas. This bill ensures that the
Class I differentials will no longer vary according to an arbitrary
geographic measure--like the distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin. No
longer will the system penalize producers in the Upper Midwest with an
archaic program that outlived its purpose years ago. This legislation
identifies one of the most unfair and unjustly punitive provisions in
the current system, and corrects it. There is no substantive, equitable
justification to support non-uniform Class I differentials in present
day policy.
USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reform proposal was recently
published. Although the USDA was successful in narrowing Class I
differentials, discrepancies still exist. It is long past the time to
set aside regional bickering and address the problems faced by dairy
producers in all regions. The Dairy Reform Act of 1999 will make a
change to USDA's proposed rule which will make the entire package more
palatable for Wisconsin's producers. It will take USDA's proposal a
step further and lead the dairy industry into a more market oriented
program. Also producers will still be able to receive payment for
transportation costs and over-order premiums.
[[Page S4448]]
This measure would finally bring fairness to an unfair system. With
this bill we will send a clear message to USDA and to Congress that
Upper-Midwest dairy farmers will never stop fighting this patently
unfair federal milk marketing order system. After over 60 years of
struggling under this burden of inequality, Wisconsin's dairy industry
deserves more; it deserves a fair price.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Robb, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Levin, Mr. Graham, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs Lincoln, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 918. A bill to authorize the Small Business Administration to
provide financial and business development assistance to military
reservists' small business, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Small Business.
MILITARY RESERVIST SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF ACT OF 1999
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the
Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act of 1999. I offer it on
behalf of myself and 30 other colleagues: Senators Bond, Bingaman,
Landrieu, Harkin, Lieberman, Wellstone, Kohl, Burns, Robb, Edwards,
Levin, Graham, Snowe, Akaka, Murray, Cleland, Kennedy, Jeffords,
Collins, Abraham, Leahy, Baucus, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Grassley,
Moynihan, Lincoln, Bayh, Chafee, Lautenberg, Cochran, and Daschle. I
thank these Senators for their support.
Mr. President, a number of those colleagues I listed serve on either
the Small Business Committee, the Armed Services Committee or on the
Veterans Affairs Committee. However, all have joined me in a universal
concern that I think goes across the aisle for the problems that
reservists face when they are called suddenly to active duty. This bill
will help small businesses whose owner, manager, or key employee is
called to active duty. Most immediately, we are obviously looking at
the question of service in Kosovo, but the act also applies to future
contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies.
Since 1973, we have taken pains as a result of the Vietnam experience
to build an all-volunteer military. Our reservists are much more than
just weekend warriors. When they are called, they are an essential
ingredient of any kind of long-term or significant deployment of
American forces. I think everyone knows the contributions they have
made as soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guard, serving our
country in extraordinary ways in recent years.
The National Guard and the Reservists have become a critical
component of U.S. force deployment. In the Persian Gulf war they
accounted for more than 46 percent of our total forces. The Acting
Assistant Secretary for Defense for Reserve Affairs just Tuesday said
that ``Reservists are absolutely vital to our national military
strategy.''
To support the NATO operations in the Balkans, Secretary of Defense
Cohen has asked for and received the authorization to call up members
of the Selected Reserve to active duty. President Clinton has
authorized deployment of 33,000 reservists, but the initial callup
includes only about 2,100 personnel. These first reservists come from
Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin. A total of 1.4 million Americans currently serve in our
seven Reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces.
When these folks are called up, even though they know they are in the
Reserves and even though they know at some point in time they might be
called to meet an emergency of our country, the fact is that nothing
prepares their families or them for the remarkably fast transition that
takes place. There are obviously emotional and personal hardships
people have to deal with, but in addition to that there are significant
financial realities.
I have heard first-hand, talking to a number of vets who suffered
this callup process, how difficult it is. One veteran told the ``Boston
Globe'' on the 1-year anniversary of the Persian Gulf War:
The Gulf War is going to wind up having caused a lot of
stress for me personally and for my family. It didn't just
take a year out of my life. It's going to take a minimum of
another two years, because that's how long it's going to take
for us to catch up.
I think it is imperative that we help these families and communities
to bridge the gap between the moment when the troops leave and when
they return. We are talking about people who fill all of the normal,
everyday positions of commerce that help to keep this country strong--
bankers, barbers, mechanics, merchants, farmers, doctors, Realtors,
owners of fast food restaurants--all kinds of positions that reservists
hold and ultimately leave when they go to active duty.
As some veterans of the Persian Gulf War know all too well, they left
their businesses and their companies in good shape. They were earning a
living, they were providing a service, they were adding to the tax
base, they were creating jobs, and then they returned to hardships that
range from bankruptcy to financial ruin; from deserted clients to
layoffs.
Even if you are not a small business owner, one has to ask what
happens to one's family or to one's business or company during a 6- to
7-month deployment if you or your key employee suddenly has to depart.
Particularly in rural areas and small towns it can be extremely
difficult to find a replacement.
Let me share with you just one very quick story from my part of the
country. For privacy purposes I am not going to use any names. However,
I am going to talk about a physician from Raynham, MA. He was a
lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve and was called up for
Operation Desert Storm as a flight surgeon in January 1991. For 10
years he had been a solo practitioner. After only 6 months of service,
he had to file bankruptcy. That bankruptcy affected not only him but
his wife, his two employees, and their families. After 1 year on duty,
he came home and he found he literally had no business, no clients at
that point in time, and no job--no income as a consequence.
We do not know for how long reservists will be called away, but
whenever they return, we ought to make certain, to the degree we can,
that the negative impacts are as minimal as possible. There is a way to
do that. The way to do it is through this legislation.
What we seek to do is to authorize the SBA, the Small Business
Administration, to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the
interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding to those who are
called up. That would include disaster loans. The deferrals and
reductions that are authorized by this bill would be available from the
date that the individual reservist is called to active duty until 180
days after his or her release from that duty.
For microloans and loans guaranteed under the SBA's financial
assistance programs, such as the 504 program or 7(a) loan programs, the
bill directs the agency to develop policies that encourage and
facilitate ways that SBA lenders can either defer or reduce loan
repayments.
For example, a microlender's ability to repay its debt to the SBA is
obviously dependent upon the repayments from its microborrowers. So,
with this bill's authority, if a microlender extends or defers loan
repayment to a borrower who is a deployed military reservist, in turn
the SBA would extend repayment obligations to the microlender.
Second, the bill establishes a low-interest, economic injury loan
program to be administered by the SBA through its disaster loan
program. These loans would be specifically available to provide interim
operating capital to any small business when the departure of a
military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. Under the
bill, such harm includes three general cases: No. 1, inability to make
loan repayments; No. 2, inability to pay ordinary and necessary
operating expenses; or, No. 3, inability to market, produce or provide
a service or product that it ordinarily provides.
Identical to the loan deferral requirements, an eligible small
business can
[[Page S4449]]
apply for an economic injury loan from the date that the company's
military reservist is ordered to active duty, again until 180 days
after the release from active duty.
Finally, the bill directs the SBA, and all of its private sector
partners, such as the small business development centers, the women's
business centers, to make positive efforts--proactive efforts--to reach
out to those businesses affected by the call-up of military reservists
to active duty, and to offer business counseling and training. Those
left behind to run the businesses, whether it is a spouse or a child or
an employee, while the military reservist is serving overseas, may be
inexperienced in running the business and need quick access to
management and marketing counseling. We think it is important to do
what we can to help bring those folks together, to keep the doors of
the business open, and to reduce the impact of a military conflict and
national emergency on the economy.
Some people might argue--I have not heard this argument
sufficiently--but it is not inconceivable that some people would say:
Wait a minute now, reservists do not deserve this special assistance
because they ought to know the inherent risks of their chosen role and
they ought to be prepared for deployment.
It is true you may live with those possibilities and those
probabilities. It is also true it is very hard to pick up from the
moment of notification to the moment of departure in as little as 3
days, pulling all the pieces together sufficiently. During the Persian
Gulf war, one reservist's wife, Mrs. Carolee Ploof of Middlebury, VT,
reported that her family had 3 days to prepare for her husband's
departure. She said: ``How do you prepare [for that]? I really think
it's unfair that self-employed people have to lose their shirts to
protect their country.'' So, from the moment her husband was mobilized,
he reported for duty until 10 p.m. and then went home to try to teach
his wife how to run the business--all in 48 hours before he was to
depart.
I think we should understand we are talking here about loans and
extensions on loans. We are not talking about forgiveness, and we are
not talking about grants. We are talking about a hand up, not a hand-
out. We are talking about trying to facilitate what is obviously a very
difficult process.
Finally, let me just say we are the people who designed the policy
that made it so our military deployments for significant kinds of
conflicts are, in fact, so Reserve-dependent. We did that for a lot of
good reasons, not the least of which is that we have a great tradition
in this country of citizen soldiers--a voluntary civilian component of
our military service. We also know it is a significant way to reduce
the costs of a standing army. The costs of carrying a standing army, in
lieu of having reservists as the important component they are, millions
of times outweighs the very small, targeted help we are talking about
in this legislation.
I thank my 30 other colleagues who are cosponsors of this bill. I
hope that this legislation will move very rapidly through the Senate so
reservists will know, and their families will know, that, should there
be a greater deployment in the future, it will not come with the kind
of loss, or double hit if you will, for the notion of service to our
country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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. 918
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 ``Military Reservists Small
Business Relief Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. REPAYMENT DEFERRAL FOR ACTIVE DUTY RESERVISTS.
Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Repayment Deferred for Active Duty Reservists.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Eligible reservist.--The term `eligible reservist'
means a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces
ordered to active duty during a period of military conflict.
``(B) Owner, manager, or key employee.--An owner, manager,
or key employee described in this subparagraph is an
individual who--
``(i) has not less than a 20 percent ownership interest in
the small business concern described in subparagraph (D)(ii);
``(ii) is a manager responsible for the day-to-day
operations of such small business concern; or
``(iii) is a key employee (as defined by the
Administration) of such small business concern.
``(C) Period of military conflict.--The term `period of
military conflict' means--
``(i) a period of war declared by Congress;
``(ii) a period of national emergency declared by Congress
or by the President; or
``(iii) a period of a contingency operation, as defined in
section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
``(D) Qualified borrower.--The term `qualified borrower'
means--
``(i) an individual who is an eligible reservist and who,
received a direct loan under subsection (a) or (b) before
being ordered to active duty; or
``(ii) a small business concern that received a direct loan
under subsection (a) or (b) before an eligible reservist, who
is an owner, manager, or key employee described in
subparagraph (B), was ordered to active duty.
``(2) Deferral of direct loans.--
``(A) In general.--The Administration shall, upon written
request, defer repayment of principal and interest due on a
direct loan made under subsection (a) or (b), if such loan
was incurred by a qualified borrower.
``(B) Period of deferral.--The period of deferral for
repayment under this paragraph shall begin on the date on
which the eligible reservist is ordered to active duty and
shall terminate on the date that is 180 days after the date
such eligible reservist is discharged or released from active
duty.
``(C) Interest rate reduction during deferral.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period
of deferral described in subparagraph (B), the Administration
may, in its discretion, reduce the interest rate on any loan
qualifying for a deferral under this paragraph.
``(3) Deferral of loan guarantees and other financings.--
The Administration shall--
``(A) encourage intermediaries participating in the program
under subsection (m) to defer repayment of a loan made with
proceeds made available under that subsection, if such loan
was incurred by a small business concern that is eligible to
apply for assistance under subsection (b)(3); and
``(B) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this subsection, establish guidelines to--
``(i) encourage lenders and other intermediaries to defer
repayment of, or provide other relief relating to, loan
guarantees under subsection (a) and financings under section
504 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 that were
incurred by small business concerns that are eligible to
apply for assistance under subsection (b)(3), and loan
guarantees provided under subsection (m) if the intermediary
provides relief to a small business concern under this
paragraph; and
``(ii) implement a program to provide for the deferral of
repayment or other relief to any intermediary providing
relief to a small business borrower under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 3. DISASTER LOAN ASSISTANCE FOR MILITARY RESERVISTS'
SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting after the undesignated
paragraph that begins with ``Provided, That no loan'', the
following:
``(3)(A) In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `economic injury' means an economic harm to
a business concern that results in the inability of the
business concern--
``(I) to meet its obligations as they mature;
``(II) to pay its ordinary and necessary operating
expenses; or
``(III) to market, produce, or provide a product or service
ordinarily marketed, produced, or provided by the business
concern;
``(ii) the term `owner, manager, or key employee' means an
individual who--
``(I) has not less than a 20 percent ownership in the small
business concern;
``(II) is a manager responsible for the day-to-day
operations of such small business concern; or
``(III) is a key employee (as defined by the
Administration) of such small business concern; and
``(iii) the term `period of military conflict' has the
meaning given the term in subsection (n)(1).
``(B) The Administration may make such disaster loans
(either directly or in cooperation with banks or other
lending institutions through agreements to participate on an
immediate or deferred basis) to assist a small business
concern (including a small business concern engaged in the
lease or rental of real or personal property) that has
suffered or that is likely to suffer economic injury as the
result of the owner, manager, or key employee of such small
business concern being ordered to active military duty during
a period of military conflict.
``(C) A small business concern described in subparagraph
(B) shall be eligible to apply for assistance under this
paragraph during the period beginning on the date on which
the owner, manager, or key employee is ordered to active duty
and ending on the date that is 180 days after the date on
which such
[[Page S4450]]
owner, manager, or key employee is discharged or released
from active duty.
``(D) Any loan or guarantee extended pursuant to this
paragraph shall be made at an annual interest rate of 4
percent, without regard to the ability of the small business
concern to secure credit elsewhere.
``(E) No loan may be made under this paragraph, either
directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending
institutions through agreements to participate on an
immediate or deferred basis, if the total amount outstanding
and committed to the borrower under this subsection would
exceed $1,500,000, unless such applicant constitutes a major
source of employment in its surrounding area, as determined
by the Administration, in which case the Administration, in
its discretion, may waive the $1,500,000 limitation.
``(F) For purposes of assistance under this paragraph, no
declaration of a disaster area shall be required.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4(c) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 633(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``7(b)(4),''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``7(b)(4), 7(b)(5),
7(b)(6), 7(b)(7), 7(b)(8),''.
SEC. 4. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE FOR
MILITARY RESERVISTS' SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Management Assistance for Small Businesses Affected
by Military Operations.--The Administration shall utilize, as
appropriate, its entrepreneurial development and management
assistance programs, including programs involving State or
private sector partners, to provide business counseling and
training to any small business concern adversely affected by
the deployment of units of the Armed Forces of the United
States in support of a period of military conflict (as
defined in section 7(n)(1)).
(b) Enhanced Publicity During Operation Allied Force.--For
the duration of Operation Allied Force and for 120 days
thereafter, the Administration shall enhance its publicity of
the availability of assistance provided pursuant to the
amendments made by this Act, including information regarding
the appropriate local office at which affected small
businesses may seek such assistance.
SEC. 5. GUIDELINES.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration
shall issue such guidelines as the Administrator determines
to be necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made
by this Act.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Disaster Loans.--The amendments made by section 3 shall
apply to economic injury suffered or likely to be suffered as
the result of a period of military conflict occurring on or
after March 24, 1999.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, more than 2,000 reservists were called up
Tuesday to participate in NATO Operation Allied Force. These men and
women who may serve for as long as nine months are making a great
sacrifice, as are their family members and co-workers who are left
behind.
It is incumbent upon us to find ways to ease the burden of this
service for our reservists, their families and their employers. Two
weeks ago the Senate passed tax relief for those serving in Operation
Allied Force. The legislation we are introducing today addresses the
economic impact of taking reservists away from small businesses,
whether the reservist is the owner, a manager or a key employee.
The Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act allows small
businessmen and women to defer loan payments on any direct loan from
the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans. The
bill directs SBA to come up with a policy for payment deferrals for the
microloan program and loans guaranteed under one of SBA's financial
assistance programs. Deferrals on loan payments would extend 180 days
after the reservist's release from active duty.
The bill also establishes a low interest economic injury loan program
to provide interim operating capital to any small business experiencing
economic harm because a military reservist has been called to active
duty. The bill defines economic harm as being unable to provide goods
or services that the business usually provides. SBA will administer the
loan program through its disaster loan program.
Recognizing the disruptions that may occur as a result of the recent
call up, the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act directs SBA
and its private sector partners to mobilize their resources to offer
business counseling and training to inexperienced employees or family
members who are left behind to run businesses on their own when a
reservist is called up.
This legislation is modeled on similar legislation adopted during
Operation Desert Storm. It is a practical response to the real and
often overlooked impact of calling up military reservists. Wisconsin
has some marvelous employers who are tremendously supportive of their
employees who serve in the reserves. Several years ago, Schneider Truck
of Green Bay, WI, was recognized as the Reserves Employer of the year
by the Defense Department. Companies like Schneider do all they can to
make it easier for reservists and their families to manage while the
service member is on active duty. It is my hope that this legislation
will help smaller companies and encourage them to provide reservists
and their families with this kind of support.
The men and women of the reserves are far more than ``weekend
warriors,'' they are the backbone of our military. We are grateful for
their willingness to serve. We thank the men and women of the reserves,
their families, and their employers for their sacrifices and this
service.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has approved the call-up of
up to 33,000 Reservists to support NATO operations over Kosovo. Reserve
forces are playing an ever-increasing role in military operations. With
the downsizing of our Active forces and the increased number of
missions, our Armed Forces cannot operate successfully without use of
our Reserve component resources. For example, of the 540,000 service
members deployed to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Desert Storm,
228,000, or 42%, were reservists. Reservists have also answered the
call for service in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, Operation UPHOLD
DEMOCRACY in Haiti, and Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR/JOINT GUARD in Bosnia.
National Guard and Reserve forces are involved in helping Central
America recover from the devastation of Hurricane Mitch, and they are
routinely called upon to respond to disasters in the United States. As
the Reserve components are relied on more and more, even during nornal
times they are called away from their civilian jobs more and more.
The absence of these men and women from their families, jobs and
businesses while they are serving their country on active duty will
clearly present some hardships. We should do everything we can do to
try minimize any economic hardships that might arise from their absence
on their businesses and places of employment. That is why I have
cosponsored the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act that Mr.
Kerry has introduced today to provide financial and business
development assistance to military reservists' small businesses.
This legislation will help military reservists who are called away
from their jobs and businesses to serve the United States in any
military operation with respect to Kosovo by allowing them to defer
existing government guaranteed small business loans and giving them
access to low interest rate government guaranteed loans to bridge any
financial gap that might arise out of their absence. These Reservists
will be eligible for assistance if they are an owner, manager or key
employee of a small business.
This legislation provides more generous loan repayment terms for
small business reservists who have SBA loans. It does this by
authorizing a deferral of loan repayments for small business reservists
on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA),
including disaster loans. Interest will not accrue during the time that
the loan is deferred. The legislation also directs SBA to develop
policies such as extending repayments of its government guaranteed
loans such as micro loans or 7(a) loans for reservists who are called
up for active duty. The deferrals will be available from the date the
reservist is called to active duty until 180 days after his or her
release from active duty.
The legislation also establishes a low interest economic injury loan
program to be administered by SBA through its disaster loan program.
Such loans would be made available to provide interim operating capital
to any small business when the departure of a military reservist to
active duty causes economic harm.
[[Page S4451]]
The legislation also directs the SBA and its private sector partners
to make every effort to reach out to those businesses affected by the
absence of key employees who are Reservists and provide assistance such
as businesses counseling and training for how to run the business in
the absence of these key employees.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation designed
to reduce any economic hardship created by the absence of active duty
reservists from their jobs and businesses and I hope the Senate will
act on it quickly.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is widely known that our nation can
no longer commit military force to conflicts, national emergencies and
contingency operations without the participation of our National Guard
and Reserves. This is expressly provided in our national military
strategy. It is confirmed by the 300% increase in the pace of
operations for our National Guard alone since Operation Desert Storm.
While I enthusiastically support the full integration of our reserve
components into a seamless Total Force, I recognize its potential to
seriously affect our nation's small businesses. In most communities
across this nation small businesses sustain the local economy, yet many
of these businesses rely upon key employees, owners or managers who are
also Guard members or Reservists subject to being called away to active
duty. On Tuesday, the President approved the call-up of 33,102 members
of the Selected Reserve to active duty in support of NATO operations in
Yugoslavia. We cannot ignore the impact of this on our small
businesses. The challenge is upon us. That is why I am happy to join
Senator Kerry in introducing the Military Reservists Small Business
Relief Act.
For eligible reservists called to active duty in support of a
declared war, national emergency or contingency operation, the bill
provides in part:
1. An authorization to defer loan repayments on any direct loan from
the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans, to
borrowers who are members of the Guard and Reserves called to active
duty.
2. A low interest economic injury loan program, administered by SBA,
which would provide interim operating capital to any small business
likely to suffer economic harm caused by the departure of an employee,
who is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty.
3. Direction to the SBA and all of its private sector partners, such
as the Small Business Development Centers, to offer business training
and counseling to small business affected by a loss of an employee who
is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty.
Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share
of our worldwide missions, we cannot overlook the effects of these
operations on our civilian workforce and their civilian employers. This
legislation ensures that we keep their interests in mind during periods
of military conflict.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 919. A bill to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley
National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to expand the boundaries of the
corridor; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
quinebaug and shetucket rivers valley national heritage corridor
reauthorization act of 1999
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, and Senator Kennedy, to introduce
legislation to reauthorize the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley
National Heritage Corridor (Corridor). Congressman Gejdenson from
Connecticut and Congressman Neal from Massachusetts will be introducing
companion legislation today in other body.
The 25-town area in eastern Connecticut was originally designated a
Corridor in 1994, when the U.S. Congress passed and the President
signed Public Law 103-449. The purpose of the Corridor is to encourage
grassroots efforts to preserve historic and environmental treasures
while promoting economic development. Today's legislation builds upon
the success of the Corridor and extends it by including nine towns from
Massachusetts and one additional town from Connecticut. The towns
affected include Union, Connecticut, and the following towns in
Massachusetts--Brimfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Holland,
Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Webster.
Because this is an established Corridor which has been developing and
implementing cultural, economic and environmental programs to preserve
this beautiful and historic region of Connecticut, the legislation we
are introducing increases the Corridor authorization level to $1.5
million. This level of funding is consistent with recent new Corridor
authorization levels of $1 million. Our Corridor has been significantly
underfunded each year; I can only imagine the further great works that
can be undertaken with adequate funding.
Unfortunately, Connecticut ranks near the bottom among States in the
amount of Federal land within its borders, such as National Parks,
Recreation Areas, and Forests. That is why I joined with Congressman
Gejdenson back in 1993 to introduce the original bill designating the
Quinebaug and Shetucket Heritage Corridor and why I am advocating an
increase in the size and scope of it. Extending through eastern
Connecticut and soon southeastern Massachusetts, the Corridor is within
a two hour's drive from the major metropolitan areas of Boston, New
Haven, Hartford and New York.
The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley saw a rebirth with the dawn
of the industrial age. Hundreds of mills were built along the banks of
the rivers and this region became a leader in the textile industry.
Today, the mills are quiet, many of them abandoned, and the valley is a
picturesque area of rolling hills and beautiful farms. It offers
landscapes for hiking and biking, rivers for canoeing and fishing, and
abandoned mills which offer a glimpse at history. It is the birthplace
of Revolutionary War hero Nathan Hale and the Prudence Crandall School,
the site of the first teacher-training school for African-American
women established in 1833. There are also many Native American and
archaeological sites.
The area is rich in history and those groups and individuals involved
with the Corridor have developed a management plan to preserve local
resources, enhance recreational potential and promote appropriate
development. By joining forces with the people of Massachusetts, a more
integrated system can be undertaken. The important historic and
cultural resources do not stop at the border.
In the few short years that the Corridor has been in place, its
stewards have provided grants and technical assistance to towns and
nonprofits embarking on historic preservation and research, economic
development, tourism, natural resource conservation and recreation.
The Corridor has public and private support throughout Connecticut
and the regions in Massachusetts look forward to working with the
existing partnerships to enhance their quality of life. It is the goal
of the Corridor to ensure a healthy environment and robust economy
compatible with the character of the region.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to look favorably on this effort
and I 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. 919
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Quinebaug
and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor
Reauthorization Act of 1999''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Quinebaug and Shetucket
Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 (16
U.S.C. 461 note; title I of Public Law 103-449).
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Section 102 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts'' after ``State of Connecticut'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as
paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively;
[[Page S4452]]
(4) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``New Haven,'' after ``Hartford,''; and
(5) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), by striking
``regional and State agencies'' and inserting ``regional, and
State agencies,''.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF QUINEBAUG AND SHETUCKET RIVERS
VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR; PURPOSE.
Section 103 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts'' after ``State of Connecticut''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide
assistance to the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, and their units of local and regional
government and citizens, in the development and
implementation of integrated natural, cultural, historic,
scenic, recreational, land, and other resource management
programs in order to retain, enhance, and interpret the
significant features of the land, water, structures, and
history of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley.''.
SEC. 4. BOUNDARIES AND ADMINISTRATION.
Section 104 is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``Union,'' after ``Thompson,''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``in the State of Connecticut, and the towns of
Brimfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Holland,
Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Webster in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which are contiguous areas in
the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley, related by shared
natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Administration.--The Corridor shall be managed by
Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc., in accordance
with the management plan and in consultation with the
Governors.''.
SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Section 105 is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 105. MANAGEMENT PLAN.'';
(2) by striking subsections (a) and (b);
(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (a);
(4) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Management''
before ``Plan'';
(B) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``The management entity shall implement the
management plan.'';
(C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``identified pursuant to
the inventory required in section 5(a)(1)''; and
(D) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by striking ``plan'' each
place it appears and inserting ``management plan''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Grants and Loans.--The management entity may, for the
purposes of implementing the management plan, make grants or
loans to the States, their political subdivisions, nonprofit
organizations, and other persons to further the goals set
forth in the management plan.''.
SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
Section 106 is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 106. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
``(a) In General.--Upon request of the management entity,
the Secretary and the heads of other Federal agencies shall
assist the management entity in the implementation of the
management plan.
``(b) Forms of Assistance.--Assistance under subsection (a)
shall include provision of funds authorized under section 109
and technical assistance necessary to carry out this Act.''.
SEC. 7. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
Section 107 is amended by striking ``Governor'' and
inserting ``management entity''.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
Section 108 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``and the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``means each of'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``means--
``(A) the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments,
the Windham Regional Council of Governments, and the
Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments in
Connecticut (or any successor council); and
``(B) the Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission and
the Southern Worcester County Regional Planning Commission in
Massachusetts (or any successor commission).''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Management entity.--The term `management entity'
means Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc., a not-for-
profit corporation incorporated under the law of the State of
Connecticut (or a successor entity).
``(7) Management plan.--The term `management plan' means
the document approved by the Governor of the State of
Connecticut on February 16, 1999, and adopted by the
management entity, entitled `Vision to Reality: A Management
Plan', comprising the management plan for the Corridor, as
the document may be amended or replaced from time to time.''.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 109 is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title--
``(1) $1,500,000 for any fiscal year; but
``(2) not more than a total of $15,000,000.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--Federal funding provided under this
title may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of any
assistance provided under this title.''.
SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 110 is amended in the section heading by striking
``SERVICE'' and inserting ``SYSTEM''.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr.
Inouye):
S. 920. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime
Commission for fiscal years 2000 and 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
federal maritime commission authorization act of 1999
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I, with Senator McCain,
Chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Hollings, the ranking
member of the Commerce Committee; and Senator Inouye, ranking member of
the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee are
introducing a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC).
The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency composed of
five commissioners. The Commission's primary responsibility is
administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of
1920. By doing so, the FMC protects shippers and carriers from
restrictive or unfair practices of foreign-flag carriers. Currently,
the Commission is engaged in the implementation of the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act of 1998. The Act, which takes effect on May 1 of this year
is the first major deregulation of international ocean shipping. This
bill authorizes funding for the Commission to continue its important
work.
Specifically, the bill authorizes $15.6 million for the FMC for
fiscal year 2000 and $16.3 million for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal
year 2000 funding is $385,000 above the amount requested by the
President in order to fund the appointment of the fifth commissioner
and his or her staff.
I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my
colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving
this authorization through the legislative process.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator
Hutchison, Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Subcommittee in introducing this bill.
The Federal Maritime Commission has done a commendable job in its
implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that takes effect on
May 1, 1999. This measure will insure that the Commission can complete
their implementation efforts and continue their other duties,
administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of
1920.
I am pleased that the subcommittee is taking this action today and
will join Senator Hutchison and the other sponsors in expeditiously
moving this authorization through the legislative process.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Federal
Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 1999, which would authorize
appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001. With the recent passage of the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act of 1998 (``OSRA'') the Commission's role in overseeing the
ocean transportation industry has changed dramatically and increased in
importance. The Commission must have the necessary funding to ensure
that Congress' intentions with OSRA are met, and that all segments of
the industry are fully protected from potential abuses.
I am particularly pleased with the effort made by the Commission to
adopt regulations to implement OSRA. OSRA, which was signed into law on
October 14, 1998, and will go into effect on May 1, 1999, significantly
altered the Commission's primary underlying statute--the Shipping Act
of 1984. Nevertheless, the Commission was only given
[[Page S4453]]
until March 1, 1999, to adopt final regulations to implement the
changes made to the Act. The Commission met this deadline while fully
complying with all notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission solicited and received
comment from the entire industry and, based on those comments, arrived
at final rules that are fully consistent with the Congressional intent.
The Commission should be applauded for accomplishing this difficult
task in such a timely and responsive manner.
I would also note that under OSRA the Commission will continue to
exercise its vital role in addressing unfair foreign trade practices
under section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 and the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act of 1988. The Commission has proven time and
again--most recently with the Japan port controversy and several
restrictive practices in Brazil--that it can effectively address such
practices and, if adequately funded, will be able to continue to do its
fine job. I am a firm proponent of aggressive policies that promote
fair and open trades, and I commend the FMC for their role in opening
markets for our ocean carrier and ocean shipper communities.
The amounts authorized for the FMC take into account the fact that
the Commission will soon be fully staffed with five Commissioners. The
President recently nominated a fifth Commissioner and his nomination is
pending before the Commerce Committee. The Commission needs full
funding to bring the agency up to its full complement of members and to
meet its new responsibilities under OSRA.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lott):
S. 921. A bill to facilitate and promote electronic commerce in
securities transactions involving broker-dealers, transfer agents, and
investment advisers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
ELECTRONIC SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ACT
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCain and
Senator Lott to introduce legislation designed to modernize the manner
in which registered securities broker-dealers, transfer agents, and
investment advisers serve millions of American investors every day.
Only a few years ago, a few pioneering brokerage firms, utilizing the
vast potential of the Internet, began to revolutionize the securities
industry by offering individual investors the opportunity to buy and
sell stocks online. Because of the lower costs of electronic
transactions, investors have found they can place trades online at a
mere fraction of the price they were paying for services at traditional
brokerage firms. They have also found that online brokerage firms offer
them access to a wide array of information, investing assistance, and
research that previously was available only to institutional investors.
Almost overnight, many investors have demonstrated their preference for
the savings and the empowerment that online brokerage services give
them.
For example, today Charles Schwab, which has been at the forefront of
offering electronic services, reports that it has approximately 2.5
million active online accounts and that more than 50 percent of its
custoemr trades are placed online. Since Schwab offers its customers
multiple channels of access to its trading services, the fact that more
than half of its customer trades are placed online is a dramatic
illustration of the investing public's enthusiasm for and acceptance of
online services. The dramatic emergence of online-only brokerage firms,
such as E*Trade, Discover and Ameritrade, and the continued migration
of traditional brokerage firms to the Web is further evidence of this.
Soon, millions of securities transactions will be conducted
electronically every day.
Unfortunately, the full potential of online investing has been
impeded because of antiquated laws that do not yet take account of
electronic commerce. These laws act as barriers to the efficiencies and
investor empowerment opportunities that the online brokerage industry
offers. Now, once again, it is time for the government to catch up to
the market developments spurred by the technology sector. It is time
for the government to remove impediments to online investing.
Today, when a person wishes to become a customer of an online broker,
he can visit the web-sites of various brokerage firms to compare the
value and services those firms offer. He may even provide some
information about himself and the type of account he wishes to
establish. However, because of traditional principles of contract law
and certain recordkeeping requirements, an investor cannot open the
account online with any legal certainty. Instead, he must print the
application and physically sign and send it by regular mail. The
technology gap demonstrated here must be bridged. Investors who, once
their accounts are opened, may access investment tools and research and
quickly submit trade orders online, should not have to wait days or
perhaps even weeks to complete the process for opening an account. This
system can and should be changed.
Continuing to require pen-and-ink signatures on account applications
and other documents, when secure electronic signature technology
exists, imposes unnecessary costs and inefficiencies on brokerage firms
and customers alike. Similar costs and inefficiencies have been
recognized and removed in other areas of securities regulation, such as
recordkeeping and document delivery. Today, brokerage firms can store
documents in electronic rather than paper format and are allowed to
deliver many documents, such as prospectuses, to customers
electronically. There is no reason why the advantages of technology
cannot and should not be extended to documents that require a
signature.
The legislation my colleagues and I introduce today would do just
that by facilitating and enabling the use of electronic signatures by
registered broker-dealers and others in the securities industry in
their business dealings with customers and other transactional parties.
The legislation would make clear that individuals can open a brokerage
account and conduct business with a brokerage firm using an electronic
signature as proof of identification and intent. It would also give
both brokerage firms and their customers the assurance that they can
rely on electronic signatures in their business dealings and that the
validity of those dealings will not be challenged merely because a pen-
and-ink signature was not used.
At this point I think it is important to stress to my colleagues that
the online brokerage industry is different from the day-trading
industry, which has received a lot of negative attention in the past
year. Day-trading firms offer a specialized service that enables their
customers to enter orders and trade directly with the market. And while
I am sure that most of these businesses are legitimate and sound, in
recent months reports of abusive or questionable practices have emerged
in relation to this type of trading. Anecdotal accounts tell of
investors losing many times the amount of money they originally brought
to the market.
The online investing services provided by brokerage firms are quite
different from the services provided by day-trading firms. For example,
brokerage firms such as Charles Schwab, E*Trade, DLJ Direct, Discover,
among others, set strict limits on the extent to which investors are
permitted access to margin and option accounts. These firms empower
their customers and are not the problem, and it is important that my
colleagues and the public understand the differences.
It is that simple. Frankly, I am surprised that the SEC does not
require the use of electronic signatures, because unless a physical
signature is witnessed, electronic signatures are a far more reliable
means of guaranteeing a person is who they say they are. Electronic
signatures may result from a variety of technological means that allow
users to confirm the authenticity of an electronic documents author,
location or content. These technologies are designed to allow contracts
to be reviewed and agreed to electronically, to permit individuals and
businesses to safely purchase goods online, and to enable government
agencies to verify the authenticity of information submitted to them.
It is a natural fit for transactions between online brokerage firms and
investors.
Despite the changes being made in the investor-brokerage
relationship, we recognize that the Securities and Exchange Commission
must retain full
[[Page S4454]]
regulatory authority in this industry. This legislation therefore
authorizes the SEC to provide guidance on the use of electronic
signatures by broker-dealers and others in the securities industry. The
SECs active involvement in the move from physical to electronic
signatures is important. If the change is to be orderly, the Commission
must be familiar with the various types of electronic signatures
available. The Commission, as the expert regulator of the securities
industry, may determine that some forms of signature are superior to
others for certain types of records.
Mr. President, the securities industry is experiencing explosive
growth in electronic transactions, and this bill's response is
necessary and appropriate. The industry and the investors who utilize
this medium need the efficiencies and certainty this bill would
provide. I believe that the more efficient transaction procedures that
will result from the bill will translate into cost savings for
customers and industry alike. And that should be the ultimate purpose
of any securities legislation relating to electronic commerce.
Again, I would like to thank Senator McCain and the majority leader
for joining me in introducing this legislation. I hope the Senate
Banking Committee can move on this legislation in the near future.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed
into the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 921
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 ``Electronics Securities
Transactions Act.''
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
1. the growth of electronic commerce and electronic
transactions represents a powerful force for econmic growth,
consumer choice and creation of wealth;
2. inefficient transaction procedures impose unnecessary
costs on investors and persons who facilitate transactions on
their behalf;
3. new techniques in electronic commerce create
opportunities for more efficient and safe procedures for
effecting securties transactions; and
4. because the securities markets are an important national
asset which must be preserved and strenghened, it is in the
national interest to establish a framework to facilitate the
economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this act are--
1. to permit and encourage the continued expansion of
electronic commerce in securities transactions; and
2. to facilitate and promote electronic commerce in
securities transactions by clarifying the legal status of
electronic signatures for signed documents and records used
in relation to securities transactions involving broker-
dealers, transfer agents and investment advisers.
SEC. 4. DEFINITONS.
For purposes of this subsection--
(1) ``document'' means any record, including without
limitation any notification, consent, acknowledgement or
written direction, intended, either by law or by custom, to
be signed by a person.
(2) ``electronic'' means of or relating to technology
having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical,
electromagnetic, or similar capabilities.
(3) ``electronic record'' means a record created, stored,
generated, received, or communicated by electronic means.
(4) ``electronic signature'' means an electronic
identifying sound, symbol or process attached to or logically
connectd with an electronic record.
(5) ``record'' or ``records'' means the same information or
documents defined or identified as ``records'' under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, respectively.
(6) ``transaction'' means an action or set of actions
relating to the conduct of business affairs that involve or
concern activities conducted pursuant to or regulated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and occurring between two or more
persons.
(7) Signature.--The term ``signature'' means any symbol,
sound, or process executed or adopted by a person or entity,
with intent to authenticate or accept a record.
SEC. 5. SECURITIES MODERNIZATION PROVISIONS.
(1) Section 15 of the Securities Exchange act of 1934 (15
USC 78o) is amended by adding the following new subsections
thereto:
(i) Reliance on Electronic Signatures
(i) A registered broker or registered dealer may accept and
rely upon an electronic signature on any application to open
an account or on any other document submitted to it by a
customer or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall
not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability
solely because it is an electronic signature, except as the
Commission shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 23
of this Act (15 USC 78w) or Section 36 of this Act (15 USC
78mm).
(ii) Where any provision of this Act or any regulation,
rule, or interpretation promulgated by the Commission
thereunder, including any rules of a self-regulatory
organization approved by the Commission, requires a signature
to be provided on any record such requirement shall be
satisfied by an electronic record containing an electronic
signature, except as the Commission shall otherwise determine
pursuant to Section 23 of this Act (15 USC 78w) or Section 36
of this Act (15 USC 78mm).
(iii) A registered broker or registered dealer may use
electronic signatures in the conduct of its business with any
customer or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall
not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely
because it is an electronic signature.
(iv) With regard to the use of or reliance on electronic
signatures, no registered broker or registered dealer shall
be regulated by, be required to register with, or be
certified, licensed, or approved by, or be limited by or
required to act or operate under standards, rules, or
regulations promulgated by, a State government or agency or
instrumentality thereof.
(2) Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
USC 78q-1) is amended by adding the following new subsections
thereto:
(g) Reliance on Electronic Signatures
(i) A registered transfer agent may accept and rely upon an
electronic signature on any application to open an account or
on any other document submitted to it by a customer or
counterparty, and such electronic signature shall not be
denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely
because it is an electronic signature, except as the
Commission shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section
23 of this Act (15 USC 78w) or Section 36 of this Act (15
USC 78mm).
(ii) Where any provision of this Act or any regulation or
rule promulgated by the Commission thereunder, including any
rule of a self-regulatory organization approved by the
Commission, requires a signature to be provided on any record
such requirement shall be satisfied by an electronic record
containing an electronic signature, except as the Commission
shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 23 of this Act
(15 USC 78w) or Section 36 of this Act (15 USC 78mm).
(iii) A registered transfer agent may use electronic
signatures in the conduct of its business with any customer
or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall not be
denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely
because it is an electronic signature.
(iv) With regard to the use of or reliance on electronic
signatures, no registered transfer agent shall be regulated
by, be required to register with, or be certified, licensed,
or approved by, or be limited by or required to act or
operate under standards, rules, or regulations promulgated
by, a State government or agency or instrumentality thereof.
(3) Section 215 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15
USC 80b-15) is amended by adding the following new
subsections thereto:
(c) Reliance on Electronic Signatures
(i) A registered investment adviser may accept and rely
upon an electronic signature on any investment advisory
contract or on any other document submitted to it by a
customer or counterparty, and such signature shall not be
denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely
because it is an electronic signature, except as the
Commission shall determine pursuant to 206A of this Act (15
USC 806-6a) or Section 211 of this Act (15 USC 80b-11).
(ii) Where any provision of this Act or any regulation or
rule promulgated by the Commission thereunder, including any
rule of a self-regulatory organization approved by the
Commission, requires a signature to be provided on any record
such requirement shall be satisfied by an electronic record
containing an electronic signature, except as the Commission
shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 206A of this
Act (15 USC 80b-6a) or Section 211 of this Act (15 USC 80b-
11).
(iii) A registered investment adviser may use electronic
signatures in the conduct of its business with any customer
or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall not be
denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely
because it is an electronic signature.
(iv) With regard to the use or reliance on electronic
signatures no registered investment adviser shall be
regulated by, be required to register with, or be certified,
licensed, or approved by, or be limited by or required to act
or operate under standards, rules, or regulations promulgated
by, a State government or agency or instrumentality thereof.
SEC. 6. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
The Commission is authorized to provide guidance on the
acceptance of, reliance on and use of electronic signatures
by any registered broker, dealer, transfer agent or
investment adviser, as provided in section 5 above.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 922. A bill to prohibit the use of the ``Made in the USA'' label
on products of the Commonwealth of the
[[Page S4455]]
Northern Mariana Islands and to deny such products duty-free and quota-
free treatment; to the Committee on Finance.
the ``made in usa'' label defense act of 1999
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my
distinguished colleague Senator Hollings in introducing legislation to
defend the truth and the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label.
This is the second time, Mr. President, that the Senator from South
Carolina and I have worked together to defend the ``Made in USA''
label.
Last Congress, when the Federal Trade Commission proposed to dilute
the meaning of the ``Made in USA'' label by allowing that label on
products with substantial foreign content, Senator Hollings and I
introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing this plan.
Our resolution urged the FTC to restore the traditional and honest
standard for the use of the ``Made in USA'' label. That standard, which
has been in existence for more than 50 years, is that products must be
``all or virtually all'' made in the U.S.A. in order to earn the label
``Made in USA.''
Mr. President, there was an overwhelming outpouring of grassroots
support from the American people for this straightforward and honest
standard and for our Resolution. In just a few months, a total of 256
Members of Congress, including the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
U.S. Senate, joined us as cosponsors of our Senate Resolution and its
companion bill in the House.
We were extremely pleased to see the FTC reverse its decision to
dilute the ``Made in USA'' label and return to the traditional and
time-tested standard for the use of the label. Frankly, this is the
only standard that makes sense to the American consumers. If it says
``Made in USA'' the U.S. consumer has a right to expect that the entire
product and all of its components was made by U.S. citizens.
This standard is honest. It is clear. It provides value for all those
who look for the label and for those who have earned the use of it.
But in order to retain that value, the integrity of the ``Made in
USA'' label must be defended. We cannot and will not permit the ``Made
in USA'' label to be used misleadingly. It belongs to those American
businesses and workers who follow the rules, pay the taxes, and work
hard--often against the odds presented by unfair foreign competition--
to continue to manufacture products here in America.
These workers are correct to insist that Congress protect this
cherished symbol of American pride and workmanship from abuse and
misuse.
That is why Senator Hollings and I recently informed our colleagues
of our intention to introduce ``The `Made in USA' Label Defense Act of
1999.''
This legislation is necessary to close loopholes that currently allow
the ``Made in USA'' label to be misused. These loopholes must be closed
to prevent the inappropriate and misleading use of this label at the
expense of American consumers, taxpayers, and U.S. workers.
The particular misuse of the ``Made in USA'' label which we seek to
address involves a U.S. territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, or as it is sometimes referred to, Saipan.
To understand how this situation arose, some history is in order.
Saipan was the site of an important battle in World War II which cost
America 15,000 casualties. Following the end of the war, it was
administered by the U.S. on behalf of the United Nations as a district
of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986. In
1986, Saipan came under U.S. sovereignty pursuant to a Covenant that
was approved by popular vote in Saipan and by the U.S. Congress (Public
Law 94-241.) At that point, Saipan, now known as the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, became an insular possession of
the United States.
CNMI negotiators for this Covenant sought an exemption from U.S.
immigration laws. This exemption was granted, but it came with a clear
warning from the Reagan Administration: the exemption was not to be
used to bring in a permanent alien labor force in order to evade duties
and quotas on Asian textile products and to provide unfair competition
to domestic textile industry. The duty free and quota free treatment
provided to Headnote 3(a) industries such as textiles was to benefit
local U.S. citizens living and working in the CNMI.
In a letter to the Governor of the CNMI in May of 1986, the year in
which the Covenant was adopted, the Assistant Secretary for Territorial
and International Affairs of Interior Department in the Reagan
Administration, Richard R. Montoya, issued the following clear warnings
to the Government of the CNMI:
The recent news reports on the tremendous growth in alien
labor in the Northern Mariana Islands are extremely
disturbing. . . . I would be remiss if I did not speak
frankly to you on the possible consequences of the NMI's
alien labor policy.
As I have often stated, the intent of the Congress in
providing the privilege of Headnote 3(a) to the territories
is to benefit local and not alien job and business growth.
The extensive and permanent use of alien labor in Headnote
3(a) industries is an abuse which cannot be tolerated by the
[Reagan] Administration.
The objectives of the recently negotiated Covenant
financial agreement could be derailed as the wholesale
transfer of U.S. tax, trade and social benefits to non-U.S.
citizens occurs under the CNMI's alien labor promotion
policies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of
this letter, dated May 7, 1986, from then-Assistant Secretary Richard
Montoya to the then-Governor of the CNMI, Pedro Tenorio, at this point
in my remarks.
At the time of the concerns raised in this letter, the total number
of aliens in the CNMI was a mere 6,600 people. Today, the number of
alien workers in the textile industry alone greatly exceeds this
number. The number of non-U.S. citizens in the CNMI now tops 35,000,
and actually exceeds the number of U.S. citizens in the territory. In
fact, 91 percent of the entire private sector workforce is composed of
alien labor.
Even more alarming, Mr. President, we are now told by U.S. Government
officials and news media investigations that the People's Republic of
China itself may actually be involved in running some of these garment
factories in Saipan. According to the February 8, 1998 Philadelphia
Inquirer: ``One of the biggest island factories is Marianas Garment
Manufacturing, Inc.--indirectly owned by the China National Textiles
Import and Export Corp. (Chinatech), a behemoth that handles $1.2
billion in Chinese textile exports to the world, much of it to the
United States.'' If this is true, then companies owned by the communist
Chinese government have succeeded in deceiving U.S. consumers and
evading U.S. trade laws. Clearly, this is a situation that demands the
immediate attention of and a firm response by both parties in the
Congress.
But what concerns Senator Hollings and myself and what directly
prompted us to introduce this legislation is the direct effect of the
CNMI situation on American consumers.
First, American consumers are deceived by the fact that, due to a
loophole in U.S. law, the more than $1 billion worth of textile
products that are now shipped each year from the CNMI to the U.S. can
be legally labeled as ``Made in USA''--even though they are made with
nearly all foreign labor and foreign materials.
This deceives American consumers, who have a right to expect that
products labeled as ``Made in USA'' are made by U.S. workers with U.S.
materials.
Second, American taxpayers are harmed because these foreign goods are
allowed to be imported into the U.S. duty-free--as if they were made by
U.S. workers. As the CNMI was so clearly warned by the Reagan
Administration, duty free treatment for textiles from the insular
possessions was designed to help local U.S. citizens in these
territories.
This abuse of our duty-Free laws is costing American taxpayers an
estimated $200 million annually. This $200 million could be used to
fund a tax cut to the American people or could be used to reduce other
duties.
Mr. President, let me say that I am a strong believer in free trade.
I believe the U.S. and the whole world benefits form the unfettered
movement of goods and services.
But the fact that foreign garment exports to the U.S are laundered in
Saipan to escape duties and quotas has
[[Page S4456]]
nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with a form of
subterfuge. We cannot allow those nations whose imports are subject to
lawful duties and quotas to evade these laws at the expense of American
taxpayers.
Third, American workers also are being harmed by this situation
because the $200 million which these foreign imports escape paying to
the U.S. Treasury acts as a subsidy for these misleadingly labeled
products.
Mr. President, in order to address these concerns, I am proud to join
today with my colleague from South Carolina in introducing a tightly
crafted and narrowly drawn piece of legislation that will address these
concerns.
Our bill is designed to protect Americans from the deleterious
effects of the current situation by closing what we believe our
colleagues will agree are two indefensible loopholes in current law:
(1) The loophole that allows these factories in the CNMI to use the
``Made in USA'' label on their products or in any way imply that they
were produced or assembled in the United States.
(2) The loophole that allows foreign exports from the CNMI to
masquerade as U.S.-made products for duty and quota purposes. Further,
I will work to ensure that the estimated $200 million derived from
eliminating the duty-free treatment of these products is rebated to the
American taxpayer through tax cuts or tariff reductions.
If in the future the CNMI feels that the domestic content of its
products has increased to the extent that a use of the ``Made in USA''
label on these products would no longer be deceptive to the consumer,
then it can petition Congress for a change in the covenant. Given its
history of ignoring warnings from both Republican and Democratic
Administrations on this matter, Senator Hollings and I believe that the
burden should be on the CNMI to prove to Congress and the American
people that products coming from the CNMI deserve to be labeled ``Made
in USA.''
At the same time, Mr. President, we are currently engaged in the long
and arduous process of bringing China into the World Trading
Organization. I support China's admission into the WTO as long as they
meet the same criteria which all member nations must meet and as long
as they are truly dedicated to working to reduce and eliminate such
trade barriers as quotas and tariffs. Our long-term objective must be
to create a global trading regime where all nations conduct trade and
commerce on a level playing field. However, until countries such as
China demonstrate that they are prepared to adhere to such principles,
we must continue to take certain steps to protect our own domestic
industries and workers from the unfair trade practices utilized by some
of our trading partners, such as those currently ongoing in the CNMI.
This legislation is a bipartisan compromise measure that I hope
avoids the political pitfalls of previous measures. Mindful of Members
who wish not to interfere in the domestic laws of the CNMI, our bill
merely takes those minimal steps necessary to defend the ``Made in
USA'' label from misuse and to enforce U.S. trade laws for the benefit
of the American taxpayer. It simply prevents the substantive equivalent
of foreign textile products from evading U.S. trade laws.
There will be those who argue that more is necessary, and this may be
true. But Senator Hollings and I are committed to doing that which can
be done on a bipartisan basis and achieved in this Congress.
We urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this
important legislation.
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. 922
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 ``Equality for Israel at the
United Nation Act of 1999.''
SEC. 2. EFFORT TO PROMOTE FULL QUALITY AT THE UNITED NATIONS
FOR ISRAEL.
(a) Congressional Statement.--It is the sense of the
Congress that--
(1) the United States should help promote an end of the
inequity experienced by Israel in the United Nations whereby
Israel is the only longstanding member of the organization to
be denied acceptance into any of the United Nations region
blocs, which serve as the basis for participation in
important activities of the United Nations, including
rotating membership on the United Nations Security Council;
and
(2) the United States Ambassador to the United Nations
should take all steps necessary to ensure Israel's acceptance
in the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) regional bloc,
whose membership includes the non-European countries of
Canada, Australia, and the United States.
(b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act and on a quarterly basis
thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report which includes
the following information (in classified or unclassified form
as appropriate):
(1) actions taken by representatives of the United States,
including the United States Ambassador to the United Nations,
to encourage the nations of the Western Europe and Others
Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their regional bloc;
(2) efforts undertaken by the Secretary General of the
United Nations to secure Israel's full and equal
participation in that body;
(3) specific responses solicited and received by the
Secretary of State from each of the nations of Western Europe
and Others Group (WEOG) on their position concerning Israel's
acceptance into their organization; and
(4) other measures being undertaken, and which will be
undertaken, to ensure and promote Israel's full and equal
participation in the United Nations.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Thomas, and Mr.
Brownback):
S. 923. A bill to promote full equality at the United Nations for
Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
international affairs legislation
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report on actions taken
by our Ambassador to the United Nations to push the nations of the
Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their
group.
As you may know, Israel is the only nation among the 185 member
states that does not hold membership in a regional group. Membership in
a regional group is the prerequisite for any nation to serve on key
United Nations bodies such as the Security Council. In order to correct
this inequality, I am introducing ``The Equality for Israel at the
United Nations Act of 1999.'' I believe that this legislation will
prompt our United Nations Representative to make equality for Israel at
the United Nations a high priority.
I am proud to be joined by Senators Brownback and Thomas as original
co-sponsors of this important legislation.
Mr. President, Israel has been a member of the United Nations since
1949, yet it has been continuously precluded from membership in any
regional bloc. Most member states from the Middle East would block
Israel's membership in any relevant regional group. The Western Europe
and Others Group, however, has accepted countries from other
geographical areas--the United States and Australia for example.
Last year, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that
``It's time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the
United Nations * * *. One way to rectify that new chapter would be to
rectify an anomaly: Israel's position as the only Member State that is
not a member of one of the regional groups, which means it has no
chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security
council or the Economic and Social Council. This anomaly would be
corrected.''
I believe it is time to back Secretary General Annan's idea with
strong support from the United States Senate and I ask all my
colleagues to join me in sending this message to the UN to stop this
discrimination against Israel.
______
By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Domenici, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 924. A bill entitled the ``Federal Royalty Certainty Act''; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
federal royalty certainty act
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal
Royalty Certainty Act. The domestic oil and gas industry is an
essential element of the United States economy. The Administration
needs to acknowledge the critical importance of this industry
[[Page S4457]]
and stop hindering it with regulatory obstacles. Right now, our
domestic oil and gas procedures are reeling from low oil prices. In
Oklahoma alone, 50,000 jobs are dependent on the oil industry. Last
year, we had over 350 producing oil rigs in the country, now we have
slightly over 100. The industry is in a state of depression, not a
decline, and these conditions pose a threat to our national security
and our economy.
The Administration's policies have failed domestic producers. What is
needed is a comprehensive plan to maintain the viability of the
domestic oil and gas industry. Part of that plan should be to eliminate
or greatly reduce the administrative costs of the current royalty
program with simple, clear and certain guidelines. We need to eliminate
rules that are burdensome and excessively costly. The Nation cannot
afford to allow the devastation of our domestic oil and gas industry to
continue.
We should be taking action to encourage growth in the industry.
Instead, the Administration has advocated policies that undermine it.
We must raise our country's awareness and reverse this course of action
by providing relief from big government and burdensome regulations. We
must provide this critical segment of our economy fairness and
efficiency in their contracts with the federal government.
Several years ago, I began taking a closer look at oil and gas
produced from federal leases and the Department of the Interior's
administration of those lease contracts. I was pleased when Congress
passed the Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act which I introduced
and which became law in August of 1996. What that Act accomplished was
to streamline the accounting processes for federal royalties. While
that Act made significant steps forward in simplifying the payment of
federal royalties, the heart of the issue is still before us--what
royalty does a lessee owe to the government under its lease contract
for oil and gas produced from a federal lease? When a person or company
contracts with the federal government, it should know exactly what is
owed under the contract.
While this should be a simple question with a simple and unambiguous
answer, that is unfortunately not the case today. There appears to be
multiple answers, changing answers and a morass of regulatory
interpretations that change over time. Such regulatory obstacles
prevent industry from knowing what they owe and being able to make
business decisions with that knowledge. It also prevents the collection
of royalties easily and efficiently. Having a clear understanding of
the correct amount due is the central and critical element of any
successful royalty management program. Without it, the program cannot
operate fairly, efficiently or cost effectively.
In January 1997, MMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a new
oil valuation rule. The proposed rule was met with a firestorm of
protests and thousands of pages of comments have ensued. Despite
serious problems that have been raised with the proposal, its
workability and its fairness, the Department has repeatedly stated that
it will publish its rule as final. As a result, this Congress has
imposed two moratoriums on the proposed rule and is in the process of
imposing another. Congress and Industry have repeatedly attempted to
initiate negotiations with DOI/MMS to no avail. The current moratorium
continues until June 1, 1999. Secretary Babbitt has stated that the MMS
would publish a final rule on June 1, 1999 and in Congressional
briefings the MMS has stated that ``MMS does not believe that further
dialogue on the rule would be productive.'' DOI Communications Director
Michael Gaulding stated to Inside Energy that ``we're sticking to the
position we've taken. It gives us an issue to demogogue for another
year.'' Rather than perpetuate the moratoria I believe Congressional
action is needed. I am therefore today introducing the ``Federal
Royalty Certainty Act.'' This Act addresses and resolves issues related
to royalties both when they are paid in value and in amount.
This bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the
Minerals Lands Leasing Act and provides that when payment of royalties
is made in value, the royalty due is based on oil or gas production at
the lease in marketable condition. When royalty is paid in kind, the
royalty due is based on the royalty share of production at the lease.
If the payment (in value or kind) is calculated from a point away from
the lease, the payment is adjusted for quality and location
differentials, and the lessee is allowed reimbursements at a reasonable
commercial rate for transportation, marketing, and processing services
beyond the lease through the point of sale, other disposition, or
delivery
My bill will codify the fundamental, longstanding principle that
royalty is due on the value of production at the lease. The Department
of the Interior recognizes this principle and very recently has said
``royalty payments [should be] based on no more than the value of
production at the lease'' (News Release, MMS 2/5/98), there should be
agreement on this codification. This legislation provides proper
adjustments when sales are made downstream of the lease to arrive at
values that equal the value of production at the lease. In addition,
this legislation includes a consistent basis for valuation of royalty
both onshore and offshore. Importantly, this legislation also resolves
many of the core issues related to the proposed rule on oil valuation
in a manner that is fair and equitable to the people of the United
States and the producers who have entered into contracts with the
federal government. These provisions will reduce the costs of a
complicated system that spawns disputes, while preserving the
taxpayer's right to a fair return for its resources. As I have said on
many occasions, we need to reduce unnecessary, burdensome and
excessively costly regulations. We need a little common sense.
In summary, all interested parties need to work together to arrive at
a workable, permanent solution--a system whereby the government can
collect what is due in a manner that is simple, certain, consistent
with lease agreements and fair to all parties involved. The Royalty
Fairness bill was a significant first step to simplify and eliminate
regulatory obstacles in the Department's accounting procedures. I
believe that the Federal Royalty Certainty Act is an important next
step.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Nickles for
developing this legislation. Simply stated, it stands for the
proposition that there has never been, is not now, nor ever shall be a
``duty to market.''
If you read a federal oil and gas lease there is no mention of a duty
to market. It has been Mineral Management Services' (MMS) position that
the duty to market is an implied covenant in the lease. And this
legislation says that MMS is wrong.
Let me back up, and explain the issue and why this legislation is
needed.
Oil and gas producers doing business on federal leases pay royalites
to the federal government based on ``fair market value.'' Under the
Clinton Administration, this is easier said than done. One of the long
standing disputes between the Congress and the Mineral Management
Service (MMS) has been the development of workable oil royalty
valuation regulations that can articulate just exactly what fair market
value is.
Cynthia Quarterman, the former director of the MMs, set out the
Interior Department's position that fair market value includes a ``duty
to market the lease production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and
the lessor,'' but without the federal government paying its share of
the costs. Many of these costs are transportation costs and they are
significant. MMS calls it a duty to market, I call it federal
government mooching.
This bill states Congressional intent: No duty to market, no federal
government mooching. And let me be clear, whether there is a duty to
market is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress. It
is not the job of lawyers at the MMS to raise the Congressionally set
royality rate through the back door.
And, the so-called ``duty to market'' is a back door royalty
increase--make no mistake about it.
The MMS has been unable to develop workable royalty valuation rules
and Congress has had to impose a moratorium on these regulations. The
core issue has been duty to market.
For this reason, I hope the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee will act expeditiously on this
[[Page S4458]]
legislation. In this period of hard economic times for the oil and gas
industry, the oil royalty valuation issue should be resolved with
certainty, fairness and without a hidden royalty rate increase.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 925. A bill to require the Secretary of the military department
concerned to reimburse a member of the Armed Forces for expenses of
travel in connection with leave canceled to meet an exigency in
connection with United States participation in Operation Allied Force;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
reimbursement for u.s. personnel involved in Kosovo
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to
reimburse U.S. military personnel for costs incurred due to
cancellation of travel plans. This bill would authorize DoD to
reimburse the men and women involved in Kosovo operations in any
instance where they are forced to pay a fee to the airlines for changes
in travel plans or purchased non-refundable tickets.
In those instances where military personnel are recalled from leave
or forced to cancel their leave plans due to the current crisis in
Kosovo, the Defense Department is not authorized to reimburse them for
costs incurred to change or cancel their personal travel plans.
Military legal offices only pay the claims that Congress has
authorized them to pay through legislation. Currently, DoD is only
authorized to pay very specific claims. These claims usually involve
damage to government property. Personal property is only covered if the
damage or loss is related to official duty. There is no statutory
authority to reimburse a member who incurs additional costs related to
their leave, even if these costs are a direct result of performing
their duty as members of the U.S. military.
I find this situation preposterous. These men and women are being
asked to cover expenses incurred through no fault of their own. In
response to their commitment to an international security crisis, we
tell them to foot the bill for any vacation plans they might have had.
In light of earlier legislation we passed this year to signal to our
military personnel that Congress will not short-change them for their
service to this country, this measure offers one additional token of
our appreciation and pride.
I 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. 925
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED BY
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN CONNECTION WITH
LEAVE CANCELED FOR INVOLVEMENT IN KOSOVO-
RELATED ACTIVITIES.
(a) Requirement for Reimbursement.--The Secretary of the
military department concerned shall reimburse a member of the
Armed Forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for
expenses of travel (to the extent not otherwise reimbursable
under law) that have been incurred by the member in
connection with approved leave canceled to meet an exigency
in connection with United States participation in Operation
Allied Force.
(b) Administrative Provisions.--The Secretary of Defense
shall prescribe the procedures and documentation required for
application for, and payment of, reimbursements to members of
the Armed Forces under subsection (a).
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Grams, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 926. A bill to provide the people of Cuba with access to food and
medicines from the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator John Warner and twelve
of our colleagues in the Senate are introducing a bill to end
restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba--the so-called
Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999. Our House colleagues Jose
Serrano and Jim Leach are introducing the House companion bill today as
well.
Yesterday the Clinton Administration took some long overdue steps to
end the practice of using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons.
President Clinton has decided to reverse existing U.S. policy of
prohibiting sales of such items to Iran, Libya, and Sudan. We applaud
that decision. Joe Lockhart, the White House spokesman said President
Clinton had decided that, ``food should not be used as a tool of
foreign policy, except under the most compelling circumstances.''
In announcing the change in policy yesterday, Under Secretary of
State Stuart Eizenstat stated that President Clinton had approved the
policy after a two-year review concluded that the sale of food and
medicine ``doesn't encourage a nation's military capability or its
ability to support terrorism.''
I am gratified that the administration has finally recognized what we
determined some time ago, namely that ``sales of food, medicine and
other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's military
capacities or support terrorism.'' On the contrary, funds spent on
agricultural commodities and products are not available for other, less
desirable uses.
Regrettably, the Administration did not include Cuba in its announced
policy changes. It seems to me terribly inconsistent to say that it is
wrong to deny the children of Iran, Sudan and Libya access to food and
medicine, but it is all right to deny Cuban children, living ninety
miles from our shores, similar access. The administration's rationale
for not including Cuba was rather confused. The best I can discern from
the conflicting rationale for not including Cuba in the announced
policy changes was that policy toward Cuba has been established by
legislation rather than executive order, and therefore should be
changed through legislative action.
I disagree with that judgment. However, in order to facilitate the
lifting of such restrictions on such sales to Cuba, Senator Warner,
myself, and twelve of our Senate colleagues have decided to move
forward with this legislation today.
It is our assumption that the Clinton Administration will support
this legislation, since it does legislatively for Cuba what it has just
instituted by Executive order for Sudan, Libya and Iran.
What about those who say that it is already possible to sell food and
medicine to Cuba? To those people I would say, ``If that is what you
think, then you should have no problem supporting this legislation.''
However, I must tell you, Mr. President, that the people who say that
are not members of the U.S. agricultural or pharmaceutical industries.
Ask any representative of a major drug or grain company about selling
to Cuba and they will tell you it is virtually impossible.
The Administration's own statistics speak for themselves. Department
of Commerce licensing statistics prove our point:
Between 1992 and mid-1997, the Commerce Department approved only 28
licenses for such sales, valued at less than $1 million, for the entire
period. To give you some perspective: prior to the passage of the 1992
Cuba Democracy Act which shut down U.S. food and medicine exports, Cuba
was importing roughly $700 million of such products on an annual basis
from U.S. subsidiaries.
Moreover, since Commerce Department officials do no follow up on
whether proposed licenses culminate in actual sales, the high water
mark for the export of U.S. medicines to Cuba over a four and one half
year period doesn't even represent roughly 0.1% of the exports of U.S.
food and medicines that took place prior to 1992.
For these reasons we feel strongly that the complexities of the U.S.
licensing process, coupled with on-site verification requirements,
serve as de facto prohibitions on U.S. pharmaceutical companies doing
business with Cuba. Food sales are virtually impossible to undertake as
well.
Let me be clear--I am not defending the Cuban government for its
human rights practices or some of its other
[[Page S4459]]
policy decisions. I believe that we should speak out strongly on such
matters as respect for human rights and the treatment of political
dissidents. But U.S. policy with respect to Cuba goes far beyond that--
it denies eleven million innocent Cuban men, women and children access
to U.S. food and medicine.
The highly respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch--a
severe critic of the Cuban government's human rights practices--
recently concluded, that the ``(U.S.) embargo has not only failed to
bring about human rights improvements in Cuba,'' it has actually
``become counterproductive'' to achieving that goal.
America is not about denying medicine or food to the people in Sudan,
in Libya, or in Iran, and it shouldn't be about denying food and
medicine to the Cuban people either, certainly not my America.
That is why I hope my colleagues will support this legislation when
it comes to a vote later this year.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today as chief co-sponsor of
the Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999. I am pleased to join
my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd and many of our colleagues in
introducing this important legislation.
The goal of this bill is simple--alleviate the suffering of the Cuban
people created by the inadequate supplies of food, medicine and medical
supplies on that island nation less than 100 miles from our shore. If
enacted, this legislation would authorize the President to permit the
sale of food, medicine and medical equipment to the Cuban people.
The Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999 also mandates that a
study be carried out on how to promote the consumption of U.S.
agricultural commodities in Cuba through existing U.S. agricultural
export promotion and credit programs and requires a report to Congress
assessing the impact of the bill six months after its enactment.
Yesterday, President Clinton announced an important change in U.S.
economic sanctions policy which will enable U.S. firms to sell food and
medicine to Iran, Sudan and Libya. In making the announcement, Under
Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat stated ``Sales of food, medicine
and other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's
military capabilities or support terrorism. On the contrary, funds
spent on agricultural commodities and products are not available for
other, less desirable uses. Our purpose in applying sanctions is to
influence the behavior of regimes, not to deny people their basic
humanitarian needs.''
This major change in the Administration's sanctions policy, however,
will not affect Cuba because restrictions on the sale of food and
medicine to that country are statutory. The legislation we are
introducing today, however, would remove those restrictions on the sale
of food and other agricultural products, medicine and medical supplies
with regards to Cuba.
The time has come to stop using food and medicine as a foreign policy
tool. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important
and timely legislation.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 927. A bill to authorize the President to delay, suspend, or
terminate economic sanctions if it is in the important national
interest of the United States to do so; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
the sanctions rationalization act of 1999
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on
behalf of myself and Senator Hagel, which we hope will bring
desperately needed reform to the process by which the United States
imposes sanctions on other nations.
Eighty years ago, President Wilson formally added economic sanctions
to America's foreign policy arsenal for the first time, saying that
with sanctions as a weapon, ``there will be no need for force.'' In the
intervening decades, we have taken a greater liking to sanctions than
President Wilson ever could have imagined. I doubt very much, however,
that he would approve of the way in which we employ that tool today nor
of the results accomplished by sanctions.
When President Wilson described his idea of sanctions as a diplomatic
tool, he was trying to convince the Senate to ratify American
membership in the League of Nations. The sanctions he envisioned were
broad, multi-national efforts designed to affect specific results under
limited circumstances. He also intended sanctions to serve as one
component of multi-stage escalation of diplomatic pressure, rather than
a complete response.
Our method for imposing sanctions today bears almost no resemblance
to President Wilson's original concept. Sanctions have become the first
response to actions which are objectionable to the United States. Very
often, they are also a response in and of themselves, rather than part
of a coherent escalation of pressure. In addition, the vast majority of
American sanctions are not the multilateral efforts President Wilson
envisioned. Rather, Mr. President, they are unilateral efforts which
anger our allies, damage our global standing, and hurt our own
businesses and people. And lest we excuse the drawbacks of unilateral
sanctions with the argument that the benefits for American foreign
policy outweigh the harm, let me be very clear: there are very rarely
such benefits.
For far too long we have subscribed to the mistaken view that
sanctions represent concrete steps more powerful than mere condemnation
and more speedy than diplomacy. Unilateral sanctions, Mr. President may
make us feel good by severing access to American know-how, markets,
ideas, and products. They may help us demonstrate that we are willing
to be tough on governments with unacceptable policies or even allow us
to appease a particular constituency that has clamored for action
against a particular rogue nation.
What unilateral sanctions do not do, however, is work. We are
blindfolded by our own rhetoric, Mr. President, if we think that
sanctions are the key to correcting the behavior of targeted nations. A
recent study found that perhaps one out of every five unilateral
sanctions has any desired effect at all. And in those few cases where
our goal was met, such as a change in the President of Colombia,
sanctions were only one of many factors.
When we mention successes, we all too often ignore the much longer
list of countries--including Haiti, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, China,
Panama, and North Korea--where sanctions have failed. In fact,
sanctions may even allow some authoritarian regimes to consolidate
their control by providing them with a convenient scapegoat to blame
for their domestic failures.
In addition, we must not lose sight of the unintended consequences of
sanctions. They hurt our economy. They hurt our allies. They hurt our
ability to achieve our foreign policy goals. Perhaps most of all, they
hurt our own citizens. Mr. President, it is imperative that we move
expeditiously to correct the deep flaws in our system for imposing
sanctions. In recent years, Congress has imposed sanctions intended to
discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
ballistic missiles to deliver them, advance human rights and end
genocide, end state-supported terrorism, discourage armed aggression,
thwart drug trafficking, protect the environment and even, in a few
cases, oust governments that are anathema to the United States.
Since President Wilson proposed the use of sanctions to realize
American foreign policy goals, we have imposed them more than 110
times. Today, however, the situation is growing more acute. In just the
past six years, Congress passed more than 70 sanctions. That is more
than 11 per year. Last year, we had sanctions in place against 26
different countries which included more than half of the world's
population.
When Congress passes these sanctions, however, it often takes a
second congressional action to repeal them. This onerous process robs
our nation of the ability to react to changing circumstances,
interferes with the President and Secretary of State's mandate to
negotiate with foreign governments and leaders and prevents the lifting
of sanctions which have little chance of success while bringing harm on
the United States' national interests. The bill that I am proposing
today will correct these deficiencies by giving the
[[Page S4460]]
President the authority to delay, suspend or terminate any sanction
that he determines is not in the United States' national interest.
We often think of sanctions as cost-less actions since they require
no governmental appropriation. As business leaders and workers across
the country will tell you, however, that perception is simply
erroneous. In 1998, the United States had sanctions, of some sort, in
place against 26 different nations including China and India, the two
most populous nations in the world. Those sanctions covered well over
half of the world's population, cutting American firms off from
billions of potential customers. According to the Institute for
International Economics here in Washington, the economic sanctions
currently in effect cost American businesses $20 billion annually in
lost export sales and cost America's workers 200,000 high-wage jobs.
Those figures, however, tell only part of the story. The cost to
businesses does not end when the sanctions are repealed. Rather, the
absence of American companies allows foreign competitors to make
inroads leaving the American businesses to try battle the entrenched
competition, along with any lingering popular resentment toward the
United States, when the barriers fall. Needless to say, our allies
think that American unilateral sanctions, while affording them a rather
pleasant competitive advantage, lack a degree of rationality.
It would be shortsighted, Mr. President, to consider the cost merely
in terms of the monetary loss. Rather, our wholesale use of unilateral
sanctions damages our standing in the world community. Our diplomats
have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to assuage
the concerns of our allies who find themselves on the receiving end of
some of our secondary sanctions. Meanwhile, when dealing with target
nations, they are deprived of the ability to offer a carrot in exchange
for policy changes. Moreover, the fact that more than half of the
world's population is now on the receiving end of American sanctions
and our willingness to impose sanctions when the rest of the world
finds them unnecessary degrades our ability to convince other nations
to follow our leadership.
Congress' current infatuation with sanctions also hampers our
nation's ability to conduct diplomacy. The Constitution gives Congress
a powerful role in foreign policy, from the power to declare war to the
power to regulate commerce. Clearly, Congress is within its
Constitutional mandate when it imposes sanctions on foreign
governments. What Congress cannot do, however, is micro-manage our
foreign policy on a day to day basis. The power to negotiate with
foreign governments and leaders rests solely with the President.
Anything which detracts from his ability to negotiate, including
sanctions over which he has no control over, damages his ability to
exact concessions and come to an agreement acceptable to the United
States.
I am not arguing, Mr. President, that sanctions are not a legitimate
foreign policy tool nor that, if used appropriately, they can be
efficacious. Nor am I arguing that all sanctions currently in place
should be removed. To the contrary, I strongly support sanctions
against countries such as Iraq and Yugoslavia.
Sanctions, however, should be part of a comprehensive foreign policy
with clear goals. They should be imposed for a finite period of time
with an option to extend if the situation warrants continued pressure.
Finally, sanctions must allow the President and Secretary of State the
room they need to maneuver in order to effectively negotiate foreign
governments.
It is also essential that we strive for multinational support of our
sanctions. Board sanctions, either global or at least in concert with
the other industrialized countries, not only have a far greater chance
of affecting the desired result but minimize the threat to our
international leadership, and domestic economy in both the short and
long term.
Occasionally, other nations take actions so offensive to American
policy that the United States must act regardless of foreign
cooperation. In those cases, we must endeavor to minimize the negative
effects our sanctions have on third countries and on our own economy.
We must also carefully target our sanctions at the offending government
officials rather than the general population--people who often have
little or no ability to affect meaningful change.
Sanctions deserve a place, even a prominent place, in our foreign
policy tool kit. Working with our allies, they can have the power
President Wilson described shortly after witnessing the horrors of
World War I. At the same time, Mr. President, we must not be so
infatuated with sanctions as to replace tools which have stood us in
such good stead for more than two centuries, such as diplomacy.
The legislation that my colleagues and I are introducing today will
make the sanctions we do impose more powerful and improve the results
while simultaneously reducing the costs to Americans and our allies. In
fact, Mr. President, these reforms will lead to a stronger American
foreign policy capable of realizing our foreign policy goals more
quickly and with less effort. This bill will allow us to finally reach
the goal Congress held when it began imposing sanctions at this
alarming pace. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bipartisan resolution and enacting these overdue
reforms.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator
Dodd in introducing the Sanctions Rationalization Act. This bill would
grant broad authority to the President to waive unilateral sanctions
that no longer make sense and that he determines harm U.S. national
interests.
Sanctions must remain a policy tool. But sanctions are only effective
when they are multilateral.
This bill will complete the package of three sanctions reform bills
that have been introduced this Congress. Senator Dodd and I are
sponsors or cosponsors of each of these three bills.
The first of these three sanctions reform bills is S. 757, the
Sanctions Policy Reform Act. This legislation, introduced by Senator
Lugar would establish a sensible process for the enactment of future
unilateral economic sanctions by either the President or the Congress.
Among its safeguards, the Lugar bill would require a cost/benefit
analysis and would require a study on the likelihood that the proposed
sanctions would achieve their policy goals. It would also sunset all
unilateral sanctions after two years unless reauthorized by Congress.
The Lugar bill does not undo any existing sanctions, with one
exception. It would make permanent the President's ability to waive the
Glenn amendment for U.S. national security reasons. The Glenn amendment
as originally drafted puts permanent unilateral sanctions on any
country that tests a nuclear device.
I introduced the second bill, which is S. 327, the Food and Medicine
Sanctions Relief Act. Senator Dodd is the lead cosponsor on that bill.
Food and medicine are basic humanitarian needs. As a matter of policy,
food and medicine should not be included in unilateral sanctions. The
President made a good first step in addressing this issue yesterday
when he removed most, but not all, food and humanitarian goods from
sanctions on Iran, Sudan and Libya. He did not lift restrictions on
financing for agricultural sales, nor did he lift food and medicine
sanctions on several other nations. He could not take these two
additional steps because he is restricted from doing so by other
legislation. My bill, S. 327, would enable him to adopt a comprehensive
policy of exempting food and medicine from unilateral sanctions.
The bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today would also grant
the President much broader authority to protect U.S. interests by
waiving unilateral sanctions.
The Sanctions Rationalization Act allows the President, with
Congressional review, to ``delay, suspend or terminate'' any unilateral
economic sanction if he determines that it ``does not serve U.S.
national interests.'' A Presidential waiver under the Act cannot go
into effect for 30 days. This gives the Congress ample time to consider
the Presidential action. The bill establishes expedited procedures to
ensure that Congress would have a chance to disapprove the Presidential
waiver if the action is unwise.
Finally, the legislation restricts the use of this Presidential
waiver authority in specific cases. The President
[[Page S4461]]
cannot waive sanctions that are multilateral rather than unilateral. He
is also restricted from waiving sanctions based on health or safety
concerns, treaty obligations, and specific trade laws enacted to remedy
unfair trade practices or market disruptions.
As a nation, we are letting unilateral sanctions isolate ourselves.
Let me demonstrate why:
A CRS report on January 22, 1998 listed a total of 97 unilateral
sanctions now in place.
A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that from
1993-1996, the U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times against 35
countries. These 35 nations make up 42% of world population and 19% of
world's $790 billion export market.
A study by the International Institute of Economics estimates that in
1995 alone unilateral sanctions cost Americans $15-20 billion in lost
exports . . . which resulted in 200,000 lost jobs.
The National Foreign Trade Council has identified 41 separate
legislative statutes on the books that either require or authorize the
imposition of unilateral sanctions.
Repeated use of sanctions undermines confidence in America as a
reliable supplier. Even after sanctions are lifted, Americans find it
difficult or impossible to regain export markets.
Mr. President, each of the three bills I mentioned addresses an
important feature of ending the overuse of unilateral economic
sanctions. The Lugar bill would create a process for producing more
effective sanctions policies for the future. The Hagel bill would
exempt food and medicine from all unilateral economic sanctions. The
Dodd bill is a final, critical reform. It would allow the President,
with congressional review, to waive those sanctions laws that have
become outdated and no longer serve U.S. national interests.
Again, I congratulate my colleague from Connecticut for his
leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him in introducing the
Sanctions Rationalization Act.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr.
Lott, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Voinovich,
and Mr. Warner):
S. 928, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
birth abortions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the partial birth abortion ban act of 1999
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is identical to the legislation
endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and vetoed by
President Clinton in October, 1997. This bill is narrowly written to
prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted
late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to
save the life of the mother.
Also known as Intact Dilation Evacuation or Intrauterine Cranial
Decompression, a partial birth abortion is performed over a three day
period during the second or third trimester. After the cervix is
dilated over a two-day period, the doctor begins the actual abortion on
the third day. Once the doctor turns the baby into the breech position,
he delivers all but the head through the birth canal. At this point the
child is still alive. Then, the doctor stabs the baby in the base of
its skull with curved scissors and uses a suction catheter to remove
the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After the skull
collapses, the doctor completes the delivery.
Partial birth abortions are performed as outpatient procedures in
clinics. They are usually done on healthy 20-25 week olds with healthy
mothers. Estimates suggest as many as 5000 are performed annually in
the U.S. We know of 1500 per year in one New Jersey clinic.
The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A growing
consensus in the medical community considers it unnecessary and even
unethical. Yet the reason this horrific procedure is still legal in the
United States is because President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation
that would have outlawed partial birth abortion, except in cases of
maternal life endangerment.
The lies propagated by proponents of partial birth abortion have
taken on a life of their own. First, we were told--and by we I mean
Congress--there was no such thing as partial birth abortion. Three
years after Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of this technique, described
it to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the NAF sent a letter to
Congress denying its existence. Then Congress was assured the fetus
feels no pain during the procedure because anesthesia given to the
mother induced ``neurological fetal demise.'' Such was the testimony of
Dr. James McMahon, another pioneer of the partial birth abortion, to
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. After pregnant
women across the country started refusing necessary surgery, Dr. Norig
Ellison, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists,
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to set the record
straight. He told the Committee women would have to be anesthetized to
the point where their own health was endangered to achieve
``neurological demise'' of the fetus. By the way, ``neurological
demise'' refers to the ``brain death,'' not literal death. Not to be
deterred, proponents of partial birth abortion circulated a third lie--
anesthesia kills the fetus. Yet we know from Dr. Ellison's testimony
and Dr. Haskell's own statements that the baby is alive during the
procedure. Lie number four asserted partial birth abortions were
``rare.'' Then, a small newspaper in New Jersey discovered that 1500 of
these ``rare'' procedures were performed each year in one clinic. This
one clinic was performing three times the supposed national rate of
partial birth abortions. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, suggested as many as 5000
could be performed annually. Another egregious lie asserted this
technique was only used in cases where the mother's life or health were
at risk, or when the fetus was deformed. Ron Fitzsimmons helped spread
this misinformation. He would later admit that he ``lied through my
teeth.''
The last lie, which the President continues citing in defense of this
procedure, proports that partial birth abortion is necessary to protect
women's health. A group of more than 600 doctors, most of whom are OB-
GYNs or perinatologists, call this lie the ``most serious distortion.''
In reality, partial birth is never medically necessary. That is the
opinion of doctors across this country. The AMA says it is ``not
medically indicated,'' ``is not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong''
and ``is not an accepted `medical practice' ''. Former Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop, who has 30 years of experience in pediatric surgery,
has publicly denounced this procedure. Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the
most widely used textbook on performing abortions admitted he ``* * *
would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.''
The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a group of over 600
doctors, emphatically states that partial birth abortion is never
medically necessary and ``should be banned in the interests of women,
their children, and the proper practice of medicine.''
There is absolutely no evidence that partial birth abortion is a safe
procedure. There are no peer reviewed scientific studies. It is not
mentioned in medical textbooks or taught in medical schools. The facts,
as reviewed by doctors, suggest this technique is in fact dangerous for
women. Because of the deliberate breech positioning and the blind
procedure of stabbing the baby at the base of its skull, partial birth
abortion subjects women to risks beyond those normally encountered in
conventional late term abortions. Furthermore, it could not be used in
the two most common life endangering conditions during pregnancy,
infection and hemorrhage, because it puts women at greater risk for
both.
[[Page S4462]]
Conditions such as hydrocephaly, trisomy, Downs Syndrome, and
development of the organs or brain outside the body have been cited as
instances in which partial birth abortion was recommended to preserve a
woman's life, health, or future fertility. There are tragic situations
that require separation of the child from the mother. But it is never
necessary to kill the child during that separation to preserve maternal
health.
I have met families who were advised to have a partial birth abortion
after their child was diagnosed with a disability. These mothers faced
many of the same struggles, such as concerns for their other children,
concerns about whether they would be able to care for a handicapped
baby, and finding a doctor who was willing to deliver the child. As the
Senate considers the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I will tell the
stories of these families and the children.
In closing, I ask my colleagues to examine this issue with their
hearts. We know of two baby girls, one born in Phoenix and the other in
Ohio, who survived this brutal procedure. Baby Phoenix overcame cuts
and a skull fracture sustained during a partial birth abortion
procedure. Today, she lives with her adopted parents in Texas. Baby
Hope lived only three hours and eight minutes. She was born prematurely
during the first dilation stage of a partial birth abortion. Her life
was short, but she personalized this issue for the hospital staff who
gently nursed her for those few hours. I ask that my colleagues
consider whether these little girls deserved to be subjected to partial
birth abortions. I ask them to consider that these children were not
catch phrases, slogans, or concepts. These babies, and other candidates
for partial birth abortions, are human beings. They are being killed
with a procedure that would not be legal for use on animals. I ask my
colleagues to do the right thing and vote to outlaw this horrific
procedure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 be inserted into the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 928
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 ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion
and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This
paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is
necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is
endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This
paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth
abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing
the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus
before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a
doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to
practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the
doctor performs such activity, or any other individual
legally authorized by the State to perform abortions:
Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician
or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform
abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this
section.
``(3) As used in this section, the term `vaginally delivers
a living fetus before killing the fetus' means deliberately
and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or
a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing
a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and
kills the fetus.
``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time
she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the
mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of
the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in
a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the
pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or
the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
``(2) Such relief shall include--
``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and
physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of
the partial-birth abortion.
``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this
section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on
whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the
life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical
disorder, illness or injury.
``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that
issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the
defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial
for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take
place.
``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is
performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a
conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under
section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this
section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my
distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing this
legislation to ban one of the most barbaric practices ever tolerated in
a civilized society. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a measure we
have already passed twice, only to see it overturned by Presidential
vetoes. Enactment of this bill into law is long overdue.
A recent tragic event in my own home state of Ohio brings home yet
again the need for this ban.
On April 6, a young woman went into the Dayton Medical Center in
Montgomery County, Ohio, to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This is a
procedure that usually takes place behind closed doors, where it can be
ignored, its moral status left unquestioned.
But this particular procedure was different. In this procedure, on
April 6, things did not go as planned. Here's what happened.
The Dayton abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, started a procedure to
dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed.
He applied seaweed to start the procedure. He then sent her home--
because this procedure usually takes two or three days. In fact, the
patient is supposed to return on the second day for a further
application of seaweed--and then come back a third time for the actual
partial-birth abortion.
So the woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton
and complete the procedure in two or three days. But her cervix dilated
far too quickly. Shortly after midnight in the first day, after
experiencing severe stomach pains, she was admitted to Bethesda North
Hospital in Cincinnati.
The child was born. After three hours and eight minutes, the child
died.
The cause of death was listed on the death certificate as
``prematurity secondary to induced abortion.''
True enough, Mr. President. But also on the death certificate is a
space for ``Method of death.'' And it says, in the case of this child,
quote, ``Method of death: natural.''
Now that, Mr. President, may well be true in the technical sense. But
if you look at the events that led up to her death, you'll see that
there was really nothing natural about them about them at all.
The medical technician who held that little girl for the three hours
and eight minutes of her short life named her Baby Hope. Baby Hope did
not die of natural causes. She was the victim of a barbaric procedure
that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. A
procedure that has twice been banned by act of Congress--only to see
the ban repeatedly overturned by a Presidential veto.
The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of
an abortion clinic. It took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to
saving lives, not taking them. It reminds us of the brutal reality and
tragedy of what partial birth abortion really is.
When we voted to ban partial-birth abortions, we talked about this
procedure in graphic detail. The public reaction to this disclosure--
the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--was loud and
it was decisive. And there is a very good reason for this. The
procedure is barbaric.
One of the first questions people ask is ``why?''
[[Page S4463]]
``Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary? Why do we
allow this to happen?''
Dr. C. Everett Koop speaks for the consensus of the medical
profession when he says this is never a medically necessary procedure.
Even Martin Haskell--the abortionist in the Baby Hope case--has
admitted that at least eighty percent of the partial-birth abortions he
performs are elective.
The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not that rare a
procedure. What is rare is that we--as a society--saw it happen. It
happened by surprise, at a regular hospital, where it wasn't supposed
to.
Baby Hope was not supposed to die in the arms of a medical
technician. But she did. And she cannot easily be ignored.
This procedure is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in
danger. It's performed on healthy women--and healthy babies--all the
time.
The goal of a partial birth abortion is not to protect somebody's
health but to kill a child. That is what the doctor wants to do.
Dr. Haskell himself has said as much. In an interview with the
American Medical News, he said--and I quote--``you could dilate further
and deliver the baby alive but that's really not the point. The point
is you are attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your
work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the
situation so that I get a live birth instead.'' Unquote.
Dr. Haskell admitted it. Why don't we?
Again, let's hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure. Quote: ``I
just kept on doing D&Es (dilation and extractions) because that was
what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very
tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of
the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they
all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length
presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the
fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the
head and take it out. It was easy.''
It was easy, Mr. President. Easy for him. He doesn't say it was easy
for the mother, and I suspect he doesn't care. His goal is to perform
abortions. Is he the person we're going to trust to decide when
abortions are necessary? He's got a production line going--and
nothing's going to stop him from meeting his quota.
Dr. Haskell continues: ``At first, I would reach around trying to
identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd
get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, `Well gee,
if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't
have to feel around for it.' I did that and sure enough, I found it 99
percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.'' End of quote.
Serendipity, Mr. President.
Let me conclude.
We need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration of this procedure
say about us, as a nation?
Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying,
``I don't really like this, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I'll
put up with it?''
At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we
cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation?
Mr. President, when you come right down to it, America's moral
anesthetic is wearing off. We know what's going on behind the curtain--
and we can't wish that knowledge away. We have to face it--and do
what's right.
We have to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act the law of the
land. Twice in the last three years, Congress has passed this
legislation with strong, bipartisan support, only to see it fall victim
to a Presidential veto. Once again, I am confident Congress will do the
right thing and pass this very important bill.
But that's not enough, Mr. President. Passing this legislation in
Congress is not enough. It will not save any lives. For lives to be
saved, the bill must become law.
If something happens behind the iron curtain of an abortion clinic
it's easier to pretend that it doesn't happen. But the death of Baby
Hope has torn that curtain, revealing the truth of this barbaric
procedure. Let people not ask about us fifty years from now, ``How can
they not have known?'' and ``Why didn't they do anything?''
Because, Mr. President, the fact is: We do know. And we must take
action.
______
By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Abraham,
and Mr. Hutchinson):
S. 929. A bill to provide for the establishment of a National
Military Museum, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
national military museum act
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, when future generations search for ``lessons
learned'' from America's 18th, 19th and 20th century military
experiences, they no doubt will be accessible through dusty texts,
dated documentary videos, or long-forgotten Congressional transcripts.
I am concerned, however, that these lessons will not carry forward
into the next century as an enduring reminder of the true costs, and
the true benefits, of waging wars, on behalf of freedom and democracy.
Increasingly, we have seen the gap between the military, and the rest
of society, widen.
Early in the next century, for example, we expect that less than four
percent of the population will be veterans, down from over 11 percent
in 1980.
This means that fewer and fewer civilians will have a personal
understanding of the military, making it more and more difficult to
pass on to successive generations, one of our most powerful military
assets--our experience.
How then do we ensure that we don't ``repeat'' our past mistakes--and
that we build on our past successes?
Mr. President, I am joined by Senators Hutchison, of Texas, Kerrey of
Nebraska, Hagel, Reed of Rhode Island, Smith of New Hampshire, Cleland,
Abraham, and Hutchinson of Arkansas in introducing the National
Military Museum Act.
It will teach visitors about each of the major wars in which America
has fought.
Finally, it will help build pride, in our military, and the nation.
The United States, through the fine stewardship of the Smithsonian
Institution, operates over a score of excellent national museums--from
the National Portrait Gallery, to the National Postal Museum, yet none
of these are dedicated to the armed forces.
In fact, the individual military services have many museums--the Army
alone, has over 60.
We also have military artifacts and battles represented in sections
of some of the Smithsonian museums.
Yet we do not have a single, prestigious, integrated national museum
to tell America's military story and to honor our armed forces.
This is an extraordinary shortcoming in the telling of our national
heritage.
By contrast, many of our key allies have national military museums.
The British Imperial War Museum, and the Australian War Memorial, are
two fine examples.
The United States is a nation that has influenced world events
decisively over the last century and will continue to do so for
centuries to come.
And it is a military power that has sought not to conquer other
lands, but to bring freedom, and democracy to the entire world.
History shows few if any nations, with such disproportionate means,
employing force for such consistently altruistic ends.
Yet we have no national place to tell, this extraordinary story.
Mr. President, where, would a teenager interested in World War I,
World War II, Korea, or Vietnam, go, to learn more about these wars?
There really is no museum displaying artifacts from these wars, in a
comprehensive fashion.
We do in fact have several fine Civil War museums, but the lack of
representations of so many other wars is remarkable.
The idea of a National Military Museum goes back to the late 1800s.
Several attempts to build this museum, (including a concerted effort
by President Truman) failed, for various reasons: inadequate funding,
post-war disillusionment, or blueprints that were too ambitious.
[[Page S4464]]
Now, as we enter the 21st century, the time is right to display the
enormous inventories of artifacts, that have been accumulated from this
century--especially from conflicts since World War II.
As now envisioned, the National Military Museum would include display
sections for each of the military services as well as separate sections
for each of the country's major wars.
A spectacular atrium would house large items, from: missiles to ship
sections to aircraft.
Based on a review of numerous potential sites, this legislation
authorizes that the new museum be located on the Navy Annex property
just west of the Pentagon.
Bounded symbolically, by Arlington National Cemetery, to the north,
and offering a commanding view of the capital area, this location is
ideal, and one of the last available parcels, in the area, suitable for
a museum of this scope and importance.
The museum would share a large 55-acre tract of land with an
expansion of Arlington National Cemetery and possibly other veterans'
memorials.
The buildings currently on this land, are slated for demolition
around 2015.
The National Military Museum Act establishes a National Military
Museum Foundation, which will be responsible for the design
construction, and operation, of the museum.
The Foundation's Board, will consist of 10 members, and their first
action will be to conduct a study on the siting, design, environmental
impact, and governing of the museum.
The Foundation may recommend that the museum, become part, of the
Smithsonian Institution.
Assuming no Congressional action, upon receipt of both this study,
and a General Accounting Office evaluation, the Foundation will proceed
with final design preparations, and pursue fundraising.
Construction would begin after demolition of the existing Navy Annex
buildings.
Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislative
cornerstone, for building, one of the most important, and--I would
anticipate--most visited museums, in the world.
Let us honor our nation's military with this long overdue museum.
Let us safeguard our past, so that future generations will know what
has been done before--and what may have to be done again, in the
future--to push back the forces of tyranny, and to preserve the
freedoms, we are so fortunate to enjoy.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 930. A bill to provide for the sale of certain public land in the
Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to the Clark County, Nevada, Department of
Aviation; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
ivanpah valley airport public land transfer act
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ivanpah Valley
Airport Public Land Transfer Act. This act authorizes the Secretary of
Interior to convey, at fair market value, certain lands in the Ivanpah
Valley to the Clark County Department of Aviation. Authorization of
this conveyance will allow the Department to proceed with the proposed
development of a new airport to serve Southern Nevada.
As you are aware, growth in both the general population and the
tourism industry in Southern Nevada has been and is expected to
continue to be very strong. Statistics show that over half the people
who come to Southern Nevada now come by air. From 1985 to 1998,
operations at McCarran Airport increased at an annual rate of
approximately five percent. Even if this growth rate slows to two
percent, activities at McCarran will be at or exceed capacity by the
year 2014. At this level, the traveling public will also experience
significant delays. It is obvious we must begin to plan now for the
future.
The Department of Aviation has completed an extensive review of
options available for meeting the growing needs for air traffic in
Southern Nevada. These options included construction of a new runway at
McCarran and the building of an entirely new airport at any one of four
different sites. Analysis of these options shows that for a variety of
technical, safety-related, and economic reasons, the Ivanpah site is
the only option that can accommodate the growing air traffic needs of
the region.
The bill Senator Bryan and I introduce today is based on similar
legislation that was introduced in both the House and Senate in the
105th Congress. However, this bill incorporates changes from the prior
legislation to address environmental concerns and issues that were
raised by the Bureau of Land Management in testimony before the House
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands last year.
Some of those concerns were related to endangered species habitat,
potential conflicts with existing uses, and determination of fair
market value for the lands to be conveyed.
Congress should be aware that this is not a giveaway. Clark County
will pay fair market value for the land and the airport will be
publicly owned and operated. The bill also provides that the revenues
collected by the government for the sale will be available for other
use by the BLM under the terms of the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998.
The Clark County Department of Aviation is committed to the
preparation of necessary environmental documentation for airport
construction once Congressional approval for the land sale is granted.
The County cannot, however, invest the substantial amounts of time,
dollars, and resources an environmental study demands without assurance
the site will be available for purchase should an airport be deemed to
have no significant negative impacts. The bill also provides for return
of the land to the Department of Interior, should airport development
prove to be infeasible.
I thank my fellow Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, for his support on
this issue and urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill.
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. 930
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 ``Ivanpah Valley Airport
Public Land Transfer Act''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF
AVIATION.
(a) In general.--
(1) Conveyance.--Notwithstanding the land use planning
reqirements contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711,
1712), on occurrence of the conditions specified in
subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in
this section as the ``Secretary'') shall convey to Clark
Country, Nevada, on behalf of the Department of Aviation
(referred to in this section as the ``Department''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
public land identified for disposition on the map entitled
``Ivanpah Valley, Nevada-Airport Selections'' numbered 01 and
dated April 1999, for the purpose of developing an airport
facility and related infrastructure.
(2) Map.--The map described in paragraph (1) shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the offices of
the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Las
Vegas District of the Bureau of Land Management.
(b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall make the conveyance
under subsection (a) if--
(1) the Department conducts an airspace assessment to
identify any potential adverse effect on access to the Las
Vegas basin under visual flight rules that would result from
the construction and operation of a commercial or primary
airport, or both, on the land to be conveyed;
(2) the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration certifies to the Secretary that--
(A) the assessment under paragraph (1) is thorough; and
(B) alternatives have been developed to address each
adverse effect identified in the assessment, including
alternatives that ensure access to the Las Vegas basin under
visual flight rules at a level that is equal to or better
than the access in existence as of the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(3) the Department enters into an agreement with the
Secretary to retain ownership of Jean Airport and to maintain
and develop Jean Airport as a general aviation airport.
(c) Phased Conveyances.--At the option of the Department,
the Secretary shall convey the land described in subsection
(a) in parcels over a period of up to 20 years, as may be
required to carry out the phased construction and development
of the airport facility and infrastructure on the land.
[[Page S4465]]
(d) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance of
each parcel, the Department shall pay the United States an
amount equal to the fair market value of the parcel.
(2) Determination of fair market value.--
(A) Initial 3-year period.--During the 3-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the fair
market value of a parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be based on an appraisal of the fair market value of
the parcel as of a date not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Subsequent appraisals.--
(i) In general.--The fair market value of each parcel
conveyed after the end of the 3-year period referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall be based on a subsequent appraisal.
(ii) Factors.--An appraisal conducted after that 3-year
period--
(I) shall take into consideration the parcel in its
unimproved state; and
(II) shall not reflect any enhancement in the value of the
parcel based on the existence or planned construction of
infrastructure on or near the parcel.
(3) Use of proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale of each
parcel--
(A) shall be deposited in the special account established
under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
(B) shall be disposed of by the Secretary as provided in
section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 Stat. 2346).
(e) Reversionary Interest.--
(1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning 20
years after the date on which the Secretary conveys the first
parcel under subsection (a), if the Secretary determines that
the Department is not developing or progressing toward the
development of the parcel as part of an airport facility, the
Secretary may exercise a right to reenter the parcel.
(2) Procedure.--Any determination of the Secretary under
paragraph (1) shall be made on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
(3) Refund.--If the Secretary exercises a right to reenter
a parcel under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall refund to
the Department an amount that is equal to the amount paid for
the parcel by the Department.
(f) Withdrawal.--The public land described in subsection
(a) is withdrawn from mineral entry under--
(1) sections 910, 2318 through 2340, and 2343 through 2346
of the Revised Statutes (commonly known as the ``General
Mining Law of 1872'') (30 U.S.C. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 through
30, 33 through 43, 46 through 48, 50 through 53); and
(2) the Act of February 25, 1920 (commonly known as the
``Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920'') (41 Stat. 437, chapter
85; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
(g) Mojave National Preserve.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Secretary in the
development of an airspace management plan for the Ivanpah
Valley Airport that, to the extent practicable and without
adversely affecting safety considerations, restricts aircraft
arrivals and departures over the Mojave National Preserve,
California.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Conrad):
S.J. Res. 23. A joint resolution expressing the sense of the Congress
regarding the need for a Surgeon General's report on media and
violence; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
surgeon general's media violence report act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, an entire nation was stunned this past
week with the shocking violence that unfolded in Littleton, Colorado.
Perhaps, if this had been an isolated incident, we could have written
it off as two crazed individuals. However, the tragic reality is that
it was not an isolated incident, but another in an increasing pattern
of violence in our schools. Even more disturbing is that these
schoolyard shootings are occurring against the backdrop of ever-
escalating youth violence, and suicide.
This is an extraordinarily complex problem, with many contributing
factors. However, what this comes down to is responsibility, and the
most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture--
has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and
the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries
of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets of our neighborhoods
and communities.
Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not
parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in
our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with
their time, the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our
paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We
must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids
first.
However, parents need help. They need help because our homes and our
families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of
violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies
depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by
interactive video games; the Internet, which holds such tremendous
potential in so many ways, is tragically used by some to communicate
unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how-
to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. Our culture
is dominated by media, and our children, more-so than any generation
before them, is vulnerable to the images of violence and hate that,
unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see, and
hear.
Thus, today I rise to introduce, calling upon the Surgeon General to
conduct a comprehensive study of media violence, in all its forms, and
to issue a report on its effects, and recommendations on how we can
turn this tragic tide of youth violence.
As I have said, this is a complex challenge. Certainly, working with
the media industry, we can come to some consensus on immediate measures
that can be taken to curb our children's access to the types of
excessive and gratuitous violence that is currently flooding our homes
and families. However, the crisis we are currently facing did not occur
overnight, and we must take time to achieve a comprehensive
understanding of how media violence affects childhood development, and
what children are most at risk to its impact.
Again, I urge all Americans to get involved in their kids' lives. Ask
questions, listen to their fears and concerns, their hopes and their
dreams. Children are not simply small adults.
Childhood is a time of innocence, a time to teach discipline and
values. Our children are our most precious gift, they are full of
innocence and hope. We must work together to preserve the sanctity of
childhood.
____________________