[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2729-S2771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Warner,
and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 2416. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 2201 C
Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, which serves as
headquarters for the Department of State, as the ``Harry S. Truman
Federal Building''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
legislation to rename the state department after president harry s.
truman
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my great privilege to introduce a
bill today, along with Senators Bond, Warner, DeWine, and Moynihan,
that will name the State Department's Headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
the ``Harry S. Truman Federal Building.'' I truly appreciate the
support of these distinguished colleagues and Secretary Albright to see
this idea become a reality.
Born in Lamar, Missouri, Harry S. Truman was a farmer, a national
guardsman, a World War I veteran, a local postmaster, a road overseer,
and a small business owner before turning to politics. Through these
experiences, he gained the courage, honesty, and dedication to freedom
required of a greater leader. Truman went on to become one of the most
influential Presidents of the modern era. His leadership and character,
especially in the area of foreign policy, have earned him well-deserved
praise and respect throughout the world.
He established the Marshall Plan--creating a politically and
economically stable Western Europe. President Truman was instrumental
in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which kept Soviet
aggression at bay in Western Europe. He worked to contain the further
spread of communism in Berlin, Greece, Turkey, and Korea. Clearly,
President Truman was the architect of the strategy that won the Cold
War and is a prime reason the United States is currently the world's
sole superpower.
Mr. President, the State Department should be named after a true
leader in foreign policy--and President Harry S. Truman is the clear
choice. And through this choice, I hope the United States will continue
President Truman's principled foreign policy as seen in his 1949
Presidential Inaugural Address:
Events have brought our American democracy to new influence
and new responsibilities. They will test our courage, our
devotion to duty, and our concept of liberty. But I say to
all men, what we have achieved in liberty, we will surpass in
greater liberty. Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we
will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure. To
that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our
firmness of resolve. With God's help, the future of mankind
will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to
join my colleagues--Senators Ashcroft, Warner, Bond, and DeWine--in
this effort to name the State Department building after our 33rd
President, Harry S. Truman. It could be named for none other.
Harry S. Truman was, perhaps, the most unlikely of the Presidents. A
failed haberdasher, as he would say, without a college degree. It seems
somewhat paradoxical that this common man, who modeled himself along
the lines of the fabled Cincinnatus--returning to the field after
rising to meet his country's needs--would leave so much behind.
Put simply, President Truman's foreign affairs accomplishments saved
the world from the chaos that followed the destruction of Europe in the
Second World War, and enabled the ultimate defeat of totalitarianism.
To list a few: the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, aid to Greece and
Turkey, NATO, and the establishment of the United Nations--the vision
of his only rival President Woodrow Wilson.
His greatness was not readily accepted while he served, or shortly
thereafter. But over time, Harry S. Truman has been reevaluated through
such scholarly biographies as those by David McCullough and Alonzo L.
Hamby. This son of Independence, Missouri, would surely have rejected
the high praise that his name now generates, but he would certainly
concur in the appreciation of the enduring success of the policies and
institutions he created. McCullough's ``Truman'' contains this
reflection:
I suppose that history will remember my term in office as
the years when the Cold War began to overshadow our lives.
I have had hardly a day in office that has not been
dominated by this all-embracing struggle. . . . And always in
the background there has been the atomic bomb. But when
history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the
Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we have
set the course that can win it. . . .
Mr. President, few could dispute those sentiments.
______
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
S. 2417. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
increase funding for State nonpoint source pollution control programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000
Mr. CRAPO. I am pleased to introduce today, with my colleague Senator
Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, the ``Water
Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000'' in response to a fast
track rulemaking process undertaken by the Environmental Protection
Agency with respect to the total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit programs
under the Clean Water Act. The concerns over this rule are far too
great and EPA is moving far too quickly for Congress to stand aside and
allow this regulation to move ahead. My disagreement with the proposed
rule is not its basic objective, which is aimed at cleaning up our
Nation's waters--but the hurried approach EPA has elected to take, and
their refusal to address the very numerous, very real concerns of
states, cities, and stakeholders.
Huge strides have been made in cleaning up our nation's waters since
the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, particularly in the area of
point source pollutants. But clearly, our work is not finished in
trying to make our lakes, rivers and streams ``fishable and
swimmable.'' More must be done to improve water quality, and more must
especially be done to provide additional resources to address nonpoint
source pollution, which, so far, has not received anywhere near the
kind of funding that has been focused on discharges from point sources.
In the past month and a half, we have held two hearings on the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule with respect to total
maximum daily loads and the NPDES permit programs. The same subject has
been examined in four other Congressional hearings by three separate
committees. What we have collectively learned in these hearings about
EPA's proposed rule is nothing short of alarming. States have responded
with universal concern to this proposed rule that saddles them with
enormous regulatory burdens and exorbitant costs in carrying out their
water quality management programs. Not only is this proposed onerous
and costly to implement, but States have testified that it is not
likely to improve water quality, and, in fact, may have a detrimental
effect on States with existing programs that have proven to be
successful.
We would prefer not to be introducing this bill today. We have been
holding hearings. I have been communicating with EPA--as have dozens of
other Members of Congress expressing their grave concern with the
proposed rule. We would prefer that Congress be working through these
very important and challenging issues in collaboration with EPA. But
holding hearings and attempting to work with EPA to resolve issues of
concern, or urging them to take a more thoughtful, even-handed approach
is no longer a reasonable course of action when the EPA steadfastly
continues to insist on fast tracking a rule that has been the subject
of such widespread concern and criticism.
[[Page S2730]]
When EPA issued this proposed regulation last August, we were all
surprised at the boldness of the agency to publish the rule:
During the Congressional recess; and
Provide only a 60-day comment period on such as massive and complex
rulemaking.
Not only did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee request an extension of the comment period, but
Congress was actually forced to enact legislation to compel EPA to
listen. The EPA was forced to extend its comment period. EPA received
more than 30,000 public comments on the proposed rule, and, as I said
earlier, this rule has been the subject of six Congressional hearings.
To date, I do not see any evidence that EPA is listening. As recently
as last week, EPA communicated that it had negotiated a 60-day OMB
review--what is usually at least a 90-day review on major rulemaking
efforts--and that it intends to finalize the rule by June 30.
The intransigence of the EPA is both unexplainable and unacceptable.
If EPA is serious about ramming this regulation through by June 30, it
is our intention to send them a loud message--Congress insists instead
that they take a deep breath with respect to this rule.
The bill Senator Smith and I are introducing today--the Water
Pollution Program Enhancements Act--takes important steps toward
achieving additional reductions in water pollution now, and providing
the science necessary for better implementation of the TMDL program in
the future.
In the hearings I held, witnesses raised three main concerns with
respect to the proposed rule. They cited:
States' lack of reliable data for developing their 303(d) list of
impaired waters;
The scarce public resources available for addressing nonpoint
pollution in particular; and
EPA's overreach of its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act
in controlling water quality management programs administered by
States.
This bill addresses those three issues without amending current law
or regulation.
The Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act authorizes significantly
increased funding for sections 106 and 319 under the Clean Water Act.
Funding under section 106 would be made available to the States and
specifically directed to:
Collect reliable monitoring data;
Improve their lists of impaired waters;
Prepare TMDLs; and
Develop watershed management strategies.
Of the $500 million available for implementation of section 319, $200
million is required to be made available by the States for grants to
private landowners to carry out projects that will improve water
quality. These funds are specifically being made available to farmers,
ranches, family forestland managers and others, to conduct activities
on their lands that contribute to cleaning up rivers, lakes and
streams.
These significant increases in funding will achieve on-the-ground
results and have a very real effect in improving our nation's water
quality.
Second, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report on:
The quality of the science used to develop and implement TMDLs;
The costs associated with implementing TMDLs; and
The availability of alternative programs or mechanisms to reduce the
discharge of pollutants from point sources and nonpoint source
pollution.
If there is one message I have heard loud and clear, it is that we
lack basic and necessary data about TMDLs and how to implement the TMDL
program that achieves the goal of improving water quality, provides
States flexibility in administering their programs, and is cost
effective. It is irresponsible of EPA to push ahead in finalizing this
regulation when we do not have the answers to such basic questions
about this program.
Third, the bill provides for innovation and collaboration by
establishing a pilot program in which five states are selected to
implement a three-year program that examines alternative strategies and
incentives to reduce the discharge of pollutants and TMDLs. This pilot
program will provide us with valuable information about how we might
think outside the box to solve our water quality problems.
Finally, this legislation requires EPA to postpone its rulemaking and
review the National Academy of Sciences study before publishing its
final rule on the TMDL program. Despite EPA's assertions to the
contrary, we know that the proposed rule would have enormous
implications for States, cities and stakeholders. It is absolutely
critical that we know more about the science of TMDLs before finalizing
this rule, and EPA has given Congress no other choice but to compel
them to do so. Congress has an obligation to intercede and resolve
these issues crucial to the health of our people and our environment.
I urge my colleagues to join me in cleaning up our nation's waters
through the reasonable and balanced provisions included in the Water
Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce
today with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Mike Crapo, the ``Water
Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000.'' I believe this bill will
significantly improve water quality and, over the long term, reform the
way the Environmental Protection Agency and the States implement the
Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, program for impaired waters.
I emphasize at the outset that I strongly support the goals of the
Clean Water Act. I believe all Americans should be able to enjoy clean
water to drink, and that our rivers and lakes should be ``fishable''
and ``swimmable.'' And we have made substantial progress over the past
25 years since the Clean Water Act was enacted in cleaning up our
nations rivers, lakes and streams. According to EPA, 60-70 percent of
our nation's waters are now safe for fishing and swimming. Certainly,
there's more work to be done. How we control runoff from agricultural
and urban areas, and forests--so-called nonpoint source pollution--is
our challenge for the future.
I also support the original concept underlying the TMDL program of
helping ensure that water quality standards are met on all of our
nation's rivers and streams and lakes. However, I believe that there
may be other tools to help us achieve those laudable goals; TMDLs are
not the only answer. We should be looking to the States for
alternative, innovative solutions, particularly in the area of
controlling nonpoint source pollution. And I believe that if we look,
we will find that the States have better, more cost effective solutions
to improving water quality. Is there a role for the Federal Government
in addressing nonpoint source pollution? Absolutely. The Federal
Government--EPA--should work in partnership with States and the private
sector to achieve our shared goal of fishable and swimmable water.
EPA's approach to solving the nation's remaining water quality
issues, however, continues to be based on more ``top-down'' regulations
from Washington, D.C.; more confrontration, instead of collaboration;
and more interference with State programs. We are taking the step of
introducing this legislation today because EPA has made it clear that
it plans to expedite the process for finalizing two controversial rules
that it proposed last August that would make a number of significant
changes to the existing programs to control the discharge of pollutants
and to improve water quality. The first rule would significantly expand
the requirements for establishing the total amount of pollutants that
can be discharged to a waterbody--so-called ``total maximum daily
loads.'' The second rule would expand EPA's authority to revoke or
reissue state-issued permits under the Clean Water Act to implement the
new TMDL requirements. The combined effect of these rules would be to
dramatically expand EPA's authority over issues that have traditionally
been within the jurisdiction of the States, such as farming, ranching
and logging operations, and additionally to give EPA a potential new
role in local land management use decisions.
I have serious concerns about the substance of these rules. But I am
also
[[Page S2731]]
deeply troubled by the process that EPA has adopted here. It began last
summer when EPA initially proposed the rules. At that time, it stated
that it would only accept public comments on the proposed rules for 60
days. Such a short period of time for public review was obviously
inadequate given the length of the proposed rules and their complexity.
Congress intervened and EPA was ultimately compelled to extend the
comment deadline for an additional 90 days.
Even before the comment period had closed, however, EPA indicated
that nothing would stop it from pushing the proposed rules through the
process as quickly as possible. Over the past month, EPA has announced
its plans to issue final rules before the end of June in spite of the
fact that it received over 30,000 comments in February, at least 27,000
of which were critical of the rule, and can hardly have had an
opportunity to give these comments serious consideration. There have
been at least six hearings on the proposed rules in both the House and
Senate in which serious concerns were raised about: the legality and
practicality of the rules; the lack of reliable science underlying the
existing TMDL program, not to mention any proposed expansion; the
potential impact on successful State programs; the burdens that an
expanded TMDL program would impose on individual landowners and small
businesses; and the lack of a completed cost assessment of the proposed
rules.
Senator Crapo has held two hearings so far on EPA's proposed TMDL
rules. Through that process, and in many meetings with stakeholders, I
have heard about all of the problems with EPA's proposed rules--the
lack of science, the overly broad scope, practical problems in
implementing the rule, trampling of state programs, and the cost. Let
me detail just a few of the comments that I heard.
On the question of the science underlying the TMDL program, GAO
recently issued a report, and provided testimony on the basis of the
report, that States do not have the data they need to accurately assess
the pollution problems in their waters and further, do not have the
data they need to develop TMDLs. In his statement to Senator Crapo's
subcommittee, Peter Guerrero noted specifically that the ``ability [of
the States] to develop TMDLs is limited by a number of factors. . . .
[S]hortages in funding and staff [were cited] as the major limitation
to carrying out [the States'] responsibilities, including developing
TMDLs. In addition, states reported that they need additional
analytical methods and technical assistance to develop TMDLs for the
more complex, nonpoint sources of pollution.'' He went on to state that
only three states have the data they need to identify nonpoint sources
of pollution, and only three States have the majority of the data they
need to develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources. To me, this information
from GAO sends a clear signal that TMDLs are not the answer for
nonpoint source pollution. The science just isn't there.
We also heard from a variety of businesses and landowners who told us
of other substantive problems with EPA's proposed rules. For example,
Tom Thomson, a certified Tree Farmer from my home State of New
Hampshire and the owner of the Outstanding Northeastern Tree Farm of
1997, testified that EPA's proposal to regulate tree farming as a point
source and impose TMDLs would just make it harder to do the job of
improving water quality. He explained that through aggressive, private
and voluntary stewardship, private woodlot owners all over the country
are doing a good job to address water quality issues related to
forestry. Compliance rates now approach 90 percent in many of the
States where forestry best management practices, BMPs, are in place.
Total river and stream miles impaired due to silviculture declined 20
percent just between 1994 and 1996. The number of miles deemed to have
``major impairment'' from silviculture fell 83 percent. In 1996, EPA
dropped silviculture from its list of 7 leading sources of river and
stream impairment. That same year, silviculture contributed only 7
percent of total stream impairment. In Tom's word's this seems to be a
classic case of ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' In this case, it
would seem clear that water quality issues related to forestry are
being addressed and progress is being made through State BMP programs
and other voluntary, non-regulatory measures undertaken by landowners.
To his credit, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water,
Chuck Fox, has recognized that the proposed rule caused confusion and
does have many problems. I met with Mr. Fox last week and was pleased
to learn from him that EPA has heard at least some of the concerns that
were raised and is ready to make some changes to their rule. He
indicated that in any final rule, EPA would ``drop threatened waters;
allow more flexibility in setting priorities; drop the offset
requirements for new pollution; and revise the approach for forest
pollution.''
Some of the changes may be significant and that's good news, but as
always, ``the devil is in the details.'' I am still concerned that many
of the major problems have not been addressed. I also wonder why, if
EPA is willing to acknowledge that many of the concepts included in the
proposed rule were indeed flawed, it hasn't been willing to withdraw
the August draft and reissue a new proposed rule that reflects its
current thoughts. Surely doing that and seeking public comment on a
revised rule would result in a better, more informed end product. It
would almost certainly enhance public confidence in EPA's process.
However, EPA has consistently declined to consider this approach.
In my opinion, EPA simply hasn't done the work that must be done to
justify and explain the rule to the public. States and the regulated
community deserve to have their comments and concerns considered
seriously by EPA, as well as to have an opportunity to review and
provide comment on the cost assessment in the context of the proposed
rule. Now apparently, EPA may be making significant changes that will
never have been subject to public comment. In its desire to rush to
judgment on a final rule, EPA is effectively neutering the role of
public participation in the rulemaking process.
Therefore, Senator Crapo and I have drafted legislation that will
address several of the key problems with EPA's proposed rules and, in
addition, defer any further EPA action on the rules until the National
Academy of Sciences has conducted a study of the scientific issues
underlying the development and implementation of the TMDL program.
Senator Crapo and I are taking the first step to not only address
some of the problems raised by EPA's proposed rules, but also to
improve water quality on the ground right now.
Our bill will do three fundamental things. First, it significantly
increases federal funding to $750 million for States to implement
programs to address nonpoint source pollution, to assess the quality of
their rivers and streams, and to collect the data they need to develop
better TMDLs. This will represent a significant increase from current
funding levels for Fiscal Year 2000 of $155 million for nonpoint source
programs under section 106 and section 319 of the Clean Water Act. More
money now will enable landowners, businesses, and States to do things
now on the ground to improve water quality--things like putting in
buffer strips and water retention ponds. With this approach, we won't
have to wait 10 or 15 years for EPA to impose new regulatory
requirements on landowners after a lengthy and onerous TMDL process.
Second, the bill directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
a study on the science used to develop TMDLs and make recommendations
about how to improve it. The NAS will also evaluate existing State
programs to look at what works, particularly for nonpoint sources.
Better science will make for better TMDLs.
Third, it includes a pilot program for EPA to compare different State
approaches to improving water quality. TMDLs should not be the only
tool that we rely on to meet our water quality goals; they may be
appropriate and effective for a chemical company, but not for a farmer
or woodlot owner. There are better solutions out there, particularly to
deal with the problems associated with nonpoint source pollution. For
example, States are using their own authority and incentive-based
programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the farm bill to work
together with farmers, ranchers,
[[Page S2732]]
loggers and their cities to substantially reduce runoff.
The bottom line is that States, public utilities, landowners, and
businesses now are spending billions of dollars to improve water
quality. If we are going to ask them to spend billions more--and we
are--Congress and EPA have a responsibility to make sure that the
programs we create are based on good, reliable science, and make the
best use of limited resources.
Again, it's not a question of challenging the goals of the Clean
Water Act; it's a question of seeking the best way to achieve them.
The bill also includes a provision to defer the finalization of EPA's
proposed TMDL and related permit rules. We're serious when we say that
we want EPA to base its regulations on good science. And we're serious
when we say that we want EPA to respect the role of the States in
solving the problem of nonpoint source pollution. That's why the bill
provides for the National Academy of Sciences to look into those
issues. We believe that EPA also should welcome the NAS Study and look
forward to the opportunity to use that Study to improve its rule.
Therefore, the bill directs EPA to review the NAS Study and take into
consideration the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences
before it finalizes any new TMDL rule. We believe that in the long run,
waiting 18 months for the NAS analysis will only improve the rule and
increase public confidence in it.
Mr. President, I know our critics will charge that we are undermining
the Clean Water Act. They could not be more wrong. This legislation
will enhance the Clean Water Act. By seeking better science and
increasing needed Federal funding, this bill will strengthen programs
on the ground that work--programs that improve water quality and help
us achieve the fundamental goals of fishable and swimmable waters.
I commend Senator Crapo for his leadership on this issue. I believe
that in crafting this legislation, he is taking an important step in
the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2418. A bill to prohibit commercial air tour operations over the
Black Canyon National Park; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Commercial Overflights Ban
Act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would prohibit commercial tour overflight operators from flying in and
over the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. The Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Park, our nation's 55th and newest national
park is a breathtaking canyon of diverse magnitude, which is why I
worked for over 13 years to get it dedicated as a national park.
I cannot imagine having the many visitors who tour my home state to
view Colorado's newest national park enjoying the sound of airplanes or
helicopters buzzing overhead while they are trying to listen to the
flowing river at the bottom of the canyon. Because of the deep, narrow
nature of the canyon, rescue and recovery operations for aircraft that
experience problems would be extremely difficult, dangerous and costly.
My bill would amend the FAA reauthorization act of 2000 and would
only restrict overflights on the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park. I worked with my friend and colleague Senator Allard for over
five years in support of his effort to get commercial overflights
banned over the Rocky Mountain National Park. Similar action by
Congress is now necessary for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison.
I believe National Park visitors seek peacefulness when they visit a
national park and my legislation would help provide that. We contacted
the Superintendent of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
and he informed us that currently no commercial overflights are taking
place, but there may have been flights in the past.
My bill would amend already existing law and would not negatively
affect the operation of emergency, military and commercial high-level
airlines or private planes.
The Denver Post recently published an editorial supporting
Congressional action on the issue of aircraft noise, citing how such
operations would create noise which would echo terribly off the walls
of the Canyon. As a member of the National Park and Historic
Preservation Subcommittee, I have confronted these types of issues in
the past and know how important it is for the visitors to our national
parks to have everlasting and fond memories when they take the time and
effort to visit the natural wonders we are blessed with in this
country.
I ask unanimous consent that the Denver Post editorial and the bill
be printed in the Record. And, I ask my colleagues to support this
needed legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2418
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AIR TOUR
OPERATIONS.
Section 806 of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act
of 2000 is amended by inserting ``or the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park'' after ``Rocky Mountain National
Park''.
____
Keep Planes Out of Parks
April 10--It took five years, but the wonderful quiet over
Rocky Mountain National Park has been permanently preserved.
However, the state's congressional delegation should take
steps to protect other national parks in Colorado from being
pestered by the constant drone of low-flying planes and the
thunderous whapping of helicopter blades. Of particular
concern is the Black Canyon of the Gunnison.
Aircraft noise has become a huge problem in some national
parks, such as the Grand Canyon.
So, when a helicopter tour company wanted to start scenic
flights over Rocky Mountain National Park in the mid-1990s,
Estes Park residents became alarmed.
A temporary ban on commercial flights over the park was put
in place, thanks to efforts by then-U.S. Rep. Wayne Allard, a
Republican who at the time represented the district that
includes Estes Park; then-U.S. Rep. David Skaggs, a Democrat
who at the time represented the district that includes
Boulder County, where part of the park is located; and then-
U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, a former Denver
mayor.
But the ban wasn't really a done deal until this week.
Allard, now a U.S. senator, amended the Federal Aviation
Administration's authorization bill to include a permanent
ban on aircraft tours over Rocky Mountain National Park. U.S.
Rep. Bob Schaffer, another Republican who now represents
Colorado's Fourth Congressional District, co-sponsored a
similar amendment on the House side.
Unfortunately, their work may not yet be finished. In the
last several months, some outdoor recreation groups have
raised worries that commercial flights could become a problem
over the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. That
prospect could make it impossible for visitors to enjoy
standing on the rim and listening to the Gunnison River roar
thousands of feet below. Aircraft noise would echo terribly
off the rock walls, and the narrow canyon could present
safety problems.
The use of commercial aircraft is justifiable in a few
national parks. In Alaska, for example, airplanes are needed
to reach parts of Denali National Park, including the main
climbing route on Mount McKinley.
But in the national parks in Colorado, commercial tour
flights simply aren't appropriate. The state's congressional
delegation should continue to work on the issue.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2419. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
the annual determination of the rate of the basic benefit of active
duty educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
VETERANS' HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES ACT
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans
Higher Education Opportunities Act. I am pleased to be joined by the
distinguished Senator Collins of Maine in bringing this important issue
to the Senate floor today.
The 1944 GI Bill of Rights is one of the most important pieces of
legislation ever passed by Congress. No program has been more
successful in increasing educational opportunities for our country's
veterans while also providing a valuable incentive for the best and
brightest to make a career out of military service. This bill has
allowed eight million veterans to finish high school and 2.3 million
service members to attend college.
[[Page S2733]]
Unfortunately, without this update the current GI Bill can no longer
deliver these results and fails in its promise to recruits and service
members. The legislation that Senator Collins and I are introducing
today will take an important first step in modernizing the GI Bill.
Over 96% of recruits currently sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill and
pay $1,200 out of their first year's pay to guarantee eligibility. But
only one-half of these military personnel use any of the current
Montgomery GI Bill benefits. This is evidence that the current GI Bill
simply does not meet their needs.
GI Bill benefits have not kept pace with increased costs of
education. During the 1995-96 school year, the basic benefit paid under
the Montgomery GI Bill offset only 36% of average total education
costs.
There is wide consensus among national higher education and veterans
associations that at a minimum, the GI Bill should pay the costs of
attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter
student. The current Montgomery GI Bill benefit pays only 55% of that
cost.
My legislation creates that benchmark by indexing the GI Bill to the
costs of attending the average four-year public institution as a
commuter student. For example, those costs for the 1999-2000 academic
year were $8,774. The Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act would
thereby require 36 monthly stipends of $975 for a total GI Bill benefit
of $35,100. This benchmark cost will be updated annually by the College
Board in order for the GI Bill to keep pace.
I am pleased that my legislation has the bipartisan support of
Senator Collins and the overwhelming support of the Partnership for
Veterans' Education. This organization includes over 45 veterans groups
and higher education organizations including the VFW, the American
Council on Education, the Non Commissioned Officers Association, the
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and
The Retired Enlisted Association.
Several proposals have been introduced in the House that would
address the shortfalls of the current GI Bill, and I look forward to
working with members of the House and my colleagues in the Senate on
this important issue.
As the parent of a son who served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia and who
is currently deployed in Kosovo, these military ``quality of life''
challenges are particularly apparent to me. Making the GI Bill pay for
viable educational opportunity makes as much sense today as it did
following World War II. The very modest cost of improving the GI Bill
will result in net gains to our military and our society.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2419
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 ``Veterans' Higher Education
Opportunities Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. ANNUAL DETERMINATION OF BASIC BENEFIT OF ACTIVE DUTY
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI
BILL.
(a) Basic Benefit.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``of $528 (as
increased from time to time under subsection (g))'' and
inserting ``equal to the average monthly costs of tuition and
expenses for commuter students at public institutions of
higher education that award baccalaureate degrees (as
determined under subsection (g))''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``of $429 (as
increased from time to time under subsection (g))'' and
inserting ``equal to 75 percent of the average monthly costs
of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public
institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate
degrees (as determined under subsection (g))''.
(b) Determination of Average Monthly Costs.--Subsection (g)
of that section is amended to read as follows:
``(g)(1) Not later than September 30 each year, the
Secretary shall determine the average monthly costs of
tuition and expenses for commuter students at public
institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate
degrees for purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) for the
succeeding fiscal year. The Secretary shall determine such
costs utilizing information obtained from the College Board
or information provided annually by the College Board in its
annual survey of institutions of higher education.
``(2) In determining the costs of tuition and expenses
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into account
the following:
``(A) Tuition and fees.
``(B) The cost of books and supplies.
``(C) The cost of board.
``(D) Transportation costs.
``(E) Other nonfixed educational expenses.
``(3) A determination made under paragraph (1) in a year
shall take effect on October 1 of that year and apply with
respect to basic educational assistance allowances payable
under this section for the fiscal year beginning in that
year.
``(4) Not later than September 30 each year, the Secretary
shall publish in the Federal Register the average monthly
costs of tuition and expenses as determined under paragraph
(1) in that year.
``(5) For purposes of this section, the term `institution
of higher education' has the meaning given that term in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001).''.
(c) Stylistic Amendment.--Subsection (b) of that section is
further amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
striking ``as provided in the succeeding subsections of this
section'' and inserting ``as otherwise provided in this
section''.
(d) Effective Date.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on
October 1, 2000.
(2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall make the
determination required by subsection (g) of section 3015 of
title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (b) of
this section), and such determination shall go into effect,
for fiscal year 2001.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and
colleague, Senator Johnson, in introducing the Veterans' Higher
Education Opportunities Act of 2000. This legislation will provide our
veterans with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost.
Endorsed by the 47-member Partnership for Veterans Education, our
legislation provides a new model for today's GI bill that is logical,
fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our
veterans.
The original GI bill was enacted in 1944. As a result of this
initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take
advantage of postservice education and training opportunities,
including more than 2 million veterans who went on to college. My own
father was among those veterans who served bravely in World War II and
then came back home to resume his education with assistance from the GI
bill.
Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. Bill have continued
to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of the educational
opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New
laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served
in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period
in-between. Since the change to an all-volunteer service, additional
adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of
the Montgomery G.I. Bill in 1985.
The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the
Montgomery G.I. Bill, however, has greatly eroded over time due to
inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military
recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a
strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention
tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military
and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until
a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value
as an instrument for readjustment into civilian life after military
service.
This point really hit home for me when I recently met with
representatives of the Maine State Approving Agency (SAA) for Veterans
Education Programs. They told me of the ever increasing difficulties
that service members are having in using the G.I. Bill's benefits for
education and training.
For example, the Maine representatives told me that the majority of
today's veterans are married and have children. Yet, the Montgomery
G.I. Bill often does not cover the cost of tuition to attend a public
institution, let alone the other costs associated with the pursuit of
higher education and those required to help support a family.
In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I.
Bill provides the lowest level of assistance ever to those who served
in the defense
[[Page S2734]]
of our country. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill
provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two
children. Twenty years later, a veteran in identical circumstances
receives only $43 more, a mere 8% increase over a time period when
inflation has nearly doubled, and a dollar buys only half of what it
once purchased.
To address these problems, we are offering a modern version of the
Montgomery G. I. Bill. This new model establishes a sensible,
easily understood benchmark for G.I. Bill benefits. The benchmark sets
G.I. Bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and
expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher
education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This commonsense
provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education
stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a
level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at
recruitment.
The current G.I. Bill now provides nine monthly $536 stipends per
year for four years. The total benefit is $19,296. Under the new
benchmark established by this legislation, the monthly stipend for the
this academic year would be $975, producing a new total benefit of
$35,100 for the four academic years.
Mr. President, today's G.I. Bill is woefully under-funded and does
not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet
their educational goals. The legislation that we are proposing would
fulfill the promise made to our nation's veterans, help with recruiting
and retention of men and women in our military, and reflect current
costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest
improvements to the basic benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
I urge all members of the Senate to join Senator Johnson and myself
in support of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Cleland):
S. 2420. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance is
made available to Federal employees, members of the uniformed services,
and civilian and military retirees, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
long-term care security act
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. 2420
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 ``Long-Term Care Security
Act''.
SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart G of part III of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE
``Sec.
``9001. Definitions.
``9002. Availability of insurance.
``9003. Contracting authority.
``9004. Financing.
``9005. Preemption.
``9006. Studies, reports, and audits.
``9007. Jurisdiction of courts.
``9008. Administrative functions.
``9009. Cost accounting standards.
``Sec. 9001. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter:
``(1) Employee.--The term `employee' means--
``(A) an employee as defined by section 8901(1); and
``(B) an individual described in section 2105(e);
but does not include an individual employed by the government
of the District of Columbia.
``(2) Annuitant.--The term `annuitant' has the meaning such
term would have under paragraph (3) of section 8901 if, for
purposes of such paragraph, the term `employee' were
considered to have the meaning given to it under paragraph
(1) of this subsection.
``(3) Member of the uniformed services.--The term `member
of the uniformed services' means a member of the uniformed
services, other than a retired member of the uniformed
services.
``(4) Retired member of the uniformed services.--The term
`retired member of the uniformed services' means a member or
former member of the uniformed services entitled to retired
or retainer pay.
``(5) Qualified relative.--The term `qualified relative'
means each of the following:
``(A) The spouse of an individual described in paragraph
(1), (2), (3), or (4).
``(B) A parent, stepparent, or parent-in-law of an
individual described in paragraph (1) or (3).
``(C) A child (including an adopted child, a stepchild, or,
to the extent the Office of Personnel Management by
regulation provides, a foster child) of an individual
described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if such child
is at least 18 years of age.
``(D) An individual having such other relationship to an
individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) as
the Office may by regulation prescribe.
``(6) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual'
refers to an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3),
(4), or (5).
``(7) Qualified carrier.--The term `qualified carrier'
means an insurance company (or consortium of insurance
companies) that is licensed to issue long-term care insurance
in all States, taking any subsidiaries of such a company into
account (and, in the case of a consortium, considering the
member companies and any subsidiaries thereof, collectively).
``(8) State.--The term `State' includes the District of
Columbia.
``(9) Qualified long-term care insurance contract.--The
term `qualified long-term care insurance contract' has the
meaning given such term by section 7702B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
``(10) Appropriate secretary.--The term `appropriate
Secretary' means--
``(A) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
Secretary of Defense;
``(B) with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service of the Navy, the Secretary of
Transportation;
``(C) with respect to the commissioned corps of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
Secretary of Commerce; and
``(D) with respect to the commissioned corps of the Public
Health Service, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance
``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall
establish and, in consultation with the appropriate
Secretaries, administer a program through which an individual
described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section
9001 may obtain long-term care insurance coverage under this
chapter for such individual.
``(b) General Requirements.--Long-term care insurance may
not be offered under this chapter unless--
``(1) the only coverage provided is under qualified long-
term care insurance contracts; and
``(2) each insurance contract under which any such coverage
is provided is issued by a qualified carrier.
``(c) Documentation Requirement.--As a condition for
obtaining long-term care insurance coverage under this
chapter based on one's status as a qualified relative, an
applicant shall provide documentation to demonstrate the
relationship, as prescribed by the Office.
``(d) Underwriting Standards.--
``(1) Disqualifying condition.--Nothing in this chapter
shall be considered to require that long-term care insurance
coverage be made available in the case of any individual who
would be eligible for benefits immediately.
``(2) Spousal parity.--For the purpose of underwriting
standards, a spouse of an individual described in paragraph
(1), (2), (3), or (4) of section 9001 shall, as nearly as
practicable, be treated like that individual.
``(3) Guaranteed issue.--Nothing in this chapter shall be
considered to require that long-term care insurance coverage
be guaranteed to an eligible individual.
``(4) Requirement that contract be fully insured.--In
addition to the requirements otherwise applicable under
section 9001(9), in order to be considered a qualified long-
term care insurance contract for purposes of this chapter, a
contract must be fully insured, whether through reinsurance
with other companies or otherwise.
``(5) Higher standards allowable.--Nothing in this chapter
shall, in the case of an individual applying for long-term
care insurance coverage under this chapter after the
expiration of such individual's first opportunity to enroll,
preclude the application of underwriting standards more
stringent than those that would have applied if that
opportunity had not yet expired.
``(e) Guaranteed Renewability.--The benefits and coverage
made available to eligible individuals under any insurance
contract under this chapter shall be guaranteed renewable (as
defined by section 7A(2) of the model regulations described
in section 7702B(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
including the right to have insurance remain in effect so
long as premiums continue to be timely made. However, the
authority to revise premiums under this chapter shall be
available only on a class basis and only to the extent
otherwise allowable under section 9003(b).
``Sec. 9003. Contracting authority
``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management
shall, without regard to section 5 of title 41 or any other
statute requiring competitive bidding, contract with 1 or
more qualified carriers for a policy or policies of long-term
care insurance. The Office shall ensure that each resulting
contract (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as a
`master
[[Page S2735]]
contract') is awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications, price, and reasonable competition.
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) In general.--Each master contract under this chapter
shall contain--
``(A) a detailed statement of the benefits offered
(including any maximums, limitations, exclusions, and other
definitions of benefits);
``(B) the premiums charged (including any limitations or
other conditions on their subsequent adjustment);
``(C) the terms of the enrollment period; and
``(D) such other terms and conditions as may be mutually
agreed to by the Office and the carrier involved, consistent
with the requirements of this chapter.
``(2) Premiums.--Premiums charged under each master
contract entered into under this section shall reasonably and
equitably reflect the cost of the benefits provided, as
determined by the Office. The premiums shall not be adjusted
during the term of the contract unless mutually agreed to by
the Office and the carrier.
``(3) Nonrenewability.--Master contracts under this chapter
may not be made automatically renewable.
``(c) Payment of Required Benefits; Dispute Resolution.--
``(1) In general.--Each master contract under this chapter
shall require the carrier to agree--
``(A) to provide payments or benefits to an eligible
individual if such individual is entitled thereto under the
terms of the contract; and
``(B) with respect to disputes regarding claims for
payments or benefits under the terms of the contract--
``(i) to establish internal procedures designed to
expeditiously resolve such disputes; and
``(ii) to establish, for disputes not resolved through
procedures under clause (i), procedures for 1 or more
alternative means of dispute resolution involving independent
third-party review under appropriate circumstances by
entities mutually acceptable to the Office and the carrier.
``(2) Eligibility.--A carrier's determination as to whether
or not a particular individual is eligible to obtain long-
term care insurance coverage under this chapter shall be
subject to review only to the extent and in the manner
provided in the applicable master contract.
``(3) Other claims.--For purposes of applying the Contract
Disputes Act of 1978 to disputes arising under this chapter
between a carrier and the Office--
``(A) the agency board having jurisdiction to decide an
appeal relative to such a dispute shall be such board of
contract appeals as the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management shall specify in writing (after appropriate
arrangements, as described in section 8(c) of such Act); and
``(B) the district courts of the United States shall have
original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States
Court of Federal Claims, of any action described in section
10(a)(1) of such Act relative to such a dispute.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this chapter shall
be considered to grant authority for the Office or a third-
party reviewer to change the terms of any contract under this
chapter.
``(d) Duration.--
``(1) In general.--Each master contract under this chapter
shall be for a term of 7 years, unless terminated earlier by
the Office in accordance with the terms of such contract.
However, the rights and responsibilities of the enrolled
individual, the insurer, and the Office (or duly designated
third-party administrator) under such contract shall continue
with respect to such individual until the termination of
coverage of the enrolled individual or the effective date of
a successor contract thereto.
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) Shorter duration.--In the case of a master contract
entered into before the end of the period described in
subparagraph (B), paragraph (1) shall be applied by
substituting `ending on the last day of the 7-year period
described in paragraph (2)(B)' for `of 7 years'.
``(B) Definition.--The period described in this
subparagraph is the 7-year period beginning on the earliest
date as of which any long-term care insurance coverage under
this chapter becomes effective.
``(3) Congressional notification.--No later than 180 days
after receiving the second report required under section
9006(c), the President (or his designee) shall submit to the
Committees on Government Reform and on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committees on Governmental
Affairs and on Armed Services of the Senate, a written
recommendation as to whether the program under this chapter
should be continued without modification, terminated, or
restructured. During the 180-day period following the date on
which the President (or his designee) submits the
recommendation required under the preceding sentence, the
Office of Personnel Management may not take any steps to
rebid or otherwise contract for any coverage to be available
at any time following the expiration of the 7-year period
described in paragraph (2)(B).
``(4) Full portability.--Each master contract under this
chapter shall include such provisions as may be necessary to
ensure that, once an individual becomes duly enrolled, long-
term care insurance coverage obtained by such individual
pursuant to that enrollment shall not be terminated due to
any change in status (such as separation from Government
service or the uniformed services) or ceasing to meet the
requirements for being considered a qualified relative
(whether as a result of dissolution of marriage or
otherwise).
``Sec. 9004. Financing
``(a) In General.--Each eligible individual obtaining long-
term care insurance coverage under this chapter shall be
responsible for 100 percent of the premiums for such
coverage.
``(b) Withholdings.--
``(1) In general.--The amount necessary to pay the premiums
for enrollment may--
``(A) in the case of an employee, be withheld from the pay
of such employee;
``(B) in the case of an annuitant, be withheld from the
annuity of such annuitant;
``(C) in the case of a member of the uniformed services
described in section 9001(3), be withheld from the basic pay
of such member; and
``(D) in the case of a retired member of the uniformed
services described in section 9001(4), be withheld from the
retired pay or retainer pay payable to such member.
``(2) Voluntary withholdings for qualified relatives.--
Withholdings to pay the premiums for enrollment of a
qualified relative may, upon election of the appropriate
eligible individual (described in section 9001(1)-(4)), be
withheld under paragraph (1) to the same extent and in the
same manner as if enrollment were for such individual.
``(c) Direct Payments.--All amounts withheld under this
section shall be paid directly to the carrier.
``(d) Other Forms of Payment.--Any enrollee who does not
elect to have premiums withheld under subsection (b) or whose
pay, annuity, or retired or retainer pay (as referred to in
subsection (b)(1)) is insufficient to cover the withholding
required for enrollment (or who is not receiving any regular
amounts from the Government, as referred to in subsection
(b)(1), from which any such withholdings may be made, and
whose premiums are not otherwise being provided for under
subsection (b)(2)) shall pay an amount equal to the full
amount of those charges directly to the carrier.
``(e) Separate Accounting Requirement.--Each carrier
participating under this chapter shall maintain records that
permit it to account for all amounts received under this
chapter (including investment earnings on those amounts)
separate and apart from all other funds.
``(f) Reimbursements.--
``(1) Reasonable initial costs.--
``(A) In general.--The Employees' Life Insurance Fund is
available, without fiscal year limitation, for reasonable
expenses incurred by the Office of Personnel Management in
administering this chapter before the start of the 7-year
period described in section 9003(d)(2)(B), including
reasonable implementation costs.
``(B) Reimbursement requirement.--Such Fund shall be
reimbursed, before the end of the first year of that 7-year
period, for all amounts obligated or expended under
subparagraph (A) (including lost investment income). Such
reimbursement shall be made by carriers, on a pro rata basis,
in accordance with appropriate provisions which shall be
included in master contracts under this chapter.
``(2) Subsequent costs.--
``(A) In general.--There is hereby established in the
Employees' Life Insurance Fund a Long-Term Care
Administrative Account, which shall be available to the
Office, without fiscal year limitation, to defray reasonable
expenses incurred by the Office in administering this chapter
after the start of the 7-year period described in section
9003(d)(2)(B).
``(B) Reimbursement requirement.--Each master contract
under this chapter shall include appropriate provisions under
which the carrier involved shall, during each year, make such
periodic contributions to the Long-Term Care Administrative
Account as necessary to ensure that the reasonable
anticipated expenses of the Office in administering this
chapter during such year (adjusted to reconcile for any
earlier overestimates or underestimates under this
subparagraph) are defrayed.
``Sec. 9005. Preemption
``The terms of any contract under this chapter which relate
to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits
(including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede
and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued
thereunder, which relates to long-term care insurance or
contracts.
``Sec. 9006. Studies, reports, and audits
``(a) Provisions Relating to Carriers.--Each master
contract under this chapter shall contain provisions
requiring the carrier--
``(1) to furnish such reasonable reports as the Office of
Personnel Management determines to be necessary to enable it
to carry out its functions under this chapter; and
``(2) to permit the Office and representatives of the
General Accounting Office to examine such records of the
carrier as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this
chapter.
``(b) Provisions Relating to Federal Agencies.--Each
Federal agency shall keep such records, make such
certifications, and furnish the Office, the carrier, or both,
with
[[Page S2736]]
such information and reports as the Office may require.
``(c) Reports by the General Accounting Office.--The
General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit to the
President, the Office of Personnel Management, and each House
of Congress, before the end of the third and fifth years
during which the program under this chapter is in effect, a
written report evaluating such program. Each such report
shall include an analysis of the competitiveness of the
program, as compared to both group and individual coverage
generally available to individuals in the private insurance
market. The Office shall cooperate with the General
Accounting Office to provide periodic evaluations of the
program.
``Sec. 9007. Jurisdiction of courts
``The district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction of a civil action or claim described in
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 9003(c), after such
administrative remedies as required under such paragraph (1)
or (2) (as applicable) have been exhausted, but only to the
extent judicial review is not precluded by any dispute
resolution or other remedy under this chapter.
``Sec. 9008. Administrative functions
``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall
prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.
``(b) Enrollment Periods.--The Office shall provide for
periodic coordinated enrollment, promotion, and education
efforts in consultation with the carriers.
``(c) Consultation.--Any regulations necessary to effect
the application and operation of this chapter with respect to
an eligible individual described in paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 9001, or a qualified relative thereof, shall be
prescribed by the Office in consultation with the appropriate
Secretary.
``(d) Informed Decisionmaking.--The Office shall ensure
that each eligible individual applying for long-term care
insurance under this chapter is furnished the information
necessary to enable that individual to evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of obtaining long-term care
insurance under this chapter, including the following:
``(1) The principal long-term care benefits and coverage
available under this chapter, and how those benefits and
coverage compare to the range of long-term care benefits and
coverage otherwise generally available.
``(2) Representative examples of the cost of long-term
care, and the sufficiency of the benefits available under
this chapter relative to those costs. The information under
this paragraph shall also include--
``(A) the projected effect of inflation on the value of
those benefits; and
``(B) a comparison of the inflation-adjusted value of those
benefits to the projected future costs of long-term care.
``(3) Any rights individuals under this chapter may have to
cancel coverage, and to receive a total or partial refund of
premiums. The information under this paragraph shall also
include--
``(A) the projected number or percentage of individuals
likely to fail to maintain their coverage (determined based
on lapse rates experienced under similar group long-term care
insurance programs and, when available, this chapter); and
``(B)(i) a summary description of how and when premiums for
long-term care insurance under this chapter may be raised;
``(ii) the premium history during the last 10 years for
each qualified carrier offering long-term care insurance
under this chapter; and
``(iii) if cost increases are anticipated, the projected
premiums for a typical insured individual at various ages.
``(4) The advantages and disadvantages of long-term care
insurance generally, relative to other means of accumulating
or otherwise acquiring the assets that may be needed to meet
the costs of long-term care, such as through tax-qualified
retirement programs or other investment vehicles.
``Sec. 9009. Cost accounting standards
``The cost accounting standards issued pursuant to section
26(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41
U.S.C. 422(f)) shall not apply with respect to a long-term
care insurance contract under this chapter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for part III of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
of subpart G the following:
``90. Long-Term Care Insurance.................................9001.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Office of Personnel Management shall take such measures
as may be necessary to ensure that long-term care insurance
coverage under title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this Act, may be obtained in time to take effect not later
than the first day of the first applicable pay period of the
first fiscal year which begins after the end of the 18-month
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CONRAD:
S. 2422. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives for farm relief and economic development, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Farm Relief and Economic Development Act of 2000
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farm Relief
and Economic Development Act of 2000. We have farmers who are in the
deepest trouble they have been in in 50 years: the lowest prices in 50
years, a series of natural disasters in many parts of the country, and
an economic environment in which our major competitors are outgunning
us 60 to 1 in agricultural export support, by 10 to 1 in internal
support. The result is tens of thousands of farm families are faced
with failure unless we respond.
The Department of Agriculture has told us that farm income will drop
$8 billion if we fail to act. As part of an overall response, today I
am introducing legislation that I term the ``Farm Relief and Economic
Development Act of 2000.'' There is no question in my mind that the
best action Congress could take on farm policy would be to rewrite the
farm bill. But that is unlikely to happen this year.
There are parts of the Internal Revenue Code that create unnecessary
problems for farmers that we can address. The essential elements of
this bill are provisions to address farm and ranch risk management
accounts. This proposal would allow farmers to make contributions to
tax-deferred accounts, which would be known as farm and ranch risk
management accounts. Those accounts would provide farmers with a
valuable new tool for managing money in a way that best benefits each
farmer's own operations.
The second key element of this legislation is clarifying the self-
employment tax that applies to farm lease income. A farm landlord
should be treated no differently than small business operators and
other commercial landlords when it comes to cash rent income.
As a result of a 1996 Tax Court decision, the IRS has now expanded
the reach of the self-employment tax to include all farm landlords,
whether or not they are active participants in the farming activity. My
proposal would restore the pre-1996 status quo, turning back this
unilateral action by the IRS. My proposal also includes language to
clarify the Conservation Reserve Program payments are not subject to
the self-employment tax. Again, we have an interpretation by the
Internal Revenue Service that we think is badly flawed and ought to be
reversed.
This legislation provides capital gains relief on the sale of farm
residences and farmland. Farm families frequently cannot take full
advantage of the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption that we provide
nonfarm residents. That is because the IRS separates the value of a
farmer's house from the contiguous land. The value of the home often
turns out to be negligible because the IRS often judges homes located
far out in the country to have very little value. In fact, it is often
the case it has very little in the way of market value when it is
detached from the land that surrounds that farmstead. My proposal would
allow the exclusion of $500,000 that we currently allow homeowners to
be applied to the sale of a farmer's home and up to 160 acres of
surrounding farmland.
The next element of my legislation is Aggie bonds. Finding ways to
encourage people to start farming is not easy. Aggie bonds are helping
by reducing the cost of credit and stimulating investment in
agriculture. This proposal would exclude Aggie bonds from the State
volume cap. It would not change the loan limit, nor would it affect any
additional limitations or qualifications imposed by the 16 States which
participate in the program.
My proposal provides capital gains tax relief for farmers leaving
farming. The farmer who decides to leave under enormous financial
pressure today often finds the IRS waiting with its hand out. When
property is sold at auction in order to satisfy debt, the farmers will
often realize a very significant capital gain, even though they really
have losses because the value of the property has gone up while the
debt may have gone up even more dramatically. This proposal would
provide a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains exclusion for farmers who
decide or are pressured to leave agriculture.
Next, this proposal addresses net operating losses of farmers. My
proposal would lengthen the carryback period for net operating losses
for farmers to 10 years. Because of the volatility in the income of
farmers, we believe it makes sense to allow them a net operating loss
over an extended period.
Next, this proposal I am offering today deals with estate valuation.
We
[[Page S2737]]
have the special use valuation, in order to help farmers keep their
farms intact. The definitions that trigger the recapture,
unfortunately, are too rigid. If the farm can remain a going concern by
renting some portion of it to other family members, I believe the
family should be able to still enjoy the benefits of special use
valuation. My proposal would provide that an heir could rent the family
farm to family members for the purpose of farming without triggering
the recapture provisions.
Next, my proposal deals with farmer cooperatives. This proposal would
provide cooperatives with the same declaratory relief procedures
available to other tax-exempt entities when their tax-exempt status is
denied.
Finally, my proposal deals with income averaging for farmers and the
alternative minimum tax. Because of interaction between the income
averaging provisions of the code and the alternative minimum tax, some
farmers who elect to take advantage of income averaging are finding
themselves subject to alternative minimum tax. That was never intended.
This outcome should be changed so farmers receive the full benefit of
income averaging. This proposal would provide that a farmer who elects
income averaging would not then face an increase in AMT liability.
With that, Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask for its
referral. I hope colleagues will support this legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2423. A bill to provide Federal Perkins Loan cancellation for
public defenders; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
federal perkins loan cancellation for public defenders
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
with Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Wellstone, and Bingaman to include full-
time public defense attorneys in the Federal Perkins Loan forgiveness
program for law enforcement officers. This amendment will provide
parity to public defense attorneys and uphold the goals set forth by
the Supreme Court to equalize access to legal resources. Representative
Tom Campbell of California will be introducing a similar bill in the
House.
Under section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a
borrower with a loan made under the Federal Perkins Loan Program is
eligible to have the loan canceled for serving full-time as a law
enforcement officer or corrections officer in a local, State, or
Federal law enforcement or corrections agency. While the rules
governing borrower eligibility for law enforcement cancellation have
been interpreted by the Department of Education to include prosecuting
attorneys, public defenders have been excluded from the loan
forgiveness program. This policy must be amended.
Like prosecutors, public defense attorneys play an integral role in
our adversarial process. This judicial process is the most effective
means of getting at truth and rendering justice. The United States
Supreme Court in a series of cases has recognized the importance of the
right to counsel in implementing the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a
fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requiring
counsel to be appointed for all persons accused of offenses in which
there is a possibility of a jail term being imposed.
Absent adequate counsel for all parties, there is a danger that the
outcome may be determined not by who has the most convincing case but
by who has the most resources. The Court rightly addressed this
possible miscarriage of justice by requiring counsel to be appointed
for the accused. Public defenders fill this Court mandated role by
representing the interests of criminally accused indigent persons. They
give indigent defendants sufficient resources to present an adequate
defense, so that the public goal of truth and justice will govern the
outcome.
The Department of Education's interpretation of the statue to exclude
public defenders from the loan forgiveness program undermines the goals
set forth by the Supreme Court to equalize access to legal resources.
It creates an obvious disparity of resources between public defenders
and prosecutors by encouraging talented individuals to pursue public
service as prosecutors but not as defenders. The criminal justice
system works best when both sides are adequately represented. The
public interest is served when indigent defendants have access to
talented defenders. One of the ways to facilitate this goal is by
granting loan cancellation benefits to defense attorneys.
Moreover, public defense attorneys meet all the eligibility
requirements of the loan forgiveness program as set forth in current
federal regulations. They belong to publicly funded public defender
agencies and they are sworn officers of the court whose principal
responsibilities are unique to the criminal justice system and are
essential in the performance of the agencies' primary mission. In
addition, like prosecuting attorneys, public defenders are law
enforcement officers dedicated to upholding, protecting, and enforcing
our laws. Without public defense attorneys, the adversarial process of
our criminal justice system could not operate.
I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd,
Senator Wellstone, Senator Bingaman, and Representative Campbell in
supporting the goal of equalized access to legal resources, as set
forth in the Constitution and elucidated by the Supreme Court, by
providing parity to public defenders and allowing them to join
prosecutors in receiving loan cancellation benefits.
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. 2423
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN CANCELLATION FOR PUBLIC
DEFENDERS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Education has issued clarifications
that prosecuting attorneys are among the class of law
enforcement officers eligible for benefits under the Federal
Perkins Loan cancellation program.
(2) Like prosecutors, public defenders also meet all the
eligibility requirements of the Federal Perkins Loan
cancellation program as set forth in Federal regulations.
(3) Public defenders are law enforcement officers who play
an integral role in our Nation's adversarial legal process.
Public defenders fill the Supreme Court mandated role
requiring that counsel be appointed for the accused, by
representing the interests of criminally accused indigent
persons.
(4) In order to encourage highly qualified attorneys to
serve as public defenders, public defenders should be
included with prosecutors among the class of law enforcement
officers eligible to receive benefits under the Federal
Perkins Loan cancellation program.
(b) Amendment.--Section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)(F)) is amended
by inserting ``, or as a full-time public defender for
service to local, State, or Federal governments (directly or
by a contract with a private, nonprofit organization)'' after
``agencies''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to--
(1) loans made under this part, whether made before, on, or
after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) service as a public defender that is provided on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a
loan.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2429. A bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act
to make changes in the Weatherization Assistance Program for Low-Income
Persons; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000.
As this past winter has demonstrated, cold temperatures and high fuel
costs can result in severe hardship for many of our low-income
households, particularly those with children, elderly, and disabled
members. Preventative energy efficiency measures are vital to ensure
that low-income consumers spend less money keeping their families warm
on cold winter nights. It is estimated that investments in
Weatherization can save a typical household $193 in annual gas energy
costs. While improving energy efficiency through work such as air-
[[Page S2738]]
sealing and insulation work is an admirable goal, the Weatherization
Assistance Program also has become an important tool in addressing the
health and safely of our low-income families.
The Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000 seeks to further this
commitment. The legislation will amend the average per dwelling unit
cost to incorporate intensive costs, such as costs of furnace or
cooling replacements, reducing the administrative burden of tracking
these costs separately; increase the average cost per home, beginning
this year, to $2,500 (up from $2,032 for 1999); and eliminate the
statutory requirement that at least 40 percent of funds be spent on
materials. These changes are necessary to improve the effectiveness of
the Weatherization, and are long overdue.
Lastly, the legislation repeals the 25 percent state matching
requirement for the Weatherization Assistance Program set to begin in
FY2001, which was included in the FY2000 Interior Appropriations
legislation. While many states, utilities, and private organizations
have leveraged large amounts of money in support of the Weatherization
Assistance Program, not every state is in the same financial situation.
There needs to be national commitment to energy efficiency for low
income Americans and affordable housing. This is part of that
commitment.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 2430. A bill to combat computer hacking through enhanced law
enforcement and to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of
Americans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Internet Security Act of 2000
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we head into the twenty-first century,
computer-related crime is one of the greatest challenges facing law
enforcement. Many of our critical infrastructures and our government
depend upon the reliability and security of complex computer systems.
We need to make sure that these essential systems are protected from
all forms of attack. The legislation I am introducing today will help
law enforcement investigate and prosecute those who jeopardize the
integrity of our computer systems and the Internet.
Whether we work in the private sector or in government, we negotiate
daily through a variety of security checkpoints designed to protect
ourselves from being victimized by crime or targeted by terrorists. For
instance, congressional buildings like this one use cement pillars
placed at entrances, photo identification cards, metal detectors, x-ray
scanners, and security guards to protect the physical space. These
security steps and others have become ubiquitous in the private sector
as well.
Yet all these physical barriers can be circumvented using the wires
that run into every building to support the computers and computer
networks that are the mainstay of how we communicate and do business.
This plain fact was amply demonstrated by the recent hacker attacks on
E-Trade, ZDNet, Datek, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon.com and other Internet
sites. These attacks raise serious questions about Internet security--
questions that we need to answer to ensure the long-term stability of
electronic commerce. More importantly, a well-focused and more malign
cyber-attack on computer networks that support telecommunications,
transportation, water supply, banking, electrical power and other
critical infrastructure systems could wreak havoc on our national
economy or even jeopardize our national defense. We have learned that
even law enforcement is not immune. Just recently we learned of a
denial of service attack successfully perpetrated against a FBI web
site, shutting down that site for several hours.
The cybercrime problem is growing. The reports of the CERT
Coordination Center (formerly called the ``Computer Emergency Response
Team''), which was established in 1988 to help the Internet community
detect and resolve computer security incidents, provide chilling
statistics on the vulnerabilities of the Internet and the scope of the
problem. Over the last decade, the number of reported computer security
incidents grew from 6 in 1988 to more than 8,000 in 1999. But that
alone does not reveal the scope of the problem. According to CERT's
most recent annual report, more than four million computer hosts were
affected by the computer security incidents in 1999 alone by damaging
computer viruses, with names like ``Melissa,'' ``Chernobyl,''
``ExploreZip,'' and by the other ways that remote intruders have found
to exploit system vulnerabilities. Even before the recent headline-
grabbing ``denial-of-service'' attacks, CERT documented that such
incidents ``grew at rate around 50% per year'' which was ``greater than
the rate of growth of Internet hosts.''
CERT has tracked recent trends in severe hacking incidents on the
Internet and made the following observations, First, hacking techniques
are getting more sophisticated. That means law enforcement is going to
have to get smarter too, and we need to give them the resources to do
this. Second, hackers have ``become increasingly difficult to locate
and identify.'' These criminals are operating in many different
locations and are using techniques that allow them to operate in
``nearly total obscurity.''
We have been aware of the vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks of our
computer networks for more than a decade. It became clear to me, when I
chaired a series of hearings in 1988 and 1989 by the Subcommittee on
Technology and the Law in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject
of high-tech terrorism and the threat of computer viruses, that merely
``hardening'' our physical space from potential attack would only
prompt committed criminals and terrorists to switch tactics and use new
technologies to reach vulnerable softer targets, such as our computer
systems and other critical infrastructures. The government has a
responsibility to work with those in the private sector to assess those
vulnerabilities and defend them. That means making sure our law
enforcement agencies have the tools they need, but also that the
government does not stand in the way of smart technical solutions to
defend our computer systems.
Targeting cybercrime with up-to-date criminal laws and tougher law
enforcement is only part of the solution. While criminal penalties may
deter some computer criminals, these laws usually come into play too
late, after the crime has been committed and the injury inflicted. We
should keep in mind the adage that the best defense is a good offense.
Americans and American firms must be encouraged to take preventive
measures to protect their computer information and systems. Just
recently, internet providers and companies such as Yahoo! and
Amazon.com Inc., and computer hardware companies such a Cisco Systems
Inc., proved successful at stemming attacks within hours thereby
limiting losses.
That is why, for years, I have advocated and sponsored legislation to
encourage the widespread use of strong encryption. Encryption is an
important tool in our arsenal to protect the security of our computer
information and networks. The Administration made enormous progress
earlier this year when it issued new regulations relaxing export
controls on strong encryption. Of course, encryption technology cannot
be the sole source of protection for our critical computer networks and
computer-based infrastructure, but we need to make sure the government
is encouraging--and not restraining--the use of strong encryption and
other technical solutions to protecting our computer systems.
Congress has responded again and again to help our law enforcement
agencies keep up with the challenges of new crimes being executed over
computer networks. In 1984, we passed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
and its amendments, to criminalize conduct when carried out by means
of unauthorized access to a computer. In 1986, we passed the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which I was proud to sponsor, to
criminalize tampering with electronic mail systems and remote data
processing systems and to protect the privacy of computer users. In the
104th Congress, Senators Kyl, Grassley, and I worked together to enact
the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act to increase
protection under federal criminal law for both government and private
computers, and to address an emerging problem of computer-age blackmail
in which a criminal threatens to harm or shut down a computer system
unless their extortion demands are met.
[[Page S2739]]
In this Congress, I have introduced a bill with Senator DeWine, the
Computer Crime Enforcement Act, S. 1314, to set up a $25 million grant
program within the U.S. Department of Justice for states to tap for
improved education, training, enforcement and prosecution of computer
crimes. All 50 states have now enacted tough computer crime control
laws. These state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic
commerce and Internet security. Unfortunately, too many state and local
law enforcement agencies are struggling to afford the high cost of
training and equipment necessary for effective enforcement of their
state computer crime statutes. Our legislation, the Computer Crime
Enforcement Act, would help state and local law enforcement join the
fight to combat the worsening threats we face from computer crime.
Computer crime is a problem nationwide and in Vermont. I recently
released a survey on computer crime in Vermont. My office surveyed 54
law enforcement agencies in Vermont--43 police departments and 11
State's attorney offices--on their experience investigating and
prosecuting computer crimes. The survey found that more than half of
these Vermont law enforcement agencies encounter computer crime, with
many police departments and state's attorney offices handling 2 to 5
computer crimes per month.
Despite this documented need, far too many law enforcement agencies
in Vermont cannot afford the cost of policing against computer crimes.
Indeed, my survey found that 98% of the responding Vermont law
enforcement agencies do not have funds dedicated for use in computer
crime enforcement.
My survey also found that few law enforcement officers in Vermont are
properly trained in investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber-
evidence. According to my survey, 83% of responding law enforcement
agencies in Vermont do not employ officers properly trained in computer
crime investigative techniques. Moreover, my survey found that 52% of
the law enforcement agencies that handle one or more computer crimes
per month cited their lack of training as a problem encountered during
investigations. Proper training is critical to ensuring success in the
fight against computer crime.
This bill will help our computer crime laws up to date as an
important backstop and deterrent. I believe that our current computer
crime laws can be enhanced and that the time to act is now. We should
pass legislation designed to improve our law enforcement efforts while
at the same time protecting the privacy rights of American citizens.
The bill I offer today will make it more efficient for law
enforcement to use tools that are already available--such as pen
registers and trap and trace devices--to track down computer criminals
expeditiously. It will ensure that law enforcement can investigate and
prosecute hacker attacks even when perpetrators use foreign-based
computers to facilitate their crimes. It will implement criminal
forfeiture provisions to ensure that cybercriminals are forced to
relinquish the tools of their trade upon conviction. It will also close
a current loophole in our wiretap laws that prevents a law enforcement
officer from monitoring an innocent-host computer with the consent of
the computer's owner and without a wiretap order to track down the
source of denial-of-service attacks. Finally, this legislation will
assist state and local police departments in their parallel efforts to
combat cybercrime, in recognition of the fact that this fight is not
just at the federal level.
The key provisions of the bill are:
Jurisdictional and Definitional Changes to the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030, is
the primary federal criminal statute prohibiting computer frauds and
hacking. This bill would amend the statute to clarify the appropriate
scope of federal jurisdiction. First, the bill adds a broad definition
of ``loss'' to the definitional section. Calculation of loss is
important both in determining whether the $5,000 jurisdictional hurdle
in the statute is met, and, at sentencing, in calculating the
appropriate guideline range and restitution amount.
Second, the bill amends the definition of ``protected computer,'' to
expressly include qualified computers even when they are physically
located outside of the United States. This clarification will preserve
the ability of the United States to assist in international hacking
cases. A ``Sense of Congress'' provision specifies that federal
jurisdiction is justified by the ``interconnected and interdependent
nature of computers used in interstate or foreign commerce.''
Finally, the bill expands the jurisdiction of the United States
Secret Service to encompass investigations of all violations of 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1030. Prior to the 1996 amendments to the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, the Secret Service was authorized to investigate any and
all violations of section 1030, pursuant to an agreement between the
Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General. The 1996 amendments,
however, concentrated Secret Service jurisdiction on certain specified
subsections of section 1030. The current amendment would return full
jurisdiction to the Secret Service and would allow the Justice and
Treasury Departments to decide on the appropriate work-sharing balance
between the two.
Elimination of Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Certain Violations of
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Currently, a directive to the Sentencing
Commission requires that all violations, including misdemeanor
violations, of certain provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
be punished with a term of imprisonment of at least six months. The
bill would change this directive to the Sentencing Commission so that
no such mandatory minimum would be required.
Additional Criminal Forfeiture Provisions: The bill adds a criminal
forfeiture provision to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, requiring
forfeiture of physical property used in or to facilitate the offense as
well as property derived from proceeds of the offense. It also
supplements the current forfeiture provision in 18 U.S.C. 2318, which
prohibits trafficking in, among other things, counterfeit computer
program documentation and packaging, to require the forfeiture of
replicators and other devices used in the production of such
counterfeit items.
Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices: The bill makes it easier
for law enforcement to use these investigative techniques in the area
of cybercrime, and institutes corresponding privacy protections. On the
law enforcement side, the bill gives nationwide effect to pen register
and trap and trace orders obtained by Government attorneys, thus
obviating the need to obtain identical orders in multiple federal
jurisdictions. It also clarifies that such devices can be used on all
electronic communication lines, not just telephone lines. On the
privacy side, the bill provides for greater judicial review of
applications for pen registers and trap and trace devices and
institutes a minimization requirement for the use of such devices. The
bill also amends the reporting requirements for applications for such
devices by specifying the information to be reported.
Denial of Service Investigations: Currently, a person whose computer
is accessed by a hacker as a means for the hacker to reach a third
computer cannot simply consent to law enforcement monitoring of his
computer. Instead, because this person is not technically a party to
the communication, law enforcement needs wiretap authorization under
Title III to conduct such monitoring. The bill will close this loophole
by explicitly permitting such monitoring without a wiretap if prior
consent is obtained from the person whose computer is being hacked
through and used to send ``harmful interference to a lawfully operating
computer system.''
Encryption Reporting: The bill directs the Attorney General to report
the number of wiretap orders in which encryption was encountered and
whether such encryption precluded law enforcement from obtaining the
plaintext of intercepted communications.
State and Local Computer Crime Enforcement: The bill directs the
Office of Federal Programs to make grants to assist State and local law
enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of computer crime.
Legislation must be balanced to protect our privacy and other
constitutional rights. I am a strong proponent
[[Page S2740]]
of the Internet and a defender of our constitutional rights to speak
freely and to keep private our confidential affairs from either private
sector snoops or unreasonable government searches. These principles can
be respected at the same time we hold accountable those malicious
mischief makers and digital graffiti sprayers, who use computers to
damage or destroy the property of others. I have seen Congress react
reflexively in the past to address concerns over anti-social behavior
on the Internet with legislative proposals that would do more harm than
good. A good example of this is the Communications Decency Act, which
the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. We must make sure that our
legislative efforts are precisely targeted on stopping destructive acts
and that we avoid scattershot proposals that would threaten, rather
than foster, electronic commerce and sacrifice, rather than promote,
our constitutional rights.
Technology has ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential
for commerce and communications. But the Internet age has also ushered
in new challenges for federal, state and local law enforcement
officials. Congress and the Administration need to work together to
meet these new challenges while preserving the benefits of our new era.
The legislation I offer today is a step in that direction.
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. 2430
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 ``Internet Security Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT.
Section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and redesignating
subparagraphs (B) and (C) as clauses (ii) and (iii),
respectively;
(ii) in subparagraph (A)(iii), as redesignated, by adding
``and'' at the end; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) the conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii)
of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) caused loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value
during a 1-year period to 1 or more individuals;
``(ii) modified or impaired, or potentially modified or
impaired, the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or
care of 1 or more individuals;
``(iii) caused physical injury to any person; or
``(iv) threatened public health or safety;''; and
(B) in paragraph (6), by adding ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or an attempted
offense'' after ``in the case of an offense''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) forfeiture to the United States in accordance with
subsection (i) of the interest of the offender in--
``(A) any personal property used or intended to be used to
commit or to facilitate the commission of the offense; and
``(B) any property, real or personal, that constitutes or
that is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of
this section.'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3),
(a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of''; and
(B) by striking ``which shall be entered into by'' and
inserting ``between'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``, including
computers located outside the United States'' before the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in paragraph (8), by striking ``, that'' and all that
follows through ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon;
(E) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) the term `loss' includes--
``(A) the reasonable costs to any victim of--
``(i) responding to the offense;
``(ii) conducting a damage assessment; and
``(iii) restoring the system and data to their condition
prior to the offense; and
``(B) any lost revenue or costs incurred by the victim as a
result of interruption of service.'';
(5) in subsection (g), by striking ``Damages for violations
involving damage as defined in subsection (c)(8)(A)'' and
inserting ``losses specified in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i)'';
and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Provisions Governing Forfeiture.--Property subject to
forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition
thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in
relation thereto, shall be governed by subsection (c) and
subsections (e) through (p) of section 413 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 853).''.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) acts that damage or attempt to damage computers used in
the delivery of critical infrastructure services such as
telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and
financial services, and emergency and government services
pose a serious threat to public health and safety and cause
or have the potential to cause losses to victims that include
costs of responding to offenses, conducting damage
assessments, and restoring systems and data to their
condition prior to the offense, as well as lost revenue and
costs incurred as a result of interruptions of service; and
(2) the Federal Government should have jurisdiction to
investigate acts affecting protected computers, as defined in
section 1030(e)(2)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by this Act, even if the effects of such acts occur
wholly outside the United States, as in such instances a
sufficient Federal nexus is conferred through the
interconnected and interdependent nature of computers used in
interstate or foreign commerce or communication.
SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF SENTENCING COMMISSION DIRECTIVE.
Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28,
United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to ensure that
any individual convicted of a violation of paragraph (4) or
(5) of section 1030(a) of title 18, United States Code, can
be subjected to appropriate penalties, without regard to any
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
SEC. 5. FORFEITURE OF DEVICES USED IN COMPUTER SOFTWARE
COUNTERFEITING.
Section 2318(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by--
(1) inserting ``(1)'' before ``When'';
(2) inserting ``, and any replicator or other device or
thing used to copy or produce the computer program or other
item to which the counterfeit label was affixed, or was
intended to be affixed'' before the period; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The forfeiture of property under this section,
including any seizure and disposition of the property, and
any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be
governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than
subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 492 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``or 1720,'' and inserting ``, 1720, or 2318''.
SEC. 7. PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.
Section 3123 of title 18, United States Code is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Issuance of Order.--
``(1) Requests from attorneys for the government.--Upon an
application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court may
enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use
of a pen register or a trap and trace device if the court
finds, based on the certification by the attorney for the
Government, that the information likely to be obtained by
such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation. Such order shall apply to any entity providing
wire or electronic communication service in the United States
whose assistance is necessary to effectuate the order.
``(2) Requests from state investigative or law enforcement
officers.--Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2),
the court may enter an ex parte order authorizing the
installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace
device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court
finds, based on the certification by the State law
enforcement or investigative officer, that the information
likely to be obtained by such installation and use is
relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``authorized under
subsection (a)(2)'' after ``in the case of a trap and trace
device''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) shall direct that the use of the pen register or trap
and trace device be conducted in such a way as to minimize
the recording or decoding of any electronic or other impulses
that are not related to the dialing and signaling information
utilized in processing by the service provider upon whom the
order is served.''.
SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND
TRACE PROVISIONS.
(a) Issuance of an Order.--Section 3123 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or other facility'' after ``line'' each
place that term appears;
[[Page S2741]]
(2) by inserting ``or applied'' after ``attached'' each
place that term appears;
(3) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by inserting ``or other
identifier'' after ``the number''; and
(4) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``who has been
ordered by the court'' and inserting ``who is obligated by
the order''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 3127 of title 18, United States
Code is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) the term `pen register'--
``(A) means a device or process that records or decodes
electronic or other impulses that identify the telephone
numbers or electronic address dialed or otherwise transmitted
by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic
communication is transmitted and used for purposes of
identifying the destination or termination of such
communication by the service provider upon which the order is
served; and
``(B) does not include any device or process used by a
provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication
service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing,
for communications services provided by such provider or any
device or process by a provider or customer of a wire
communication service for cost accounting or other like
purposes in the ordinary course of its business;''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``or process'' after ``means a device'';
(B) by inserting ``or other identifier'' after ``number'';
and
(C) by striking ``or device'' and inserting ``or other
facility''.
SEC. 9. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE REPORTS.
Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
which report shall include information concerning--
``(1) the period of interceptions authorized by the order,
and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
``(2) the offense specified in the order or application, or
extension of an order;
``(3) the number of investigations involved;
``(4) the number and nature of the facilities affected; and
``(5) the identity, including district, of the applying
investigative or law enforcement agency making the
application and the person authorizing the order''.
SEC. 10. ENHANCED DENIAL OF SERVICE INVESTIGATIONS.
Section 2511(2)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(c)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a
person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral,
or electronic communication, if such person is a party to the
communication or 1 of the parties to the communication has
given prior consent to such interception.
``(ii) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a
person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or
electronic communication, if--
``(I) the transmission of the wire or electronic
communication is causing harmful interference to a lawfully
operating computer system;
``(II) any person who is not a provider of service to the
public and who is authorized to use the facility from which
the wire or electronic communication is to be intercepted has
given prior consent to the interception; and
``(III) the interception is conducted only to the extent
necessary to identify the source of the harmful interference
described in subclause (I).''.
SEC. 11. ENCRYPTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 2519(2)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and (iv)'' and inserting ``(iv) the
number of orders in which encryption was encountered and
whether such encryption prevented law enforcement from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted
pursuant to such order, and (v)''.
SEC. 12. STATE AND LOCAL COMPUTER CRIME ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs of the
Department of Justice shall make a grant to each State, which
shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of
local government, State and local courts, other States, or
combinations thereof, to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) assist in educating and training State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct
investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be
used to establish and develop programs to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement agencies in
enforcing State and local criminal laws relating to computer
crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement agencies in
educating the public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) educate and train State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and
forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer
crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall provide assurances to the
Attorney General that the State--
(1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such
as penal laws prohibiting--
(A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer
system or network;
(B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting,
removing of computer software, or data contained in a
computer, computer system, computer program, or computer
network; or
(C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or
denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer
system, or computer network;
(2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs,
including criminal justice resources being devoted to the
investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
(3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this
section with other federally funded technical assistant and
training programs, including directly funded local programs
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
(described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)).
(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the total
cost of a program or proposal funded under this section
unless the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the
requirements of this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out
this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may
be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses.
(3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or units of local government within a
State for a grant under this section have been funded, the
State, together with grantees within the State (other than
Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year under
this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount
appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to this
section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each
shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Attorney General may use
amounts made available under this section to make grants to
Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 2431. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for expenses incurred in teleworking; to the
Committee on Finance.
TELEWORK TAX INCENTIVE ACT
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce
legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home,
to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a
week on-line from home by using computers and other information
technology tools. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and
according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible
with telework. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25
percent of its workforce works from home at least one day a week. The
company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave,
better retention, and higher productivity.
I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act to provide a $500 tax
credit for telework. The purpose of my legislation is to provide an
incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their
employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century
workplace. The best part of
[[Page S2742]]
telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Telework also
reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas
consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for
families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands.
Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities.
Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be
a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time.
Last fall, a task force on telework initiated by Governor James
Gilmore of Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and
promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit
toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer
equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of
a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and
other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax
credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per
year.
My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or
incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic
information equipment which are used to enable an individual to
telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to
qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible
for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the
expense for setting up the at-home worksite.
I am pleased to work with Congressman Frank Wolf who has introduced
identical legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3819. A
number of groups have already endorsed the Telework Tax Incentive Act
including the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC),
Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton
Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic
Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance,
Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile
Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet,
TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern
Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn
Corp.
On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced last year in
coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed
into law by the President as part of the annual Department of
Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the
National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to
study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow
their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including
Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Chicago
have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design
Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the
application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia
metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help
to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many
employees and employers.
Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides
employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and
increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while
reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option
which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve
quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According
to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked
number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to
traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including
telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge.
The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan
H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers
typically work 9 days per month at home at home with an average of 3
hours per week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers
or telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent
contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research
findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees.
Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable
them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For
employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee
retention total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an
organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially
realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity
gains are added.
Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing
magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up
to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a
computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in
our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush
hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league
or other important quality of life matters?
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this
legislation which promotes telework and helps encourage additional
employee choices for the workplace.
______
By Mr. Smith of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2432. A bill to permit the catcher vessel Hazel Lorraine to
conduct commercial fishing activities; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
eligibility of the fishing vessel hazel lorraine under the american
fisheries act
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing,
with my colleague from Oregon, legislation which will correct an
oversight in the American Fisheries Act of 1998. Some of my colleagues
will recall that the American Fisheries Act was passed as part of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act in the closing days of the 105th Congress.
Let me speak briefly first to the American Fisheries Act, or AFA,
itself. The AFA was a major revision of management policies for the
valuable Bering Sea pollock fishery, raising domestic vessel ownership
standards, while bringing greater stability to the pollock fishery by
allowing fishers and processors to engage in limited cooperatives.
Months of intense negotiations between interested congressional offices
and a number of Alaskan and West Coast fishing interests resulted in
the compromise that was passed into law.
Oregon certainly does not have as great an interest in the Bering Sea
pollock fishery as other states do. Nevertheless, Oregon-based vessels
do participate in this and other distant-water fisheries. Many of these
vessel owner-operators pioneered the development of the Alaskan pollock
fishery during the Americanization of the Exclusive Economic Zone in
the 1980s. The American Fisheries Act was supposed to allow these, and
other fishing vessels with substantial history, to stay in the fishery
while excluding new or speculative entrants. The language used in the
AFA to achieve this purpose requires that qualified vessels must have
delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1996, 1997, or an
eight month period in 1998, to the shore-based processing plants that
compose the ``inshore sector'' of the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
Alternatively, the AFA requires vessels to have delivered at least 250
metric tons of pollock in 1997 and have had at least 75 percent of
their catch delivered to the ``offshore sector'' of factory trawlers in
order to qualify for that sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
While it was thought that this qualification language in the American
Fisheries Act would carry over all vessels with a substantial history
in the fishery, this has turned out not to be the case. An Oregon-based
vessel named the Hazel Lorraine--a vessel with years of Bering Sea
pollock landings on record--has found itself locked out of both the
inshore and offshore sectors of the Bering Sea pollock fishery due to
the way the qualifications are worded in the AFA. On the one hand, the
Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the inshore sector. The fact that
the then-Tyson Seafood plant in Kodiak was destroyed by a fire in 1997
also impacted the Hazel Lorraine's deliveries during this period. On
the other hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the offshore
sector either--also as a direct result of the Tyson fire.
[[Page S2743]]
In short, the Hazel Lorraine does not meet the AFA requirements for
either the inshore or offshore sector for Bering Sea pollock despite a
substantial record of deliveries in the fishery that stretches back
more than fifteen years.
Ironically, the owners of the Hazel Lorraine actively supported the
American Fisheries Act as it had first been introduced in the 105th
Congress. However the bill changed dramatically during a series of
backroom negotiations before being tucked into an omnibus
appropriations package. The AFA that actually passed the Congress
differed substantially from the drafts that had been widely circulated
in the fishing industry earlier that year.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Hazel Lorraine is recognized
in the North Pacific as a vessel that can legitimately claim a long
history in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. It would be a terrible
mistake if the Congress were to allow this vessel to continue to be
shut out of its historic fishery. A number of industry leaders and
associations, such as United Catcher Boats and the Midwater Trawlers
Cooperative, have also recognized this and have stated their support
for restoring the right of the Hazel Lorraine to fish in this pollock
fishery.
Over the course of the past year, Senator Wyden and I have discussed
this issue with our colleagues, and have come to the conclusion that
the best course of action is to introduce authorizing legislation that
would clearly place the Hazel Lorraine among those vessels eligible to
participate in the inshore sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
This legislation will do just that. I think my colleagues will find
that those in the North Pacific fisheries who know the circumstances
surrounding the Hazel Lorraine will be supportive of this legislation.
I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee to
bring this issue to a resolution during this session of the Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2432
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF VESSEL AS AN ELIGIBLE VESSEL.
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) of section
208(a) of the American Fisheries Act (title II of division C
of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
624)), the catcher vessel HAZEL LORRAINE (United States
Official Number 592211) shall be considered to be a vessel
that is eligible to harvest the directed fishing allowance
under section 206(b)(1) of that Act pursuant to a Federal
fishing permit in the same manner as, and subject to the same
requirements and limitations on that harvesting as apply to,
catcher vessels that are eligible to harvest that directed
fishing allowance under section 208(a) of that Act.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
S. 2433. A bill to establish the Red River National Wildlife Refuge;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
red river national wildlife refuge act
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with the
senior Senator from Louisiana, to introduce legislation which would
establish the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. Congressman McCreary
is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives.
Mr. President, the Red River Valley located along the Red River
Waterway in Caddo, Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches and Desoto parishes
in Louisiana is of critical importance to over 350 species of birds,
aquatic life and a wide array of other species associated with river
basin ecosystems. It represents a historic migration corridor for
migratory birds funneling through the mid-continent from as far north
as the Arctic Circle and as far south as South America. The Red River
Valley also represents the most degraded watershed in Louisiana. The
bottomland hardwood forests of the Red River Valley have been almost
totally cleared. Reforestation and restoration of native habitat will
benefit a host of species.
There are no significant public sanctuaries for over 300 river miles
on this important migration corridor, and no significant Federal, State
or private wildlife sanctuaries along the Red River north from
Alexandria, Louisiana to the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. The Red
River Valley offers extraordinary recreational, research and
educational opportunities for students, scientists, bird watchers,
wildlife observers, hunters, anglers, trappers, hikers and nature
photographers.
The bill Senator Breaux and I are introducing today would: restore
and preserve native Red River ecosystems; provide habitat for migratory
birds; maximize fisheries on the Red River and its tributaries, natural
lakes and man-made reservoirs; provide habitat for and population
management of native plants and resident animals including restoration
of extirpated species; provide technical assistance to private land
owners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and
wildlife and provide the public with opportunities for hunting,
angling, trapping, photographing wildlife, hiking, bird watching and
other outdoor recreational and educational activities.
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. 2433
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 ``Red River National Wildlife
Refuge Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The area of Louisiana known as the Red River Valley,
located along the Red River Waterway in Caddo, Bossier, Red
River, Natchitoches, and DeSoto Parishes, is of critical
importance to over 350 species of birds (including migratory
and resident waterfowl, shore birds, and neotropical
migratory birds), aquatic life, and a wide array of other
species associated with river basin ecosystems.
(2) The bottomland hardwood forests of the Red River Valley
have been almost totally cleared. Reforestation and
restoration of native habitat will benefit a host of species.
(3) The Red River Valley is part of a major continental
migration corridor for migratory birds funneling through the
mid continent from as far north as the Arctic Circle and as
far south as South America.
(4) There are no significant public sanctuaries for over
300 river miles on this important migration corridor, and no
significant Federal, State, or private wildlife sanctuaries
along the Red River north of Alexandria, Louisiana.
(5) Completion of the lock and dam system associated with
the Red River Waterway project up to Shreveport, Louisiana,
has enhanced opportunities for management of fish and
wildlife.
(6) The Red River Valley offers extraordinary recreational,
research, and educational opportunities for students,
scientists, bird watchers, wildlife observers, hunters,
anglers, trappers, hikers, and nature photographers.
(7) The Red River Valley is an internationally significant
environmental resource that has been neglected and requires
active restoration and management to protect and enhance the
value of the region as a habitat for fish and wildlife.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSES OF REFUGE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish as a
national wildlife refuge the lands, waters, and interests
therein acquired under section 5, at such time as the
Secretary determines that sufficient property has been
acquired under that section to constitute an area that can be
effectively managed as a national wildlife refuge for the
purposes set forth in subsection (b) of this section. The
national wildlife refuge so established shall be known as the
``Red River National Wildlife Refuge''.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Refuge are the
following:
(1) To restore and preserve native Red River ecosystems.
(2) To provide habitat for migratory birds.
(3) To maximize fisheries on the Red River and its
tributaries, natural lakes, and man-made reservoirs.
(4) To provide habitat for and population management of
native plants and resident animals (including restoration of
extirpated species).
(5) To provide technical assistance to private land owners
in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and
wildlife.
(6) To provide the public with opportunities for hunting,
angling, trapping, photographing wildlife, hiking, bird
watching, and other outdoor recreational and educational
activities.
(7) To achieve the purposes under this subsection without
violating section 6.
(c) Notice of Establishment.--The Secretary shall publish a
notice of the establishment of the Refuge--
(1) in the Federal Register; and
(2) in publications of local circulation in the vicinity of
the Refuge.
[[Page S2744]]
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF REFUGE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer all lands,
waters, and interests therein acquired under section 5 in
accordance with--
(1) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq) and the Act of September 28,
1962 (76 Stat. 653; 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq; commonly known as
the Refuge Recreation Act);
(2) the purposes of the Refuge set forth in section 3(b);
and
(3) the management plan issued under subsection (b).
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a
management plan for the Refuge.
(2) Contents.--The management plan shall include provisions
that provide for the following:
(A) Planning and design of trails and access points.
(B) Planning of wildlife and habitat restoration, including
reforestation.
(C) Permanent exhibits and facilities and regular
educational programs throughout the Refuge.
(3) Public participation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide an opportunity
for public participation in developing the management plan.
(B) Local views.--The Secretary shall give special
consideration to views by local public and private entities
and individuals in developing the management plan.
(c) Wildlife Interpretation and Education Center.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct, administer,
and maintain, at an appropriate site within the Refuge, a
wildlife interpretation and education center.
(2) Purposes.--The center shall be designed and operated--
(A) to promote environmental education; and
(B) to provide an opportunity for the study and enjoyment
of wildlife in its natural habitat.
SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF LANDS, WATERS, AND INTERESTS THEREIN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall seek to acquire up to
50,000 acres of land, water, or interests therein (including
permanent conservation easements or servitudes) within the
boundaries designated under subsection (c). All lands,
waters, and interests acquired under this subsection shall be
part of the Refuge.
(b) Method of Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire an
interest in land or water for inclusion in the Refuge only by
donation, exchange, or purchase from a willing seller.
(c) Designation of Boundaries.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) consult with appropriate State and local officials,
private conservation organizations, and other interested
parties (including the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development, the Red River Waterway Commission, and the
Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments), regarding the
designation of appropriate boundaries for the Refuge within
the selection area;
(B) designate boundaries of the Refuge that are within the
selection area and adequate for fulfilling the purposes of
the Refuge set forth in section 3(b); and
(C) prepare a detailed map entitled ``Red River National
Wildlife Refuge'' depicting the boundaries of the Refuge
designated under subparagraph (B).
(2) Selection area.--For purposes of this subsection, the
selection area consists of Caddo, Bossier, Red River, DeSoto,
and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana.
(3) Availability of map; notice.--The Secretary shall--
(A) keep the map prepared under paragraph (1) on file and
available for public inspection at offices of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service of the District of Columbia
and Louisiana; and
(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of that
availability.
(d) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make such minor
revisions in the boundaries designated under subsection (c)
as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Refuge
under section 3(b) or to facilitate the acquisition of
property for the Refuge.
SEC. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC SERVICES.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting or
preventing, and the Secretary shall not for purposes of the
Refuge prohibit or prevent--
(1) the continuation or development of commercial or
recreational navigation on the Red River Waterway;
(2) necessary construction, operation, or maintenance
activities associated with the Red River Waterway project;
(3) the construction, improvement, or expansion of public
port or recreational facilities on the Red River Waterway; or
(4) the construction, improvement, or replacement of
railroads or interstate highways within the selection area
(designated in section 5(c)(2)), or bridges that cross the
Red River.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Red River
National Wildlife Refuge established under section 3.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
______
By Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Thompson, and Mr.
Sarbanes):
S. 2434. A bill to provide that amounts allotted to a State under
section 2401 of the Social Security Act for each of fiscal years 1998
and 1999 shall remain available through fiscal year 2002; to the
Committee on Finance.
state children's health insurance program (schip) preservation act of
2000
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today
by Senators Bryan, Thompson, and Sarbanes in introducing the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of 2000.
This legislation addresses what I believe to be an unintended
consequence of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which created the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health
insurance coverage to millions of our nation's uninsured children.
Specifically, the BBA called for states to enroll 2.5 million uninsured
children in SCHIP within three years of enactment of the bill.
According to the Health Care Financing Administration, states enrolled
1.98 million children in SCHIP in 1999. While this represents an
increase in states' enrollment efforts, we need to ensure that the
federal government is financially committed to this program, and thus
to providing health insurance to our nation's children.
SCHIP was designed to allow states to spend each year's allotment
over a three-year period; if a state began its program in 1998, it has
until the end of 2000 to spend its 1998 allotment. The legislation we
are introducing today will extend this year's looming deadline through
the end of Fiscal Year 2002, thus allowing states to keep their
unexpended SCHIP allotments for up to a total of five years. Many
states have had difficulties conducting outreach and enrolling SCHIP-
eligible children. We must not penalize states that need more time to
identify and enroll children in this important program.
Without this bill, the result--whether intended or unintended--would
be a potential reduction of up to $4 billion for children's health
programs throughout the country. A reduction of this magnitude would
undermine many critical programs that provide quality health coverage
to needy children. It may also inhibit the ability of states to provide
services for children already enrolled in SCHIP, as well as encouraging
some states to scale back on outreach and enrollment efforts. For
example, under current statute, Rhode Island will lose approximately $8
million annually starting in Fiscal Year 2001. This loss will undermine
the efforts of the state to target and enroll every child who is
eligible for SCHIP in Rhode Island. Reductions in SCHIP allotments to
states will mean that SCHIP-eligible children who are not yet enrolled
in the program may continue to go without health insurance.
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the number of children
without health insurance increased from 9.8 million children in 1995 to
11.1 million children in 1998. This increase in the uninsured rate
occurred in spite of the enactment of SCHIP in 1997. We must not allow
this trend to continue. States need to be able to tap into their
unexpended SCHIP funds to continue their outreach and enrollment
efforts. At a time when our nation's uninsured rate continues to climb
above 44 million, it makes little sense to be reducing these much
needed SCHIP payments to states that are desperately trying to reach
out to and enroll these vulnerable and needy children.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2434
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 ``State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of 2000''.
[[Page S2745]]
SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999
ALLOTMENTS UNDER SCHIP.
Notwithstanding subsection (e) of section 2104 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd), amounts allotted to a
State under that section for each of fiscal years 1998 and
1999 shall remain available through September 30,
2002.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senators
Lincoln Chafee, Paul Sarbanes, and Fred Thompson as an original
cosponsor of the State Children's Health Insurance Program Preservation
Act of 2000, and I thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on this
bill.
This important legislation provides that Federal funds allotted to
States under the state children's health insurance program for each of
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will remain available to the states through
fiscal year 2002.
The enactment of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act's state children's
health insurance program (CHIP was a seminal event in addressing the
problem of uninsured children in this nation. The $24 billion funding
reflected the seriousness of the national commitment to ensuring
children will have access to health care services. It provided my state
of Nevada and the nation with an incredible opportunity to address a
most stubborn problem--the increasing number of children who have no
health care insurance.
States were provided three options to provide child health care
services through the federal funding allotments: to expand Medicaid
coverage under enhanced Medicaid matching rates; to create or expand
separate child health insurance programs; or to use a combination of
the two. All options, rightly I believe, require the States to spend
some of their own funds as a condition of participating in the program.
The choices states face under the CHIP program reflect the
flexibility they wanted to tailor these programs, within federal
guidelines, to the specific needs of each state to reduce the number of
uninsured children.
Nevada's CHIP program--``Nevada CheckUp''--was approved by HCFA in
August 1998 and began operating in October 1998. The program is
separate from the Medicaid program, but the two are coordinated in the
application process to ensure those children eligible for Medicaid are
enrolled in that program. The Nevada CheckUp program covers applicants
up to 200% of the federal poverty level, and children up to age 18.
Since its October 1998 beginning, Nevada CheckUp has enrolled over
9,000 children, representing almost 60% of the anticipated total
eligible children. But there are approximately 6,000 children in Nevada
who thus remain uninsured, who need health care coverage, and who must
be found and covered. We can and must do better.
It took the state some time to develop its program, create a state
plan, get state and federal approval, hire and train the staff and
begin the marketing outreach and enrollment activities. In the one and
one-half years the program has been operating, the state has learned
what has worked successfully, and what has not worked. They are in the
process of developing a new marketing plan, which will allow us to
reach more uninsured Nevada children. The new proposal will use more
media and broadcast tools to target the low income population.
The CHIP program is still in its infancy, and states are still
learning how best to develop programs to provide children with much-
needed health insurance. I am hopeful as this program matures, we will
see a most successful effort to cover our nation's children, and ensure
their health care needs are met into the next century.
Allow the states to keep their federal allotment for an additional
two years should provide Nevada, and other States, the opportunity to
reach the total number of eligible children, and increase the number of
children with health insurance.
I sincerely hope Nevada will find the means to make its full match,
so our state can draw 100 percent of its available federal funds. Wise
use of these Federal funds, with a continued commitment to our
children, and with a 100-percent effort by our state will get the job
done. Our children simply deserve no less than a fully-funded
effort.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. DeWine, and Mr.
Dodd):
S. 2435. A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security
Act to crate a grant program to promote joint activities among Federal,
State, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention and treatment agencies; to the Committee on Finance.
Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Child
Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act.'' I am pleased to be
joined by my good friends, Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, and Dodd on
this exciting new proposal. Mr. President, this bill is an enormously
important piece of legislation. It provides the means for states to
support some of our most vulnerable families--families who are
struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, and the children who are being
raised in these abusive homes.
It is obvious, both anecdotally and statistically, that child welfare
is significantly impacted by parental substance abuse. And it makes a
lot of sense to fund state programs to address these two issues in
tandem. The real question in designing and supporting child welfare
programs is how can we--public policy makers, government officials,
welfare agencies--honestly expect to improve child welfare without
appropriately and adequately addressing the root problems affecting
these children's lives?
We know that substance abuse is the primary ingredient in child abuse
and neglect. Most studies find that between one-third and two-thirds--
and some say as high as 80 percent to 90 percent--of children in the
child welfare system come from families where parental substance abuse
is a contributing factor.
The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000 creates
a new five-year $1.9 billion state block grant program to address the
connection between substance abuse and child welfare. Payments would be
made to promote joint activities among federal, state, and local public
child welfare and alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies.
Our underlying belief, and the point of this bill, is to encourage
existing agencies to work together to keep children safe.
HHS will award grants to States and Indian tribes to encourage
programs for families who are known to the child welfare system and
have alcohol and drug abuse problems. These grants will forge new and
necessary partnerships between the child protection agencies and the
alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States so they
will work together to provide services for this unique population. The
program is designed to increase the capacity of both the child welfare
and alcohol and drug systems to comprehensively address the needs of
these families to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence, and to promote recovery from alcohol and drug problems.
Statistics paint an unhappy picture for children of substance abusing
parents: a 1998 report by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse
found that 36 states reported that parental substance abuse and poverty
are the top two problems exhibited by families reported for child
maltreatment. And a 1997 survey conducted by the Child Welfare League
of America found that at least 52 percent of placements into out-of-
home care were due in part to parental substance abuse.
Children whose parents abuse alcohol and other drugs are almost three
times likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be
neglected than children of parents who are not substance abusers.
Children in alcohol-abusing families were nearly four times more likely
to be maltreated overall, almost five times more likely to be
physically neglected, and 10 times more likely to be emotionally
neglected than children in families without alcohol problems.
A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found
that children prenatally exposed to substances have been found to be
two to three times more likely to be abused than non-exposed children.
And as many as 80 percent of prenatally drug exposed infants will come
to the attention of child welfare before their first
[[Page S2746]]
birthday. Abused and neglected children under age six face the risk of
more severe damage than older children because their brains and
neurological systems are still developing.
Unfortunately, child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of
the 67 percent of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and
treatment services actually get help today.
Mr. President, this bill is about preventing problems. Senators
Rockefeller, DeWine, Dodd, and I know that what is most important here
is the safety and well-being of America's children. We expect much of
our youth because they are the future of our nation. In turn, we must
be willing to give them the support they need to learn and grow, so
that they can lead healthy and productive lives.
In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, authored
by the late Senator John Chafee. The 1997 Adoption law promotes safety,
stability, and permanence for all abused and neglected children and
requires timely decision-making in all proceedings to determine whether
children can safely return home, or whether they should be moved to
permanent, adoptive homes. Specifically, the law requires a State to
ensure that services are provided to the families of children who are
at risk, so that children can remain safely with their families or
return home after being in foster care.
The bill we are introducing today identifies a very specific area in
which families and children need services--substance abuse. And it will
ensure that states have the funding necessary to provide services as
required under the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at our bill, to
think seriously about the future for kids in their states, and to work
with us in passing this very important piece of legislation. I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2435
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 ``Child Protection/Alcohol and
Drug Partnership Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. CHILD PROTECTION/ALCOHOL AND DRUG PARTNERSHIPS FOR
CHILDREN.
Part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
620 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subpart 3--Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnerships For
Children
``SEC. 440. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subpart:
``(1) Alaska native organization.--The term `Alaska Native
Organization' means any organized group of Alaska Natives
eligible to operate a Federal program under the Indian Self-
Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450f et seq.) or such group's
designee.
``(2) Administrative costs.--
``(A) In general.--The term `administrative costs' means
the costs for the general administration of administrative
activities, including contract costs and all overhead costs.
``(B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include the direct
costs of providing services and costs related to case
management, training, technical assistance, evaluation,
establishment, and operation of information systems, and such
other similar costs that are also an integral part of service
delivery.
``(3) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State that submits a joint application from the State
agencies that--
``(A) includes a plan that meets the requirements of
section 442; and
``(B) is approved by the Secretary for a 5-year period
after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for the
Administration for Children and Families and the
Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration.
``(4) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, Nation or other organized group or
community of Indians, including any Alaska Native
Organization, that is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.
``(5) State.--
``(A) In general.--The term `State' means each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the territories
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Territories.--
``(i) In general.--The territories described in this
subparagraph are Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
``(ii) Authority to modify requirements.--The Secretary may
modify the requirements of this subpart with respect to a
territory described in clause (i) to the extent necessary to
allow such a territory to conduct activities through funds
provided under a grant made under this subpart.
``(6) State agencies.--The term `State agencies' means the
State child welfare agency and the unit of State government
responsible for the administration of the substance abuse
prevention and treatment block grant provided under subpart
II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.).
``(7) Tribal organization.--The term `tribal organization'
means the recognized governing body of an Indian tribe.
``SEC. 441. GRANTS TO PROMOTE CHILD PROTECTION/ALCOHOL AND
DRUG PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN.
``(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary may award
grants to eligible States and directly to Indian tribes in
accordance with the requirements of this subpart for the
purpose of promoting joint activities among Federal, State,
and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention and treatment agencies (and among child welfare
and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies
that are providing services to children in Indian tribes)
that focus on families with alcohol or drug abuse problems
who come to the attention of the child welfare system and are
designed to--
``(1) increase the capacity of both the child welfare
system and the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment system to address comprehensively and in a timely
manner the needs of such families to improve child safety,
family stability, and permanence; and
``(2) promote recovery from alcohol and drug abuse
problems.
``(b) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date
a joint application is submitted by the State agencies or an
application is submitted by an Indian tribe, the Secretary
shall notify a State or Indian tribe that the application has
been approved or disapproved.
``SEC. 442. PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Contents.--Subject to subsection (c), the plan shall
contain the following:
``(1) A detailed description of how the State agencies will
work jointly to implement a range of activities to meet the
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment needs of
families who come to the attention of the child welfare
system and to promote child safety, permanence, and family
stability.
``(2) An assurance that the heads of the State agencies
shall jointly administer the grant program funded under this
subpart and a description of how they will do so.
``(3) A description of the nature and extent of the problem
of alcohol and drug abuse among families who come to the
attention of the child welfare system in the State, and of
any plans being implemented to further identify and assess
the extent of the problem.
``(4) A description of any joint activities already being
undertaken by the State agencies in the State on behalf of
families with alcohol and drug abuse problems who come to the
attention of the child welfare system (including any existing
data on the impact of such joint activities) such as
activities relating to--
``(A) the appropriate screening and assessment of cases;
``(B) consultation on cases involving alcohol and drug
abuse;
``(C) arrangements for addressing confidentiality and
sharing of information;
``(D) cross training of staff;
``(E) co-location of services;
``(F) support for comprehensive treatment programs for
parents and their children; and
``(G) establishing priority of child welfare families for
assessment or treatment.
``(5)(A) A description of the joint activities to be funded
in whole or in part with the funds provided under the grant,
including the sequencing of the activities proposed to be
conducted under the 5-year funding cycle and the goals to be
achieved during such funding cycle. The activities and goals
shall be designed to improve the capacity of the State
agencies to work jointly to improve child safety, family
stability, and permanence for children whose families come to
the attention of the child welfare system and to promote
their parents' recovery from alcohol and drug abuse.
``(B) The description shall include a statement as to why
the State agencies chose the specified activities and goals.
``(6) A description as to whether and how the joint
activities described in paragraph (5), and other related
activities funded with Federal funds, will address some or
all of the following practices and procedures:
``(A) Practices and procedures designed to appropriately--
``(i) identify alcohol and drug treatment needs;
``(ii) assess such needs;
``(iii) assess risks to the safety of a child and the need
for permanency with respect to the placement of a child;
``(iv) enroll families in appropriate services and
treatment in their communities; and
``(v) regularly assess the progress of families receiving
such treatment.
``(B) Practices and procedures designed to provide
comprehensive and timely individualized alcohol and drug
abuse prevention and treatment services for families who come
to the attention of the child welfare system that include a
range of options that are available, accessible, and
appropriate, and that may include the following components:
[[Page S2747]]
``(i) Preventive and early intervention services for
children of parents with alcohol and drug abuse problems that
integrate alcohol and drug abuse prevention services with
mental health and domestic violence services, and that
recognize the mental, emotional, and developmental problems
the children may experience.
``(ii) Prevention and early intervention services for
parents at risk for alcohol and drug abuse problems.
``(iii) Comprehensive home-based, outpatient, and
residential treatment options.
``(iv) After-care support (both formal and informal) for
families in recovery that promotes child safety and family
stability.
``(v) Services and supports that focus on parents, parents
with their children, parents' children, other family members,
and parent-child interaction.
``(C) Elimination of existing barriers to treatment and to
child safety and permanence, such as difficulties in sharing
information among agencies and differences between the values
and treatment protocols of the different agencies.
``(D) Effective engagement and retention strategies.
``(E) Pre-service and in-service joint training of
management and staff of child welfare and alcohol and drug
abuse prevention and treatment agencies, and, where
appropriate, judges and other court staff, to--
``(i) increase such individuals' awareness and
understanding of alcohol and drug abuse and related child
abuse and neglect;
``(ii) more accurately identify and screen alcohol and drug
abuse and child abuse in families;
``(iii) improve assessment skills of both child abuse and
alcohol and drug abuse staff, including skills to assess risk
to children's safety;
``(iv) increase staff knowledge of the services and
resources that are available in such individuals' communities
and appropriate for such families; and
``(v) increase awareness of the importance of permanence
for children and the timelines for decisionmaking regarding
permanence in the child welfare system.
``(F) Progress in enhancing the abilities of the State
agencies to improve the data systems of such agencies in
order to monitor the progress of families, evaluate service
and treatment outcomes, and determine which approaches and
activities are most effective.
``(G) Evaluation strategies to demonstrate the
effectiveness of treatment and identify the aspects of
treatment that have the greatest impact on families in
different circumstances.
``(H) Training and technical assistance to increase the
capacity within the State to carry out 1 or more of the
activities described in this paragraph or related activities
that are designed to expand prevention and treatment services
for, and staff training to assist families with alcohol and
drug abuse problems who come to the attention of the child
welfare system.
``(7) A description of the jurisdictions in the State
(including whether such jurisdictions are urban, suburban, or
rural) where the joint activities will be provided, and the
plans for expanding such activities to other parts of the
State during the 5-year funding cycle.
``(8) A description of the methods to be used in measuring
progress toward the goals identified under paragraph (5),
including how the State agencies will jointly measure their
performance in accordance with section 445, and how remaining
barriers to meeting the needs of families with alcohol or
drug abuse problems who come to the attention of the child
welfare system will be assessed.
``(9) A description of what input was obtained in the
development of the plan and the joint application from each
of the following groups of individuals, and the manner in
which each will continue to be involved in the proposed joint
activities:
``(A) Staff who provide alcohol and drug abuse prevention
and treatment and related services to families who come to
the attention of the child welfare system.
``(B) Advocates for children and parents who come to the
attention of the child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention and treatment systems.
``(C) Consumers of both child welfare and alcohol and drug
abuse prevention and treatment services.
``(D) Direct service staff and supervisors from public and
private child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention
and treatment agencies.
``(E) Judges and court staff.
``(F) Representatives of the State agencies and private
providers providing health, mental health, domestic violence,
housing, education, and employment services.
``(G) A representative of the State agency in charge of
administering the temporary assistance to needy families
program funded under part A of this title.
``(10) An assurance of the coordination, to the extent
feasible and appropriate, of the activities funded under a
grant made under this subpart with the services or benefits
provided under other Federal or federally assisted programs
that serve families with alcohol and drug abuse problems who
come to the attention of the child welfare system, including
health, mental health, domestic violence, housing, and
employment programs, the temporary assistance to needy
families program funded under part A of this title, other
child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment programs, and the courts.
``(11) An assurance that not more than 10 percent of
expenditures under the plan for any fiscal year shall be for
administrative costs.
``(12) An assurance that alcohol and drug treatment
services provided at least in part with funds provided under
a grant made under this subpart shall be licensed, certified,
or otherwise approved by the appropriate State alcohol and
drug abuse agencies, or in the case of an Indian tribe, by a
State alcohol and drug abuse agency, the Indian Health
Service, or other designated licensing agency.
``(13) An assurance that Federal funds provided to the
State under a grant made under this subpart will not be used
to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds for services and
activities provided as of the date of the submission of the
plan that assist families with alcohol and drug abuse
problems who come to the attention of the child welfare
system.
``(b) Amendments.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible State or Indian tribe may
amend, in whole or in part, its plan at any time through
transmittal of a plan amendment.
``(2) 60-day approval deadline.--A plan amendment is
considered approved unless the Secretary notifies an eligible
State or Indian tribe in writing, within 60 days after
receipt of the amendment, that the amendment is disapproved
(and the reasons for disapproval) or that specified
additional information is needed.
``(c) Requirements for Applications By Indian Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible for a grant made
under this subpart, an Indian tribe shall--
``(A) submit a plan to the Secretary that describes--
``(i) the activities the tribe will undertake with both
child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies that serve the
tribe's children to address the needs of families who come to
the attention of the child welfare agencies and have alcohol
and drug problems; and
``(ii) whether and how such activities address any of the
practice and policy areas in subsection (a)(6); and
``(B) subject to paragraph (2), meet the other requirements
of subsection (a) unless, with respect to a specific
requirement of such subsection, the Secretary determines that
it would be inappropriate to apply such requirement to an
Indian tribe, taking into account the resources, needs, and
other circumstances of the Indian tribe.
``(2) Administrative costs; use of federal funds.--
Paragraphs (11) and (13) of subsection (a) shall not apply to
a plan submitted by an Indian tribe. The indirect cost rate
agreement in effect for an Indian tribe shall apply with
respect to administrative costs under the tribe's plan.
``(3) Authority for intertribal consortium.--The
participating Indian tribes of an intertribal consortium may
develop and submit a single plan that meets the applicable
requirements of subsection (a) (as so determined by the
Secretary) and paragraph (1) of this subsection.
``SEC. 443. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.
``(a) Appropriations.--For the purpose of providing
allotments to eligible States and Indian tribes under this
subpart and research and training under subsection (b)(3),
there is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated--
``(1) for fiscal year 2001, $200,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $275,000,000;
``(3) for fiscal year 2003, $375,000,000;
``(4) for fiscal year 2004, $475,000,000; and
``(5) for fiscal year 2005, $575,000,000.
``(b) Reservation of Funds.--With respect to a fiscal year:
``(1) Territories.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent
of the amount appropriated under subsection (a) for such
fiscal year for payments to Puerto Rico, Guam, the United
States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern
Mariana Islands.
``(2) Indian tribes.--The Secretary shall reserve not less
than 3 nor more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated
under subsection (a) for such fiscal year for direct payments
to Indian tribes and Indian tribal organizations for
activities intended to increase the capacity of the Indian
tribes and tribal organizations to expand treatment,
services, and training to assist families with alcohol and
drug abuse problems who come to the attention of the child
welfare agencies.
``(3) Research and training.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall reserve 1 percent of the amount appropriated
under subsection (a) for such fiscal year for practice-based
research on the effectiveness of various approaches for the
screening, assessment, engagement, treatment, retention, and
monitoring of families with alcohol and drug abuse problems
who come to the attention of the child welfare system, and
for training of staff in such areas and shall ensure that a
portion of such amount is used for research on the
effectiveness of these approaches for Indian children and for
the training of staff serving children from the Indian
tribes.
``(B) Determination of use of funds.--Funds reserved under
subparagraph (A) may only be used to carry out a research
agenda that addresses the areas described in such
subparagraph and that is established by the Secretary,
together with the Assistant Secretary for the Administration
for Children and Families and the Administrator of Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
[[Page S2748]]
Administration, with input from public and private nonprofit
providers, consumers, representatives of Indian tribes, and
advocates, as well as others with expertise in research in
such areas.
``SEC. 444. PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.
``(a) Amount of Grant.--
``(1) Eligible states other than territories.--
``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated under
subsection (a) of section 443 for a fiscal year, after the
reservation of funds required under subsection (b) of that
section for the fiscal year and subject to subparagraphs (B)
and (C), the Secretary shall pay to each eligible State
(after the Secretary has determined that the State has
satisfied the matching requirement under subsection (b)) an
amount that bears the same ratio to such amount for such
fiscal year as the number of children under the age of 18
that reside in the eligible State bears to the total number
of children under the age of 18 who reside in all such
eligible States for such fiscal year.
``(B) Minimum allotment.--In no case shall the amount of a
payment to an eligible State for a fiscal year be less than
an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated
under subsection (a) of section 443 for the fiscal year,
after the reservation of funds required under subsection (b)
of that section.
``(C) Pro rata reductions.--The Secretary shall make pro
rata reductions in the amounts of the allotments determined
under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year to the extent
necessary to comply with subparagraph (B).
``(2) Territories.--From the amounts reserved under section
443(b)(1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall pay to each
territory described in section 440(5)(B) with an approved
plan that meets the requirements of section 442 (after the
Secretary has determined that the territory has satisfied the
matching requirement under subsection (b)) an amount that
bears the same ratio to such amount for such fiscal year as
the number of children under the age of 18 that reside in the
territory bears to the total number of children under the age
of 18 who reside in all such territories for such fiscal
year.
``(3) Indian tribes or tribal organizations.--From the
amount reserved under section 443(b)(2) for a fiscal year,
the Secretary shall pay to each Indian tribe with an approved
plan that meets the requirements of section 442(c) (after the
Secretary has determined that the Indian tribe has satisfied
the matching requirement under subsection (b)) an amount that
bears the same ratio to such reserved amount for such fiscal
year as the number of children under the age of 18 in the
Indian tribe bears to the total number of children under the
age of 18 in all Indian tribes with plans so approved for
such fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary on the basis
of the most current and reliable information available to the
Secretary. For purposes of making the allocations required
under the preceding sentence, an Indian tribe may submit data
and other information that it has on the number of Indian
children under the age of 18 for consideration by the
Secretary.
``(b) Matching Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--In order to receive a grant under this
subpart for a fiscal year, an eligible State or Indian tribe
shall provide through non-Federal contributions the
applicable percentage determined under paragraph (2) for such
fiscal year of the costs of conducting activities funded in
whole or in part with funds provided under the grant. Such
contributions shall be paid jointly by the State agencies, in
the case of an eligible State, or by an Indian tribe.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage for an eligible State or
Indian tribe for a fiscal year is--
``(A) 15 percent, in the case of fiscal years 2001 and
2002;
``(B) 20 percent, in the case of fiscal years 2003 and
2004; and
``(C) 25 percent, in the case of fiscal year 2005.
``(3) Source of match.--
``(A) Eligible states.--The non-Federal contributions
required of an eligible State under this subsection may be in
cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant,
equipment, or services. The contributions may be made
directly or through donations from public or private
entities. Amounts provided by the Federal Government, or
services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by
the Federal Government may not be included in determining
whether an eligible State has provided the applicable
percentage of such contributions for a fiscal year.
``(B) Indian tribes.--With respect to an Indian tribe, such
contributions may be made in cash, through donated funds,
through non-public third party in kind contributions, or from
Federal funds received under any of the following provisions
of law:
``(i) The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901
et seq.).
``(ii) The Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.).
``(iii) Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
``(4) Waiver.--
``(A) Eligible states.--In the case of an eligible State,
the Secretary, after consultation with the Assistant
Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families
and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, may modify the applicable
percentage determined under paragraph (2) for matching funds
if the Secretary determines that economic conditions in the
eligible State justify making such modification.
``(B) Indian tribes.--In the case of an Indian tribe, the
Secretary may modify the applicable percentage determined
under such paragraph if the Secretary determines that it
would be inappropriate to apply to the Indian tribe, taking
into the resources and needs of the tribe and the amount of
funds the tribe would receive under a grant made under this
section.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under a grant made
under this subpart may only be used to carry out activities
specified in the plan, as approved by the Secretary.
``(d) Deadline for Request for Payment.--An eligible State
or Indian tribe shall apply to be paid funds under a grant
made under this subpart not later than the beginning of the
fourth quarter of a fiscal year or such funds shall be
reallotted under subsection (f).
``(e) Carryover of Funds.--Funds paid to an eligible State
or Indian tribe under a grant made under this subpart for a
fiscal year may be expended in that fiscal year or the
succeeding fiscal year.
``(f) Reallotment of Funds.--
``(1) Eligible states.--In the case of an eligible State
that does not apply for funds allotted to the eligible State
under a grant made under this subpart for a fiscal year
within the time provided under subsection (d), or that does
not expend such funds during the time provided under
subsection (e), the funds which the eligible State would have
been entitled to for such fiscal year shall be reallotted to
1 or more other eligible States on the basis of each such
State's relative need for additional payments, as determined
by the Secretary, after consultation with the Assistant
Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families
and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration.
``(2) Indian tribes.--In the case of an Indian tribe that
does not expend funds allotted to the tribe during the time
provided under subsection (e), the funds to which the Indian
tribe would have been entitled to for such fiscal year shall
be reallotted to the remaining Indian tribes that are
implementing approved plans in amounts that are proportional
to the percentage of Indian children under the age of 18 in
each such tribe.
``SEC. 445. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY; REPORTS AND
EVALUATIONS.
``(a) Performance Measurement.--
``(1) Establishment of indicators.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Assistant Secretary for the
Administration for Children and Families, the Administrator
of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Chief Executive Officers of a State or
Territory, State legislators, State and local public
officials responsible for administering child welfare and
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment programs,
court staff, consumers of the services, and advocates for
children and parents who come to the attention of the child
welfare system, shall, within 12 months of the date of
enactment of the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug
Partnership Act of 2000, establish indicators that will be
used to assess periodically the performance of eligible
States and Indian tribes in using grant funds provided under
this subpart to promote child safety, permanence, and well-
being and recovery in families who come to the attention of
the child welfare system.
``(2) Coordination.--The indicators established under
paragraph (1) shall be based on and coordinated with the
performance outcomes established for the child welfare system
pursuant to section 203(b) of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 and the performance measures developed under
subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health
Service Act (relating to the substance abuse prevention and
treatment block grant).
``(3) Purpose.--The indicators will be used to measure
periodically the progress made by the State agencies and by
child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment agencies serving children in Indian tribes in the
activities that such agencies jointly engage in with such
grant funds. An eligible State or Indian tribe will be
measured against itself, assessing progress over time against
a baseline established at the time the grant activities were
undertaken.
``(4) Illustrative examples.--The indicators developed
should address the range of activities that eligible States
and Indian tribes have the option of engaging in with such
grant funds. Examples of the types of progress to be measured
in the different areas of activity include the following:
``(A) Improving the screening and assessment of families
who come to the attention of the child welfare system with
alcohol and drug problems, so such families can be promptly
referred for appropriate treatment when necessary.
``(B) Increasing the availability of comprehensive and
timely individualized treatment for families with alcohol and
drug problems who come to the attention of the child welfare
system.
``(C) Increasing the number or proportion of families who,
when they come to the attention of the child welfare system
with alcohol and drug problems, promptly enter appropriate
treatment.
[[Page S2749]]
``(D) Increasing the engagement and retention in treatment
of families with alcohol and drug problems who come to the
attention of the child welfare system.
``(E) Decreasing the number of children who re-enter foster
care after being returned to families who had alcohol or drug
problems when the children entered foster care.
``(F) Increasing the number or proportion of staff in both
the public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention and treatment agencies who have received training
on the needs of families that come to the attention of the
child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment systems for help, and the help that can be provided
to such families.
``(G) Increasing the proportion of parents who complete
treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and show improvement in
their pre-employment or employment status.
``(5) Determination of progress.--
``(A) Initial report.--Not later than the end of the first
fiscal year in which funds are received under a grant made
under this subpart, the State agencies in each eligible State
that receives such funds, and the Indian tribes that receive
such funds, shall submit to the Secretary a report on the
activities carried out during the fiscal year with such
funds. The report shall contain such information as the
Secretary determines is necessary to provide an accurate
description of the activities conducted with such funds and
of any changes in the use of such funds that are planned for
the succeeding fiscal year.
``(B) Use of indicators.--As soon as possible after the
establishment of indicators under paragraph (1), the State
agencies and Indian tribes shall conduct evaluations,
directly or under contract, of their progress with respect to
such indicators that are directly related to activities the
eligible State or Indian tribe is engaging in with such grant
funds and include information on the evaluation in the
reports to the Secretary required under subparagraphs (C) and
(D). After the third year in which such activities are
conducted, an eligible State or Indian tribe shall include in
the evaluation at least some indicators that address
improvements in treatment for families with alcohol and drug
problems who come to the attention of the child welfare
system.
``(C) Subsequent reports.--After the initial report is
submitted under subparagraph (A), an eligible State or Indian
tribe shall submit to the Secretary, not later than June 30
of each fiscal year thereafter in which the State or tribe
carries out activities with grant funds provided under this
subpart, a report on the application of the indicators
established under paragraph (1) to such activities. The
reports shall include an explanation regarding why the
specific indicators used were chosen, how such indicators are
expected to impact a child's safety, permanence, well-being,
and parental recovery, and the results (as of the date of
submission of the report) of the evaluation conducted under
subparagraph (B).
``(D) Final report.--Not later than September 30, 2005,
each eligible State and Indian tribe with an approved plan
under this part shall submit a final report on the
evaluations conducted under subparagraph (B) and the progress
made in achieving the goals specified in the plan of the
State or Indian tribe.
``(E) Failure to report.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible
State or Indian tribe that fails to submit the reports
required under this paragraph or to conduct the evaluation
required under subparagraph (B) shall not be eligible to
receive grant funds provided under this subpart for the
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which such State or
Indian tribe failed to submit such report or conduct such
evaluation.
``(ii) Corrective action.--An eligible State or Indian
tribe to which clause (i) applies may, notwithstanding such
clause, receive grant funds under this subpart for a
succeeding fiscal year if prior to September 30 of the fiscal
year in which such failure occurred, the State agencies of
the eligible State, or the Indian tribe, submit to the
Secretary a plan to monitor and evaluate in a timely manner
the activities conducted with such funds, and such plan is
approved in a timely manner by the Secretary, after
consultation with the Administration for Children and
Families and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
``(b) Secretarial Reports and Evaluations.--
``(1) Annual reports.--On the basis of reports submitted
under subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and
Families and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, shall report annually,
beginning on October 1, 2002, to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate on the joint activities conducted with
funds provided under grants made under this subpart, the
indicators that have been established, and the progress that
has been made in addressing the needs of families with
alcohol and drug abuse problems who come to the attention of
the child welfare system and in achieving the goals of child
safety, permanence, and family stability.
``(2) Evaluations.--Not later than 6 months after the end
of each 5-year funding cycle under this subpart, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the committees described
in paragraph (1) that summarizes the results of the
evaluations conducted by eligible States and Indian tribes
under subsection (a)(5)(B), as reported by such States and
Indian tribes in accordance with subparagraphs (C) and (D) of
subsection (a)(5). The Secretary shall include in the report
required under this paragraph recommendations for further
legislative or administrative actions that are designed to
assist children and families with alcohol and drug abuse
problems who come to the attention of the child welfare
system.''.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about our
Nation's most vulnerable children--those innocent kids who are in the
child protection system because they have been abused or neglected by
parents, many of whom have drug or alcohol problems. Over 500,000
children are in foster care nationwide and 3,000 children are in West
Virginia. Each one deserves a safe, permanent home according to the
fundamental guidelines set by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act.
National statistics range between 40 percent and 80 percent of
families in the child welfare system struggling with alcohol or drug
abuse, or both. One recent survey noted that 67 percent of the parents
involved in child abuse or neglect cases needed alcohol or drug
treatment, but only one-third of those parents got the appropriate
treatment or services to deal with their addiction. In my own state of
West Virginia, over half of the children placed in foster care have
families with alcohol or drug abuse problems, and we know even more
children are at risk of neglect, but are not in foster care yet because
of their parent's substance abuse problems.
Another sad, stunning statistic is that children with open child
welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger
than other children in foster care, and they are more likely to be the
victims of severe and chronic neglect. Once such children are placed in
foster care, they tend to stay in care longer than other children.
I believe the only way to achieve the critical goals of a safe,
healthy, and permanent home for every child is to tackle the problem of
alcohol and drug abuse among parents. What happens to parents who abuse
alcohol or drugs ultimately will decide that child's fate. To help the
child, we must address the addiction of their parents.
The issue of alcohol and drug abuse is difficult. Part of the 1997
Adoption and Safe Families Act required the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to study this problem within the child welfare
system. This important report, Blending Perspectives and Building
Common Ground, outlines our challenges. There is a lack of appropriate
treatment and services, especially services designed to meet the needs
of parents in the child protection system. Unfortunately, there is poor
communication and collaboration between alcohol and drug abuse agencies
and child protection agencies. Issues such as confidentiality,
different definitions of who ``the client'' is, and different time
frames for decisions make collaboration harder. For example, under the
1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, state agencies and courts are
expected to consider termination of parental rights if a child has been
in foster care for 15 of 22 months. Treatment programs designed for
single clients have different time frames.
To address the challenge, we must find new ways to encourage these
two independent systems to work together on behalf of parents with an
alcohol or drug problem and their children. In addition to treating the
patient's addiction, we must also provide for the needs of their child.
Therefore, we need to create incentives for both agencies to consider
the total picture--What are the child's needs? What are the parent's
needs? How can we effectively serve both, and meet the fundamental
goals of the Adoption Law that every child deserves a safe, healthy,
permanent home.
The HHS report sets five priorities. First, it calls for building
collaborative working relationships among agencies. It stresses that
addiction is a treatable disease, but access to timely, comprehensive
substance abuse treatment services is key. Keeping clients in treatment
is crucial, but serving parents is harder because services must also be
available to their children. As mentioned, children of abusing parents
need special services. The final priority
[[Page S2750]]
in the HHS study is for research and more information on the
interaction between substance abuse and child maltreatment.
Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, DeWine,
and Dodd to introduce legislation to address this troubling issue. We
have worked for months with state officials, child advocates and
officials in the substance abuse community to develop the Child
Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000. This bill builds
on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997--
fundamental goals of making a child's safety, health, and permanency
paramount.
To accomplish these bold goals, we need to be bold by investing in
partnerships that will respond to the needs and priorities outlined in
the comprehensive HHS study. I believe a new program and a new approach
are essential. A new system is needed to address the special concerns
of this unique population--parents with alcohol and drug problems who
neglect their children. A program designed to serve a single male with
drug problems doesn't respond to the needs of a mother and her child.
To be effective, we must link child protection workers with those
involved in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Forging new
partnerships takes time--and it takes money. That is why our
legislation invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to combat the problems of
drugs and alcohol abuse in families in the child welfare system.
I understand this is a large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is a
huge problem. Before reacting to the cost of the bill, consider what
the costs are if we do nothing.
If we do not invest in alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment for such families, children will be neglected or abused.
Young children will be placed in foster care, at a wide range of costs,
and they will linger there longer than other children without family
substance abuse problems.
In 1997, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee received testimony
from Professor Richard Barth who noted that many newborns in substance
abuse cases already had siblings placed in foster care. Barth estimated
that if only one-third of the mothers with substance abuse problems got
successful, early treatment upon the birth of their first child,
instead of waiting until later, many years of foster care placements
could be prevented and millions of dollars could be saved.
Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue so agencies do not
wait too long to help vulnerable children. Our bill will promote
innovative approaches that serve both parents and children. It will
offer funding for screening and assessment to enhance prevention. It
will support outreach to families and retention so that parents stay in
treatment. It can support joint training, and educate alcohol and drug
counselors about the special needs of children and the importance of a
safe, permanent home. It can support out-patient services or
residential treatment. It allows investments in after-care to keep
families and children safe.
If we do invest in such specialized alcohol and drug treatment
programs for families, we can achieve two things. For many families, I
hope, treatment will be successful and children will return to a safe
and stable home. But for others, we will have tried, and learned the
important lesson that some children need an alternate place--some
children need adoption. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
courts cannot move forward on adoption until appropriate services have
been provided to families. That is the law, and we must follow it.
Therefore, to move some children towards adoption, services must be
tried for their families.
We want a responsible approach that will include accountability. It
requires annual reports to assess how much progress is made each and
every year. Reports should measure success in treating parents, but
equally important will be measures of children's safety and family
stability.
Over the years, we have worked on child welfare issues in a positive,
bipartisan manner. I am proud to continue the bipartisan approach as we
grapple with such tough controversial issues as alcohol and drug abuse
among parents in the child welfare system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and section-
by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Section-by-Section--Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act
of 2000
(A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to
create a grant program to promote joint activities among Federal,
State, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention and treatment agencies)
grants to promote child protection/alcohol and drug partnership for
children
In an effort to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence, as well as promote recovery from alcohol and drug
abuse problems, the Secretary may award grants to eligible
States and Indian tribes to foster programs for families who
are known to the child welfare system to have alcohol and
drug abuse problems. The Secretary shall notify States and
Indian tribes of approval or denial not later than 60 days
after submission.
state plan requirements
In order to meet the prevention and treatment needs of
families with alcohol and drug abuse problems in the child
welfare system and to promote child safety, permanence, and
family stability, State agencies will jointly work together,
creating a plan to identify the extent of the drug and
alcohol abuse problem.
Creation of plan.--State agencies will provide data on
appropriate screening and assessment of cases, consultation
on cases involving alcohol and drug abuse, arrangements for
addressing confidentiality and sharing of information, cross
training of staff, co-location of services, support for
comprehensive treatment for parents and their children, and
priority of child welfare families for assessment or
treatment.
Identify activities.--A description of the activities and
goals to be implemented under the five-year funding cycle
should be identified, such as: identify and assess alcohol
and drug treatment needs, identify risks to children's safety
and the need for permanency, enroll families in appropriate
services and treatment in their communities, and regularly
assess the progress of families receiving such treatment.
Implement prevention and treatment services.--States and
Indian tribes should implement individualized alcohol and
drug abuse prevention and treatment services that are
available, accessible, and appropriate that include the
following components:
(A) Preventive and early intervention services for the
children of families with alcohol and drug abuse problems
that integrate alcohol and drug abuse prevention services
with mental health and domestic violence services, as well as
recognizing the mental, emotional, and developmental problems
the children may experience.
(B) Prevention and early intervention services for parents
at risk for alcohol and drug abuse problems.
(C) Comprehensive home-based, our-patient and residential
treatment options.
(D) Formal and informal after-care support for families in
recovery.
(E) Services and programs that promote parent-child
interaction.
Sharing information among agencies.--Agencies should
eliminate existing barriers to treatment and to child safety
and permanence by sharing information among agencies and
learning from the various treatment protocols of other
agencies such as:
(A) Creating effective engagement and retention strategies.
(B) Encouraging joint training of child welfare staff and
alcohol and drug abuse prevention agencies, and judges and
court staff to increase awareness and understanding of drug
abuse and related child abuse and neglect and more accurately
identify abuse in families, increase staff knowledge of the
services and resources that are available in the communities,
and increase awareness of permanence for children and the
urgency for time lines in making these decisions.
(C) Improving data systems to monitor the progress of
families, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and
determine which approaches are most effective.
(D) Evaluation strategies to identify the effectiveness of
treatment that has the greatest impact on families in
different circumstances.
(E) Training and technical assistance to increase the
State's capacity to perform the above activities.
Plan descriptions and assurances.--States and Indian tribes
should create a plan that includes the following descriptions
and assurances:
(A) A description of the jurisdictions in the State whether
urban, suburban, or rural, and the State's plan to expand
activities over the 5-year funding cycle to other parts of
the State.
(B) A description of the way in which the State agency will
measure progress, including how the agency will jointly
conduct an evaluation of the results of the activities.
(C) A description of the input obtained from staff of State
agencies, advocates, consumers of prevention and treatment
services, line staff from public and private child welfare
and drug abuse agencies, judges and court staff,
representatives of health, mental health, domestic violence,
housing and employment services, as well as a representative
of the State agency in charge of administering the temporary
assistance to needy families program (TANF).
[[Page S2751]]
(D) An assurance of coordination with other services
provided under other Federal or federally assisted programs
including health, mental health, domestic violence, housing,
employment programs, TANF, and other child welfare and
alcohol and drug abuse programs and the courts.
(E) An assurance that not more than 10% of expenditures
under the State plan for any fiscal year shall be for
administrative costs. However, Indian tribes will be exempt
from this limitation and instead may use the indirect cost
rate agreement in effect for the tribe.
(F) An assurance from States that Federal funds provided
will not be used to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds for
services and activities provided as of the date of the
submission of the plan. However, Indian tribes will be exempt
from this provision.
Amendments.--A State or Indian tribe may amend its plan, in
whole or in part at any time through a plan amendment. The
amendment should be submitted to the Secretary not later than
30 days after the date of any changes of activities. Approval
from the Secretary shall be presumed unless, the State has
been notified of disapproval within 60 days after receipt.
Special Application to Indian tribes.--The Indian tribe
must submit a plan to the Secretary that describes the
activities it will undertake with both the child welfare and
alcohol and drug agencies that serve its children to address
the needs of families who come to the attention of the child
welfare agency who have alcohol and drug problems. The Indian
tribe must also meet other applicable requirements, unless
the Secretary determines that it would be inappropriate based
on the tribe's resources, needs, and other circumstances.
appropriation of funds
Appropriations.--A total of 1.9 billion dollars will be
appropriated to eligible States and Indian tribes at the
progression rate of:
(1) for fiscal year 2001, $200,000,000;
(2) for fiscal year 2002, $275,000,000;
(3) for fiscal year 2003, $375,000,000;
(4) for fiscal year 2004, $475,000,000; and
(5) for fiscal year 2005, $575,000,000.
Territories.--The Secretary of HHS shall reserve 2% of the
amount appropriated each fiscal year for payments to Puerto
Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, the Secretary
shall reserve from 3 to 5 percent of the amount appropriated
for direct payment to Indian tribes.
Research and Training.--The Secretary shall reserve 1% of
the appropriated amount for each fiscal year for practice-
based research on the effectiveness of various approaches for
screening, assessment, engagement, treatment, retention, and
monitoring of families and training of staff in such areas.
In addition, the Secretary will also ensure that a portion of
these funds are used for research on the effectiveness of
these approaches for Indian children and the training of
staff.
Determination of use of funds.--Funds may only be used to
carry out a specific research agenda established by the
Secretary, together with the Assistant Secretary of the
Administration for Children and Families and the
Administrator of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration with input from public and private nonprofit
providers, consumers, representatives of the Indian tribes
and advocates.
payments to states
Amount of grant to State and territories.--Each eligible
State will receive an amount based on the number of children
under the age of 18 that reside in that State. There will be
a small state minimum of .05% to ensure that all States are
eligible for sufficient funding to establish a program.
Amount of grant to Indian tribes or tribal organizations.--
Indian tribes shall be eligible for a set aside of 3% to 5%.
This amount will be distributed based on the population of
children under 18 in the tribe.
State matching requirement.--States shall provide, through
non-Federal contributions, the following applicable
percentages for a given fiscal year:
(A) for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 15% match;
(B) for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 20% match; and
(C) for fiscal year 2005, 25% match.
Source of match.--The non-Federal contributions required of
States may be in cash or in-kind, including plant equipment
or services made directly from donations from public or
private entities. Amounts received from the Federal
Government may not be included in the applicable percentage
of contributions for a given fiscal year. However, Indian
tribes may use three Federal sources of matching funds:
Indian Child Welfare Act funds, Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act funds, and Community Block Grant
funds.
Waiver.--The Secretary may modify matching funds if it is
determined that extraordinary economic conditions in the
State justify the waiver. Indians tribes' matching funds may
also be modified if the Secretary determines that it would be
inappropriate based on the resources and needs of the tribe.
Use of Funds and Deadline for Request of Payment.--Funds
may only be used to carry out activities specified in the
plan, as approved by the Secretary. Each State or Indian
tribe shall apply to be paid funds not later than the
beginning of the fourth quarter of a fiscal year or they will
be reallotted.
Carryover and Reallotment of funds.--Funds paid to an
eligible State or Indian tribe may be used in that fiscal
year or the succeeding fiscal year. If a State does not apply
for funds allotted within the time provided, the funds will
be reallocated to one or more eligible States on the basis
of the needs of that individual state. In the cases of
Indian tribes, funds will be reallotted to remaining
tribes that are implementing approved plans.
performance measurement
Establishment of Indicators.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Assistant Secretary for the
Administration for Children and Families, the Administrator
of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration within HHS, and with state and local
government, public officials responsible for administering
child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment programs, court staff, consumers of the services,
and advocates for these children and parents will establish
indicators within 12 months of the enactment of this law
which will be used to assess the performance of States and
Indian tribes. A State or Indian tribe will be measured
against itself, assessing progress over time against a
baseline established at the time the grant activities were
undertaken.
Illustrative Examples.--Indicators of activities to be
measured include:
(A) Improve screening and assessment of families;
(B) Increase availability of comprehensive individualized
treatment;
(C) Increase the number/proportion of families who enter
treatment promptly;
(D) Increase engagement and retention;
(E) Decrease the number of children who re-enter foster
care after being returned to families who had alcohol or drug
problems;
(F) Increase number/proportion of staff trained; and
(G) Increase the proportion of parents who complete
treatment and show improvement in their employment status.
Reports.--The child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse and
treatment agencies in each eligible state, and the Indian
tribes that receive funds shall submit no later than the end
of the first fiscal year, a report to the Secretary
describing activities carried out, and any changes in the use
of the funds planned for the succeeding fiscal year. After
the first report is submitted, a State or Indian tribe must
submit to the Secretary annually, by the end of the third
quarter in the fiscal year, a report on the application of
the indicators to its activities, an explanation of why these
indicators were chosen, and the results of the evaluation to
date. After the third year of the grant all of the States
must include indicators that address improvements in
treatment. A final report on evaluation and the progress made
must be submitted to the Secretary not later than the end of
each five year funding cycle of the grant.
Penalty.--States or Indian tribes that fail to report on
the indicators will not be eligible for grant funds for the
fiscal year following the one in which it failed to report,
unless a plan for improving their ability to monitor and
evaluate their activities is submitted to the Secretary and
then approved in a timely manner.
Secretarial reports and evaluations.--Beginning October 1,
2002, the Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant
Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families,
and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, shall report annually, to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of the
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on
the joint activities, indicators, and progress made with
families.
Evaluations.--Not later than six months after the end of
each 5 year funding cycle, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the above committees, the results of the
evaluations as well as recommendations for further
legislative actions.
Fact Sheet
The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of
2000 is a bill to create a grant program to promote joint
activities among Federal, State, and local public child
welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment
agencies to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence for children in families with drug and alcohol
problems, as well as promote recovery from drug and alcohol
problems.
Child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of the
67% of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and
treatment services actually get help today. This bill builds
on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997 which requires States to focus on a child's need for
safety, health and permanence. The bill creates new funding
for alcohol and drug treatment and other activities that will
serve the special needs of these families to either provide
treatment for parents with alcohol and drug abuse problems so
that a child can safely return to their family or to promote
timely decisions and fulfill the requirement of the 1997
Adoption Act to provide services prior to adoption.
grants to promote child protection/alcohol and drug partnerships
In an effort to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence as well as promote recovery from alcohol and drug
abuse problems, HHS will award grants to States and
[[Page S2752]]
Indian tribes to encourage programs for families who are
known to the child welfare system and have alcohol and drug
abuse problems. Such grants will forge new and necessary
partnerships between the child protection agencies and the
alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States
so they can together provide necessary services for this
unique population.
These grants will help build new partnerships to provide
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment services that
are timely, available, accessible, and appropriate and
include the following components:
(A) Preventive and early intervention services for the
children of families with alcohol and drug problems that
combine alcohol and drug prevention services with mental
health and domestic violence services, and recognize the
mental, emotional, and developmental problems the children
may experience.
(B) Prevention and early intervention services for families
at risk of alcohol and drug problems.
(C) Comprehensive home-based, out-patient and residential
treatment options.
(D) Formal and informal after-care support for families in
recovery that promote child safety and family stability.
(E) Services and supports that promote positive parent-
child interaction.
forging new partnerships
GAO and HHS studies indicate that the existing programs for
alcohol and drug treatment do not effectively service
families in the child protection system. Therefore, this new
grant program will help eliminate barriers to treatment and
to child safety and permanence by encouraging agencies build
partnerships and conduct joint activities including:
(A) Promote appropriate screening and assessment of alcohol
and drug problems.
(B) Create effective engagement and retention strategies
that get families into timely treatment.
(C) Encourage joint training for staff of child welfare and
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies, and
judges and other court personnel to increase understanding of
alcohol and drug problems related to child abuse and neglect
and to more accurately identify alcohol and drug abuse in
families. Such training increases staff knowledge of the
appropriate resources that are available in the communities,
and increases awareness of the importance of permanence for
children and the urgency for expedited time lines in making
these decisions.
(D) Improve data systems to monitor the progress of
families, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and
determine which approaches are most effective.
(E) Evaluate strategies to identify the effectiveness of
treatment and those parts of the treatment that have the
greatest impact on families in different circumstances.
new, targeted investments
A total of $1.9 billion will be available to eligible
States with funding of $200 million in the first year
expanding to $575 million by the last year. The amount of
funding will be based on the State's number of children under
18, with a small State minimum to ensure that every State
gets a fair share. Indian tribes will have a 3%-5% set aside.
State child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies shall have
a modest matching requirement for funding beginning with a
15% match and gradually increasing to 25%. The Secretary has
discretion to waive the State match in cases of hardship.
accountability and performance measurement
To ensure accountability, HHS and the related State
agencies must establish indicators within 12 months of the
enactment of this law which will be used to assess the
State's progress under this program. Annual reports by the
States must be submitted to HHS. Any state hat fails to
submit its report will lose its funding for the next year,
until it comes into compliance. HHS must issue an annual
report to Congress on the progress of the Child Protection/
Alcohol and Drug Partnership grants.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 2436. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the targeted area limitation on the expense deduction for environmental
remediation costs and to extend the termination date of such deduction;
to the Committee on Finance.
brownfield cleanup cost recovery act
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Brownfield Cleanup Cost Recovery Act. This legislation would repeal the
targeted area limitation on the expense deduction for environmental
remediation costs and extend the termination date of such deduction to
2004.
Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields
program is designed to help communities restore less seriously
contaminated sites that have the potential for economic development.
Brownfields are defined as abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial
and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
In general, costs incurred for new buildings or for permanent
improvements to increase the value of a property must be capitalized--
the cost must be deducted over a period of years. Some expenses, such
as repairs, are currently deductible--deductible in the year in which
the cost is incurred. This is also called expensing. It is a
considerable financial advantage to be able to fully deduct an expense
in one year rather than over many. The brownfields tax provision would
include environmental remediation costs as allowable costs for
expensing. This would create the financial incentive needed to bring
companies in to remediate brownfields.
Prior to the passage of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the tax code
discouraged the remediation of environmentally damaged property. In
1996, I introduced legislation to eliminate this bias. This legislation
ultimately was included as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,
which is now law. However, the incentive expires at the end of this
year. As part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, Congress
passed provisions expanding upon this important community development
legislation. This bill contains the same provisions that were included
in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which Congress passed,
but President Clinton vetoed.
In addition, Mr. President, current law limits expensing of
brownfield sites to those sites within ``targeted'' areas--defined as
being a renewal community under section 198. This bill would eliminate
the ``targeted area'' limitation, allowing for increased remediation in
all areas, not just federal designated zones.
Mr. President, encouraging community renewal has long been a very
important issue to me. In 1995, my first year as a Senator, I joined
with Senators Lieberman, Santorum, DeWine and Moseley-Braun, to
introduce the Enhanced Enterprise Zones Act, to stimulate job creation
and residential growth in America's most distressed rural and urban
communities. More recently, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the
American Community Renewal Act. The ACRA would provide benefits to 100
distressed communities around the country, including tax benefits
designed to attract businesses and employers to Renewal Zones. It is my
hope that this bill will become law this year.
In my opinion, Mr. President, brownfield remediation is a crucial
component of any policy for community renewal if that policy is to be
successful. The provisions provided in this legislation will make such
remediation more likely and more common. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to give it their strong support.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 2437. A bill to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
water resources development act of 2000
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. 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. 2437
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 ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 4. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 5. Brownfields Revitalization Program.
Sec. 6. Tribal Partnership Program.
Sec. 7. Ability to pay.
Sec. 8. Property Protection Program.
Sec. 9. National Recreation Reservation Service.
Sec. 10. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.
Sec. 11. Interagency and international support.
Sec. 12. Reburial and transfer authority.
[[Page S2753]]
Sec. 13. Amendment to Rivers and Harbors Act.
Sec. 14. Structural flood control cost-sharing.
Sec. 15. Calfed Bay Delta Program assistance.
Sec. 16. Project de-authorizations.
Sec. 17. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 18. Transfer of project lands.
Sec. 19. Puget Sound and Adjacent waters restoration.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Central and southern florida project.--The term
``Central and Southern Florida Project'' means the project
for Central and Southern Florida authorized under the heading
``Central and southern florida'' in section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), any modification to the
project authorized by law, or modified by the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan.
(2) South florida ecosystem.--The term ``South Florida
ecosystem'' means the area consisting of the lands and waters
within the boundary, existing on July 1, 1999, of the South
Florida Water Management District, including the Everglades
ecosystem, the Florida Keys, Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and
other contiguous near-shore coastal waters of South Florida.
(3) Comprehensive everglades restoration plan.--The term
``Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan'' means the plan
contained in the ``Final Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement,'' April 1999, as transmitted
to the Congress by the July 1, 1999, letter of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works pursuant to Section 528
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3767).
(4) Natural system.--The term ``natural system'' means all
Federally or state managed lands and waters within the South
Florida ecosystem, including the water conservation areas,
Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and
other federally or state designated conservation lands, and
other lands that create or contribute to habitat supporting
native flora and fauna.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) The Everglades is an American treasure. In its natural
state, the South Florida ecosystem was connected by the flow
of fresh water from the Kissimmee River to Lake Okeechobee--
south through vast freshwater marshes known as the
Everglades--to Florida Bay, and on to the coral reefs of the
Florida Keys. The South Florida ecosystem covers
approximately 18,000 square miles and once included a unique
and biologically productive region, supporting vast colonies
of wading birds, a mixture of temperate and tropical plant
and animal species, and teeming coastal fisheries and North
America's only barrier coral reef. The South Florida
ecosystem is endangered as a result of adverse changes in the
quantity, distribution, and timing of flows and degradation
of water quality. The Everglades alone has been reduced
in size by approximately 50 percent. Restoration of this
nationally and internationally recognized ecosystem,
including America's Everglades, is in the Nation's
interest.
(2) The Central and Southern Florida Project plays an
important role in the economy of south Florida by providing
flood protection and water supply to agriculture and the
residents of south Florida and providing water to the water
conservation areas, Everglades National Park and other
natural areas for the purpose of preserving fish and wildlife
resources. The population of the region is expected to
continue to grow, further straining the ability of the
existing Central and Southern Florida Project to meet the
needs of the natural system and the people of south Florida.
(3) Modifications to the Central and Southern Florida
Project are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the
South Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, while
continuing to provide for the water related needs of the
region, including flood protection and other objectives
served by the Project.
(4) The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is a
scientifically and economically sound plan that modifies the
Central and Southern Florida Project to restore, preserve and
protect the South Florida ecosystem. By storing most of the
water currently discharged to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico, ensuring the quality of water discharged into the
South Florida ecosystem from project features, and removing
internal levees and canals in the Everglades, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provides the
roadmap for the recovery of a healthy, sustainable ecosystem
as well as providing for the other water-related needs of the
region, including flood protection, the enhancement of water
supplies, and other objectives served by the Central and
Southern Florida Project.
(5) The comprehensive, system-wide nature of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the linkage of
the elements of the plan to each other must be preserved not
only during the over 25-year period that will be necessary
for its implementation, but for as long as the project
remains authorized. Implementation must proceed in a
programmatic manner using the principles of adaptive
assessment as outlined in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan.
(6) The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan contains
a number of components that will benefit Everglades National
Park, Biscayne National Park, Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, Big Cypress National Preserve, Ten Thousand
Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge by significantly improving the quantity,
quality, timing, and distribution of waste delivered to these
Federal areas. Improved water deliveries will also provide
benefits to federally-listed threatened and endangered
species.
(7) The Congress, the Federal government, and the State of
Florida have, in prior legislation, recognized the need to
restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem,
These on-going efforts are important to the success of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Since the creation
of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in
1993, the Federal government has been working in partnership
with tribal, state, and local governments, the private
sector, and individual citizens to accomplish restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem. It is important for the long-
term restoration of this ecosystem that these efforts,
including the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force,
be continued and strengthened. The state, with its financial
responsibilities for project implementation and capabilities
in the planning, design, construction, and operation of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, must be a full
partner with the Federal government.
(c) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
(1) In general.--Congress hereby approves the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan to modify the Central and
Southern Florida Project to restore, preserve, and protect
the South Florida ecosystem. These changes are necessary in
order to ensure that the Central and Southern Florida Project
as amended provides for the improvement and protection of
water quality in, and the reduction of the loss of fresh
water from, the South Florida ecosystem, as well as providing
for the water related needs of the region, including flood
protection, the enhancement of water supplies, and other
objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida
Project.
(2) Specific authorizations.--
(A) In general.--Those projects included in the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and specified in
paragraphs (B) and (C) are authorized to be carried out by
the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions described in the Central and
Southern Florida Project: Comprehensive Review Study Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated June 22, 1999.
(B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot projects are
authorized for implementation, after review and approval by
the Secretary, at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $34,500,000:
(1) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin ASR ($6,000,000);
(2) Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology ($23,000,000);
(3) L-31N Seepage Management (10,000,000); and,
(4) Wastewater Reuse Technology ($30,000,000).
(C) Other projects.--The following projects are authorized
at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $550,459,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$550,459,000. Prior to implementation of projects (1) through
(10), the Secretary shall review and approve a Project
Implementation Report prepared in accordance with subsection
(g).
(1) C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir ($112,562,000);
(2) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs--Phase
I ($233,408,000);
(3) Site 1 Impoundment ($38,535,000);
(4) Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage Management
($100,335,000);
(5) C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area
($124,837,000);
(6) C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area
($89,146,000);
(7) Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area
($104,027,000);
(8) Raise and Bridge East Portion of Tamiami Trail and Fill
Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3 ($26,946,000);
(9) North New River Improvements ($77,087,000);
(10) C-111 Spreader Canal ($94,035,000); and
(11) Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program (10 years)
($100,000,000).
(d) Additional Program Authority.--In order to expedite
implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, the Secretary is authorized to implement modifications
to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are
consistent with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
and that will produce independent and substantial
restoration, preservation, or protection benefits to the
South Florida ecosystem; provided that the total Federal
cost of each project accomplished under this authority
shall not exceed $35,000,000; and provided further that
the total Federal cost of all the projects accomplished
under this authority shall not exceed $250,000,000. Prior
to implementation of any project authorized under this
subsection, the Secretary shall review and approve a
Project Implementation
[[Page S2754]]
Report prepared in accordance with subsection (g).
(e) Authorization of Future Project Features.--Except for
those projects authorized in subsections (c) and (d), all
future projects included in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan shall require a specific authorization of
Congress. Prior to authorization, the Secretary shall
transmit such projects to Congress along with a Project
Implementation Report prepared in accordance with subsection
(g). Further, such projects, if authorized, shall be
implemented pursuant to subsection (i) of this section.
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
implementing projects authorized under subsections (c), (d),
and (e) shall be 50 percent. The non-Federal sponsor shall be
responsible for all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations and shall be afforded credit toward the non-
Federal share in accordance with paragraph (3)(A). The non-
Federal sponsor may accept Federal funding for the purchase
of the necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way or
relocations, provided that such assistance is credited toward
the Federal share of the cost of the project.
(2) Operation and maintenance.--Notwithstanding section
528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the
non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for sixty percent of
the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and
rehabilitation cost of activities authorized under this
section.
(3) Credit and reimbursement.--
(A) Lands.--Regardless of the date of acquisition, the
value of lands or interests in land acquired by non-Federal
interests for any activity required in this section shall be
included in the total cost of the activity and credited
against the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity.
Such value shall be determined by the Secretary.
(B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including in-
kind credit, to or reimburse the non-Federal project sponsor
for the reasonable cost of any work performed in connection
with a study or activity necessary for the implementation of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan if the
Secretary determines that the work is necessary and the
credit or reimbursement is granted for work completed during
the period of design or implementation pursuant to an
agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
that prescribes the terms and conditions of the credit or
reimbursement.
(C) Audits.--Credit or reimbursement for land or work
granted under this subsection shall be subject to audit by
the Secretary.
(g) Evaluation of Project Features.--
(1) In general.--Prior to implementation of project
features authorized in subsection (c)(2)(C)(1) through
(c)(2)(C)(10) and subsection (d), the Secretary, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, shall, after notice
and opportunity for public comment, complete Project
Implementation Reports to address the project(s) cost
effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and potential
environmental impacts, including National Environmental
Policy Act compliance. The Secretary shall coordinate with
appropriate Federal, tribal, state and local governments
during the development of such reports and shall identify any
additional water that will be made available for the natural
system, existing legal users, and other water related needs
of the region. Further, such reports shall ensure that each
project feature is consistent with the programmatic
regulations issued pursuant to subsection (i).
(2) Project justification.--Notwithstanding section 209 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other
provision of law regarding economic justification, in
carrying out activities authorized in accordance with
subsections (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary may determine
that activities are justified by the environmental benefits
derived by the South Florida ecosystem in general and the
Everglades and Florida Bay in particular; and shall not need
further economic justification if the Secretary determines
that the activities are cost effective.
(h) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals.--
(1) In general.--Socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals and communities make up a large portion of the
South Florida ecosystem and have legitimate interests in the
implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan. Further, such groups have not, in some cases, been
given the opportunity to understand and participate fully in
the development of water resources projects. As provided in
this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that impacts on
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals are
considered during the implementation of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan and that such individuals have
opportunities to review and comment on its implementation.
(2) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
(A) Small business concern.--The term ``small business
concern'' has the meaning such term has under section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
(B) Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.--
The term ``socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals'' has the meaning such term has under section
8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and
relevant subcontracting regulations promulgated pursuant
thereto.
(3) Program for socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals.--The Secretary shall establish a program to
ensure that socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals within the South Florida ecosystem are informed
of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, given the
opportunity to review and comment on each project feature,
provided opportunities to participate as a small business
concern contractor, and given opportunities for employment or
internships in emerging industry sectors.
(4) Contracts to businesses owned by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals.--The Secretary shall
establish a goal that not less than 10 percent of the amounts
made available for construction of projects authorized
pursuant to subsections (c), (d) and (e), shall be expended
with small business concerns owned and controlled by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals within the South
Florida ecosystem.
(i) Assuring Project Benefits.--
(1) In general.--The primary and overarching purpose of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is to restore,
preserve and protect the natural system within the South
Florida ecosystem. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan shall be implemented to ensure the protection of water
quality in, the reduction of the loss of fresh water from,
and the improvement of the environment of the South Florida
ecosystem, while providing for other water-related needs of
the region, including water supply and flood protection. The
Central and Southern Florida Project, as amended by the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, shall be
implemented in a manner that ensures that the benefits to the
natural system and the human environment, including the
proper quantity, quality, timing and distribution of
water, are achieved and maintained for as long as the
Central and Southern Florida Project remains authorized.
When implemented fully, the approximately 68 features of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan will result
in modifications to the existing Central and Southern
Florida Project works that shall provide the water
necessary to restore, preserve and protect the natural
system while providing for other water related needs of
the region. The Secretary shall ensure that both the
natural system and the human environment receive the
benefits intended when such modifications to the Central
and Southern Florida project are made pursuant to the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and previous
Acts of Congress.
(2) Dedication and management of water--
(A) In general.--Consistent with subsection (i)(2)(B), the
Secretary shall dedicate and manage the water made available
from the Central and Southern Florida Project features
authorized, constructed, and operated in accordance with
previous Acts of Congress and this Act authorizing the
implementation of features of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, for the temporal and spatial needs of the
natural system. The needs of the natural system and the human
environment shall be defined in terms of quality, quantity,
timing and distribution of water. In developing the
regulations that provide for the dedication and management of
water for the natural system in accordance with this
subsection, the Secretary shall incorporate rainfall driven
operational criteria and annual fluctuations in rainfall.
(B) Programmatic regulations.--The Secretary shall, after
notice and opportunity for public comment and with the
concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, and in
consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Governor of the State of Florida, issue programmatic
regulations identifying the amount of water to be dedicated
and managed for the natural system from the Central and
Southern Florida Project features authorized, constructed,
and operated in accordance with previous acts of Congress and
this Act through the implementation of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan features. Such regulations shall
be completed within two years of the date of enactment of
this Act. These regulations shall ensure that the natural
system and the human environment receive the benefits
intended, including benefits for the restoration,
preservation, and protection of the natural system, as the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is implemented and
incorporated into the Central and Southern Florida Project
for as long as the project remains authorized. Nothing in
this Act shall prevent the State of Florida from reserving
water for environmental uses under the 1972 Florida Water
Resources Act to the extent consistent with this section.
(C) Project specific regulations.--The Secretary, after
notice and opportunity for public comment, and in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of
Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, other Federal agencies, and the State of Florida
shall develop project feature specific regulations to ensure
that the benefits anticipated from each feature of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are achieved and
maintained as long as the project remains authorized. Each
such regulation shall be consistent with the programmatic
regulations issued pursuant to subsection (i)(2)(B), be based
on the best available science, and ensure that the quantity,
quality, timing, and distribution of water for the natural
system and the human environment anticipated
[[Page S2755]]
in the Comprehensive Plan for each project feature is
achieved and maintained.
(3) Existing water uses.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, including physical or operational
modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project,
does not cause substantial adverse impacts on existing legal
water uses, including annual water deliveries to Everglades
National Park, water for the preservation of fish and
wildlife in the natural system, and other legal uses as of
the date of enactment of this Act. The Secretary shall not
eliminate existing legal sources of water supply, including
those for agricultural water supply, water for Everglades
National Park and the preservation of fish and wildlife,
until new sources of water supply of comparable quantity and
quality are available to replace the water to be lost from
existing sources. Existing authorized levels of flood
protection will be maintained.
(j) Report to Congress.--Beginning on October 1, 2005, and
periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary
and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, in
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Commerce and the State of Florida, shall
jointly submit to Congress a report on the implementation of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Such reports
shall be completed no less than every five years. Such
reports shall include a description of planning, design, and
construction work completed, the amount of funds expended
during the period covered by the report, and the work
anticipated over the next five-year period. In addition, each
report shall include the determination of each Secretary, and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human
environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether
the completed features of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan are being operated in a manner that is
consistent with the programmatic regulations established
under subsection (i)(2)(B).
SEC. 4. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of Public Law 99-662 [100 stat. 4164] is
amended by--
(a) striking ``STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES NEEDS OF RIVER
BASINS AND REGIONS.'' and all that follows, and
(b) inserting in lieu thereof:
``WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to assess
the water resources needs of river basins and watersheds of
the United States. Such assessments shall be undertaken in
cooperation and coordination with the Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other appropriate agencies, and may
include an evaluation of ecosystem protection and
restoration, flood damage reduction, navigation and port
needs, watersheds protection, water supply, and drought
preparedness.
``(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
Federal, Tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental
entities in carrying out the assessments authorized by this
section. In conducting such assessments, the Secretary may
accept contributions of services, materials, supplies and
cash from Federal, Tribal, State, interstate, and local
governmental entities where the Secretary determines that
such contributions will facilitate completion of the
assessments.
``(c) Cost Sharing Requirements.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of an assessment conducted under this section shall
be 25 percent of the cost of such assessment. The non-Federal
sponsor may provide the non-Federal cost-sharing requirement
through the provision cash or services, materials, supplies,
or other in-kind services. In no event shall such credit
exceed the non-Federal required share of costs for the
assessment.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''
SEC. 5. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
(a) General.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate
agencies, carry out a program to provide assistance to non-
Federal interests in the remediation and restoration of
abandoned or idled industrial and commercial sites where such
assistance will improve the quality, conservation, and
sustainable use of the Nation's streams, rivers, lakes,
wetlands, and floodplains. Assistance may be in the form of
site characterizations, planning, design, and construction
projects. To the maximum extent practicable, projects
implemented by the Secretary under this section will be done
in cooperation and coordination with other Federal, Tribal,
State, and local efforts to maximize resources available for
the remediation, restoration, and redevelopment of brownfield
sites.
(b) Justification for Assistance.--Notwithstanding any
economic justification provision or requirement of section
209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 1962-2] or
economic justification provision of any other law, the
Secretary may determine that the assistance projects
authorized by subsection (a),
(1) is justified by the public health and safety, and
environmental benefits; and
(2) shall not need further economic justification if the
Secretary determines that the assistance is cost effective.
(c) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Prior to implementing any assistance
project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a
binding agreement with the non-Federal interest, which shall
require the non-Federal interest to: (a) pay 50 percent of
the total costs of the assistance project; (b) acquire and
place in public ownership for so long as is necessary to
implement and complete the assistance project any lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for
implementation and completion of the assistance project; (c)
pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the
assistance project; and (d) hold and save harmless the United
States free from claims or damages due to implementation of
the assistance project, except for the negligence of the
Government or its contractors.
(2) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
for the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations provided for implementation and completion of
such assistance project. The Secretary also may afford credit
to a non-Federal interest for services, studies, supplies,
and other in-kind consideration where the Secretary
determines that such services, studies, supplies, and other
in-kind consideration will facilitate completion of the
assistance project. In no event shall such credit exceed the
50 percent non-Federal cost-sharing requirement.
(d) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or
otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of
Federal or State law.
(e) Project Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in
Army Civil Works Appropriations funds may be allotted under
this section at any single site.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriate to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
each fiscal year from 2002 through 2005.
(g) Program Evaluation.--Not later than December 31, 2005,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report that discusses the program's performance objectives
and evaluates is effectiveness in achieving them, along with
any recommendations concerning continuation of the program.
SEC. 6. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, in
cooperation with Federally recognized Indian tribes and other
Federal agencies, to study and determine the feasibility of
implementing water resources development projects that will
substantially benefit Indian tribes, and are located
primarily within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
1151, or in proximity to Alaska native villages. Studies
conducted under this authority may address, but are not
limited to, projects for flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration and protection, and preservation of
cultural and natural resources.
(b) Consultation and Coordination.--the Secretary shall
consult with the Secretary of the Interior on studies
conducted under this section in recognition of the unique
role of the Secretary of the Interior regarding trust
responsibilities with Indian tribes, and in recognition of
mutual trust responsibilities. the Secretary shall integrate
Army Civil Works activities with activities of the Department
of the Interior to avoid conflicts, duplications of effort,
or unanticipated adverse effects to Indian tribes, and shall
consider existing authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations regarding implementation of project studied
under this section.
(c) Ability To Pay.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under this section shall be subject to the ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay. The ability of any non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(d) Credits.--For such studies conducted under this
section, the Secretary may afford credit to the tribe for
services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind consideration
where the Secretary determines that such services, studies,
supplies, and other-in-kind consideration will facilitate
completion of the project. In no event shall such credit
exceed the tribe's required share of costs for the study.
(e) Authrorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) of this
section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year, for fiscal years
2002 through 2006. Not more than $1,000,000 in Army Civil
Works appropriations may be allotted under this section for
any one tribe.
(f) Definition.--For the purposes of this section the term
``Indian tribes'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other
organized group of community of Indians, including any Alaska
Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to,
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1601 et seq.] which is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as Indians.
SEC. 7. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of Public Law 99-662 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m), as
amended) is amended by:
(1) Deleting subsection ``(1)'' in its entirety and
inserting in lieu thereof the following language:
[[Page S2756]]
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration or flood control
project, or for construction of an agricultural water supply
project, shall be subject to the ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay.''
(2) Deleting subsection ``(2)'' in its entirety and
inserting in lieu thereof the following language:
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--the ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000; except that such criteria and
procedures shall be revised, and new criteria and procedures
be developed, within 18 months after such date of enactment
to reflect the requirements of paragraph (3) of section
202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 [110
STAT. 3674].''
(3) adding the word ``and'' at the end of subsection
(3)(A)(ii)
(4) Deleting subsection (3)(B) in its entirety.
(5) Deleting subsection (3)(C) in its entirety and
inserting in lieu thereof the following language:
``(B) may consider additional criteria relating to the non-
Federal interest's financial ability to carry out is cost-
sharing responsibilities, or relating to additional
assistance that may be available for other Federal or State
sources.''
SEC. 8. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to implement a
program to reduce vandalism and destruction of property at
water resources development projects under the jurisdiction
of the Department of the Army. In carrying out the program
the Secretary may provide rewards to individuals who provide
information or evidence leading to the arrest and prosecution
of individuals causing damage to Federal property, including
the payment of cash rewards.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $500,000 annually to carry out this
section.
SEC. 9. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding Section 611 of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-
277), the Secretary may participate in the National
Recreation Reservation Service on an interagency basis and-
fund the Department of the Army's share of those activities
required for implementing, operating, and maintaining the
Service.
SEC. 10. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES.
Section 314 of Public Law 101-640 (33 U.S.C. 2321) is
amended by inserting the following language immediately after
the phrase ``commercial activities'': ``where such activities
require specialized training related to hydroelectric power
generation. These activities would be subject to the labor
standards provisions in the Service Contract Act, 41. U.S.C.
351, and to the extent applicable, the Davis-Bacon Act, 40
U.S.C., Sections 276(a)-7.''
SEC. 11. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
Section 234 of Public Law 104-303 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d) by deleting ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting $2,000,000.
SEC. 12. REBURIAL AND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Reburial.--The Secretary is authorized, in consultation
with the appropriate Indian tribes, to identify and set aside
areas at civil works projects managed by the Secretary that
may be used to reinter Native American remains that have been
discovered on project lands, and which have been rightfully
claimed by a lineal descendant or Indian tribe in accordance
with applicable Federal law. The Secretary, in consultation
and in consent with the lineal descendant or the respective
Indian tribe, is authorized to recover and rebury the remains
at such sites at full Federal expense.
(2) Transfer authority.--Notwithstanding any provision of
law, the Secretary is authorized to transfer to the Indian
tribe the land identified by the Secretary in subsection (1)
for use as a cemetery. The Secretary shall retain any
necessary rights-of-way, easements, or other property
interests that the Secretary of the Army determines is
necessary to carry out the authorized project purpose.
(b) Definition.--For the purposes of this section the term
``Indian tribe'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other
organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska
Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to,
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1601 et seq.] which is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as Indians.
SEC. 13. AMENDMENT TO RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT.
33 U.S.C. 401 is amended by adding the following language
at the end of the last sentence: ``The approval required by
this section of the location and plans, or any modification
of plans, for any dam or dike, applies only to any dam or
dike that would completely span a waterway currently used to
transport interstate or foreign commerce, in a manner that
actual, existing interstate or foreign commerce could be
adversely affected. Any other dam or dike proposed to be
built in any other navigable water of the United States shall
be regulated as a structure under 33 U.S.C. 403, and shall
not require approval under this section.''
SEC. 14. STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL COST-SHARING.
(a) Section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 [100 Stat. 4084-4085] is amended by--
(1) striking ``35'' whenever it appears in paragraph (2)
and inserting ``50 in lieu thereof;
(2) deleting the word ``minimum'' in paragraph (2);
(3) adding the following language to paragraph (2)
immediately after the last sentence in that paragraph: The
non-Federal share under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50
percent of the cost of the project assigned to flood control.
The preceding sentence does not modify the requirement of
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.'', and
(4) deleting paragraph (3) and (4) in their entirety.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to any project or separable element thereof with
respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal interest
have not entered into a project cooperation agreement on or
before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 15. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to participate
with the appropriate Federal and State agencies in the
planning and management activities associated with the CALFED
Bay Delta Program, and shall, to the maximum extent
practicable and in accordance with all applicable laws,
integrate the activities of the Army Corps of Engineers in
the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins with the long-
term goals of the CALFED Bay Delta Program.
(b) Cooperative Activities.--In participating in the CALFED
Bay Delta Program as provided for in subsection (a) of this
section, the Secretary is authorized to accept and expend
funds from other Federal agencies and from non-Federal
public, private and non-profit entities to carry out
ecosystem restoration projects and activities associated with
the CALFED Bay Delta Program and may enter into contracts,
cooperative research and development agreements, and
cooperative agreements with Federal and non-Federal private,
public, and non-profit entities in carrying out these
projects and activities.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of the Army to carry out
activities under this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years
from 2002 through 2005.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the area
covered by the CALFED Bay Delta Program is defined as the San
Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and its
watershed (Bay-Delta Estuary) as identified in the Framework
Agreement Between the Governor's Water Policy Council of the
State of California and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate
(Club Fed).
SEC. 16. PROJECT DE-AUTHORIZATIONS.
Section 33 U.S.C. 579a is deleted in its entirety and the
following language inserted in lieu thereof:
``project de-authorizations
``(a) Projects Never Under Construction.--
``(1) The Secretary shall transmit annually to Congress a
list of projects and separable elements of projects that have
been authorized for construction, but for which no
appropriations have been obligated for construction of the
project or separable element during the four consecutive
fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list.
``(2) Any water resources project authorized for
construction, and any separable element of such a project,
shall be de-authorized after the last day of the 7-year
period beginning on the date of the project or separable
element's most recent authorization or reauthorization unless
funds have been obligated for construction of the project or
separable element.
``(b) Projects Where Construction Has Been Suspended.--
``(1) The Secretary shall transmit annually to Congress a
list of projects and separable elements of projects that have
been authorized for construction, and for which funds have
been obligated in the past for construction of the project or
separable element, but for which no appropriations have been
obligated for construction of the project or separable
element during the two consecutive fiscal years preceding the
transmittal of such list.
``(2) Any water resources project, and any separable
element of such a project, for which funds have been
obligated in the past for construction of the project or
separable element, shall be de-authorized if appropriations
specifically identified for construction of the project or
separable element (either in Statute or in the accompanying
legislative report language) have not been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element during any
five subsequent consecutive fiscal years.
``(c) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the
lists under subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall
notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of the
House of Representatives in whose district, the affected
project or separable element would be located.
[[Page S2757]]
``(d) Final De-authorization list.--The Secretary shall
publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all
projects or separable elements de-authorized under
subsections (a) and (b).
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, for non-
structural flood control projects, the phrase `construction
of the project or separable element' means the acquisition of
lands, easements and rights-of-way primarily to relocate
structures, or the performance of physical work under a
construction contract for other non-structural measures. For
environmental protection and restoration projects, it means
the acquisition of lands, easements and rights-of-way
primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetlands or
similar habitats, or the performance of physical work under a
construction contract to modify existing project facilities
or to construct new environmental protection and restoration
measures. For all other water resources projects, it means
the performance of physical work under a construction
contract. In no case shall the term ``physical work under a
construction contract'', as used in this subsection, include
activities related to project planning, engineering and
design, relocation, or the acquisition of lands, easements,
and rights-of-way.
``(f) Effective Date of Provisions.--Subsections (a)(2) and
(b)(2) shall become effective three years after the date of
enactment of this Act.''
SEC. 17. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 [100 Stat. 4133] is amended by--
(1) in subsection (c)(1) by deleting ``Within 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the'' and
inserting ``The'';
(2) by inserting ``that non-Federal interests shall adopt
and enforce'' after the word ``policies'' in the second
sentence in subsection (c)(1); and
(3) by inserting at the end of subsection (c)(1) ``Such
guidelines shall also require non-Federal interests to take
measures to preserve the level of flood protection provided
by the project for which subsection (a) applies.''
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to any project or separable element thereof with
respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal interest
have not entered into a project cooperation agreement on or
before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 18. STUDY OF TRANSFER OF PROJECT LANDS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Study of Transfer.--The Secretary is authorized to
conduct a feasibility study in cooperation with the Secretary
of the Interior, the state of * * * and with the affected
Indian tribes, for the transfer to the Secretary of Interior
the land described in subsection (b) to be held in trust for
the benefit of the respective Indian tribes.
``(b) Lands To Be Studied.--The land authorized to be
studied for transfer is land that--
(1) was acquired by the Secretary for the implementation of
the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program; and
(2) is located within the external boundaries of the
reservations of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort
Berthold Reservation, N.D., the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of
North and South Dakota, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the
Crow Creek Reservation, SD, the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South
Dakota, and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section the
term ``Indian tribe'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other
organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska
Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to,
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1601 et seq.] which is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as Indians.
SEC. 19. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to
participate in Critical Restoration Projects in the area of
the Puget Sound and its adjacent waters, including the
watersheds that drain directly into Puget Sound, Admiralty
Inlet, Hood Canal, Rosario Strait, and the eastern portion of
the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
``(b) Definition.--``Critical Restoration Projects'' are
those projects that will produce, consistent with existing
Federal programs, projects and activities, immediate and
substantial restoration, preservation and ecosystem
protection benefits.
``(c) Project Selection.--The Secretary, with the
concurrence of the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce,
and in consultation with other appropriate Federal, Tribal,
State, and local agencies, may identify critical restoration
projects and may implement those projects after entering into
an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal interest in
accordance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this
section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of the Army to pay the
Federal share of the cost of carrying out projects under this
section $10,000,000.
``(e) Project Cost Limitation.--Not more than $2,500,000 in
Army Civil Works appropriations Federal funds may be
allocated to carrying out any one project under this section.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--Prior to implementing any project under
this section, the Secretary shall enter into a binding
agreement with the non-Federal interest, which shall require
the non-Federal interest to: (a) pay 35 percent of the total
costs of the project; (b) acquire any lands, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal
areas necessary for implementation of the project; (c) pay
100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the
project; and (d) hold and save harmless the United States
free from claims or damages due to implementation of the
assistance project, except for the negligence of the
Government or its contractors.
(2) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
for the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas provided for
implementation and completion of such assistance project. The
non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 percent of the non-
Federal cost-sharing requirement through the provision of
services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
services.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Gorton):
S. 2438. A bill to provide for enhanced safety, public awareness, and
environmental protection in pipeline transportation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the king and tsiorvas pipeline safety improvement act of 2000
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the King and
Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This bill proposes to
reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act, which expires at the end of this
fiscal year (FY), through fiscal year 2003. It is intended to
strengthen and improve both federal and state pipeline safety efforts
and heighten public awareness of pipeline safety. I am pleased to be
joined in sponsoring this bill by Senator Murray and Senator Gorton.
Many of these issues came to the forefront as a result of a tragic
accident that occurred in Bellingham, Washington, last June 10, 1999.
An underground hazardous liquid pipeline ruptured and 277,000 gallons
of gasoline leaked into a creek. Two 10-year-old boys, Wade King and
Stephen Tsiorvas, had been playing by the creek into which the gasoline
flowed. The gasoline was accidently ignited and a massive fire ensued.
Both boys died as a result of their injuries. Another young man, Liam
Wood, was fishing at the creek the same day. He was overcome by the
gasoline fumes, slipped into unconsciousness, and subsequently drowned.
Mr. President, in addition to these needless deaths, the pipeline
accident caused destructive fires and environmental damage for miles.
Since the June accident, many concerned individuals have come forward
and dedicated themselves to finding ways to improve and strengthen the
Department of Transportation pipeline safety program. The Senators from
Washington State have introduced one bill. Other pipeline safety
measures have been introduced in the House. Yesterday, the
Administration submitted its own pipeline safety reauthorization
proposal. These bills contain many provisions I believe merit
Congressional consideration and some of those provisions are included
in the legislation I am introducing today.
It is my intention, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, to chair a full Committee hearing on
Pipeline Safety in the near future. I hope to report a reauthorization
measure to the full Senate before the Memorial Day Recess. In that
effort, I will be seeking input from public safety advocates, the
National Transportation Safety Board, the DOT-Inspector General, the
Department of Transportation, industry and others interested in
promoting pipeline safety.
Mr. President, currently the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within
the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) oversees the
transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the
natural gas transported in the United States. OPS regulates the day-to-
day safety of 2,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.9 million
miles of pipeline, as well as more than 200 hazardous liquid operators
and 165,000 miles of pipelines. Given the immense array of pipelines
that traverse our nation, reauthorization of the pipeline safety
program is, quite simply, critical to public safety.
[[Page S2758]]
The safety record of pipeline transportation is generally quite good.
However, accidents do occur and when they occur, they can be
devastating, as was the case last June.
Last month, the Senate Commerce Committee held a field hearing on
this accident in Bellingham, Washington, and the Committee, as I
mentioned, is committed to moving a reauthorization bill through the
legislative process as soon as possible. We must act to help improve
pipeline safety and prevent tragedies like that which occurred in
Bellingham.
The bill I am introducing includes a number of provisions intended to
strengthen and improve pipeline safety. It also is designed to increase
State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information
sharing at the local community level.
Two areas that warrant DOT's immediate attention, in my view, concern
safety recommendations that have already been issued by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Inspector General (IG). The
Department's responsiveness to NTSB pipeline safety recommendations for
years has been poor at best. While current law requires the Secretary
to respond to NTSB recommendations within 90 days from receipt, there
are no similar requirements at RSPA. The problem is serious, Mr.
President. I am aware of one case in particular where a NTSB
recommendation sat at DOT's pipeline office for more than 900 days
before even a letter so much as acknowledging receipt was sent. Such
blatant disregard for the important work of the NTSB is intolerable.
Therefore, this legislation statutorily requires RSPA and OPS to
respond to each pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the
NTSB and to provide a detailed report on what action it plans to
initiate to adopt the recommendation.
In addition, the bill would require the Department to implement the
recommendations made last month by the IG to further improve pipeline
safety. The DOT IG found several glaring safety gaps at OPS and it is
incumbent upon us all to do all we can to insure that the Department
affirmatively acts on these critical problems.
The bill would also address the issue of training of pipeline
operators. A number of safety interests, including the NTSB, have long
emphasized the need to improve operator training. In recognition that a
one-size-fits-all approach on this issue is not feasible due to the far
different operating and maintenance requirements governing pipeline
operations, this bill would require each operator to submit a training
plan to the Secretary keyed to his or her particular operation. The
Secretary would be expected to review the plans and work with operators
to ensure a consistent safety level is maintained. The bill also
directs the Secretary to issue regulations to ensure periodic
inspections of pipelines and provides authority to the Secretary to
shut down operations which are determined to pose an imminent hazard.
Another critical component of this reauthorization bill focuses on
increased public education efforts, enhanced emergency response
preparedness, and community right to know. It also includes provisions
to increase state oversight of pipeline safety concerns. While some may
prefer to reduce the federal role over pipeline safety and
substantially increase the authority of State regulation, I believe
such an approach would be short-sighted. While the concept of
preemption by states may seem an attractive solution for some pipeline
safety concerns, it is not the best approach. After all, pipelines play
a vital role in both interstate and international commerce. A mishmash
of state laws regarding the construction, maintenance, training, and
operation of pipelines would certainly hamper commerce and would likely
not improve safety. In fact, accident records show that more than 70
percent of pipeline transportation injuries and fatalities have
occurred on intrastate lines, pipelines under the direct responsibility
of the States.
Recently, the U.S. Courts have upheld the need for consistent
standards in interstate and international commerce. However, in the
Courts ruling, they did not restrict the right of the states to take
action altogether. In fact, states already have considerable power to
regulate pipelines and promote safety through the Federal/State
Partnership program. Additionally, the states ability to promulgate
laws regarding ``one call'' can do more to prevent accidents than any
other action. States already play an important role and my bill would
build on that role and permit the states to join the Secretary in
efforts to oversee interstate pipeline transportation and promote
emergency preparedness and accident prevention.
The bill also addresses the need to improve data collection and
analysis. For more than 25 years, the NTSB has identified major
deficiencies and recommended changes to RSPA's pipeline accident data
collection process. This bill would ensure RSPA take the action
necessary to address these identified problems and improve its data
collection and use.
In addition, the bill calls attention to the critical role of
innovative technology in promoting safety. Specifically, the bill
directs the Secretary to focus the department's research and
development programs to address technology that can detect pipe
material defects and alternative pipeline inspection and monitory
technologies that cannot accommodate current technologies. Finally, the
bill would increase funding to carry out pipeline safety and state
grant programs through fiscal year 2003.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues attention to this important
safety issue and look forward to bringing a reauthorization bill to the
full Senate for consideration in the near future.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 2439. A bill to authorize the appropriation of funds for the
construction of the Southeastern Alaska Intertie system, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
southeastern alaska intertie system
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill
with my colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, to provide a tremendously
important authorization for an electrical intertie for an isolated
region of my State of Alaska. As many of my colleagues know, Alaska has
many unique problems. We are over twice the size of Texas, with fewer
miles of paved roads than the District of Columbia. Most of our
communities are unconnected. The results of this are stark for those in
unconnected communities, and have significant impacts on their lives.
Energy costs and reliance upon fossil fuels for power generation are
just some of these impacts.
The vast majority of these towns and villages pay very high energy
costs. In some instances, these costs exceed 38 cents per kilowatt
hour. This makes the cost of living almost unbearable for many local
residents. For example, the village of Kake, Alaska pays 38 cents per
kilowatt hour and has 38 percent unemployment. Unlike in the rest of
the country, when unemployment strikes a particular unconnected
community in Alaska, the option to drive to employment in a neighboring
community does not exist. One either stays in a devastated community or
sells one's home in a market of sellers under duress. With electrical
rates running three times and above those in most of the U.S., few will
invest in these communities.
Mr. President, I refer Members to the latest study of economic
situation in Southeast Alaska. The report deals with the economic
impact of declining timber harvests in Southeast Alaska. This is not
intended to restart the debate over that issue. That is for another
forum. However, what the report vividly describes is the drastic
decline in the economy of this region. In the last decade, known by
most of the country as the greatest boom in the century, Southeast
Alaska has lost 2900 jobs and over $100 million in payroll. Many of
these communities have suffered losses in population. For example, the
Wrangell/Petersburg area has suffered a 13 percent loss in wage and
salary income; my hometown of Ketchikan suffered a similar 12 percent
loss. Personal income is down from 5 to 11 percent in the region
generally. The problem for Southeast Alaska is that it has no viable
option for a replacement industry.
In other areas of the country, such as the Pacific Northwest,
alternative employment such as high tech companies
[[Page S2759]]
in Oregon and Washington have replaced honorable livelihoods in
resource-based industries. There has been no comparable replacement
industry for Southeast Alaska. There are a number of reasons, but the
biggest reason is lack of affordable power for most communities.
Mr. President, in the Pacific Northwest, power costs are reasonable
and the Bonneville Power Administration has an efficient and modern
distribution system. In the lower 48 generally, every village and town
is connected by power grid to the rest of the nation. That is not the
case in Southeast Alaska. This lack of connection exacerbates the
situation.
However, what can be done is to interconnect the region. By doing
this, the existing and potential clean energy sources can be maximized
and the power can be managed between communities and other users. Right
now, one hydroelectric facility, Lake Tyee has tremendous excess
capacity to bring clean and cheaper energy to many villages. This has
been proven in a study conducted by the Southeast Conference. The
Southeast Conference is the group of Mayors representing communities
throughout Southeast Alaska. This study, entitled the Southeast Alaska
Electrical Intertie System Plan, outlines the regional grid which this
bill authorizes.
Mr. President, let me be clear, this is only an authorization. The
bill provides no obligation to the Federal government to be involved in
the construction of this intertie system whatsoever.
The bill also does not authorize nor does it contemplate that the
federal government will exercise any ownership or management
responsibility over this system. In fact, the Southeast communities
which have asked me to introduce this bill seek to manage this project
themselves.
It simply provides an authorization for the Congress to assist the
communities in assemblying funding for the project. There is ample
precedent for this. In fact, this very process was used successfully in
Arizona and Utah with the Central Arizona and Central Utah projects.
The era of the federal government constructing, owning and operating
new power generation facilities has passed. However, the federal
government can provide valuable assistance to a group of communities
which seek to get their region back on the road to economic recovery.
This is a good bill because it encourages local self reliance.
Mr. President, an intertie can do so much to assist this region.
Right now, we have a series of isolated communities which cannot even
work with each other on power issues. Each must provide its own
generation and transmission facilities. And almost all of these
facilities use diesel oil-fired generation because that is the only
type of self-contained transmission facility which these communities
can afford. Instead with an intertie, these generators can be put in
mothballs and used only for isolated emergency backup. The intertie
will provide reliable and clean sources of energy for all these
communities.
I am informed by the communities that they intend to form a state
chartered regional power authority to manage this Intertie. It will
have no federal budgetary obligation. Additionally, the intertie will
help the environment by shifting these small villages from their diesel
generation and pointing them towards clean, renewable fuel sources. All
of these facilities will be subject to all federal, state, and local
laws including environmental laws. Just to make sure that this is
clear, I have included a specific provision in the bill that reaffirms
that this simple authorization will not affect, change, or alter any
obligations under federal laws such as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). All of the facilities will be subject to normal
permitting.
There will undoubtedly be environmental studies required for the
different components. For example, part of phase 1 of the Intertie
includes the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee project which will connect my hometown
of Ketchikan to its neighbors to the north, Wrangell and Petersburg.
The permits for this project are already in place and were issued by
the Forest Service as a result of a laborious 2 year NEPA study. The
Forest Service issued a full Environmental Impact Statement which
resulted in a favorable record of decision. No corners were cut and the
project was approved by the Forest Service and permits issued. This
bill will have no effect on that process. Any other phases will have to
undergo close scrutiny, although I am convinced that connecting
communities together using renewable hydropower will be much better
environmentally than continued reliance on transporting, storing and
burning high-priced diesel.
Mr. President, Alaska was not even a state when the major
transmission systems were built in this country in the 1930's, 1940's
and 1950's. Until World War II compelled the heroic construction of the
Alcan Highway. Alaska was not even connected by road to the rest of the
country. Alaska was never even considered as a candidate for the
construction of a transmission system. Alaska's economic development is
in its infancy even today. A project like the Southeast Regional
Intertie is necessary to give that region of Alaska the opportunity to
recover from the economic disaster outlined in the McDowell report. It
is my intention to have this bill considered by my committee soon and I
hope to report it favorably to the Senate floor in the near future.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Bryan):
S. 2440. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve
airport security; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
airport security improvement act of 2000
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aviation
Security Improvement Act of 2000. I would like to recognize the efforts
of Commerce Committee Chairman McCain and Aviation Subcommittee
Chairman Gorton who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I am
also joined by Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, and Bryan in this effort
to improve the security of the flying public.
Approximately 500 million passengers will pass through U.S. airports
this year. Protecting their safety in an incredible challenge to the
men and women of the aviation industry. The Federal Government, through
the Federal Aviation Administration and Industry together, must do
everything within our power to protect the public from the menace of
terrorism and other security threats.
In 1996, soon after the tragedy of TWA flight 800, I proposed new
requirements to improve security at the nation's airports. Congress
adopted these requirements as part of the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996. This legislation tried to improve the
hiring process and enhance the professionalism of airport security
screeners. The act also directed the FAA to upgrade security technology
with regard to baggage screening and explosive detection.
In my view, the FAA has been slow to implement these vital security
improvements. The FAA does not plan to finalize the regulation to
improve training requirements for screeners and certification for
screening companies until May 2001. Five years is too long to wait.
Technology upgrades have also been slow in coming, even though the
upgraded technology is readily available. The traveling public should
not have to wait yet another year before these improvements are
implemented.
The FAA must modernize its procedure for background checks of
prospective security-related employees. An FAA background check
currently takes 90 days. That is too long. Under current procedures,
the FAA is required to perform these checks only when an applicant has
a gap in employment history of 12 months or longer, or if preliminary
investigation reveals discrepancies in an applicant's resume. But 43%
of violent felons serve an average of only seven months. This gap
should be closed.
My legislation, the Airport Security Improvement Act, would direct
FAA to require criminal background checks for all applicants for
positions with security responsibilities, including security screeners.
The bill will also require that these checks be performed
expeditiously.
My legislation also directs FAA to improve training requirements for
security screeners by September 30 of
[[Page S2760]]
this year. FAA should require a minimum of 40 hours of classroom
instruction and 40 hours of practical on-the-job training before an
individual is deemed qualified to provide security screening services.
This standard would be a substantial increase over the 8 hours of
classroom training currently required for most screening positions in
the U.S. The 40 hour requirement is the prevailing standard in most of
the industrialized world.
Finally, my bill would require FAA to work with air carriers and
airport operators to strengthen procedures to eliminate unauthorized
access to aircraft. Employees who fail to follow access procedures
should be suspended or terminated. I understand that FAA is currently
working on improving access standards. I hope this bill will encourage
them to do so in a timely fashion.
We are privileged to have with us today a distinguished panel of
witnesses who are well-versed in the area of airport security. I want
to welcome them to the hearing and I am looking forward to their
testimony.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator
Hutchison's bill to improve aviation security. Our colleague from Texas
brings unique expertise to this issue as a former member of the
National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank her for her
diligence in this area over the past several years as a member of the
Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee.
Among other things, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000
would make pre-employment criminal background checks mandatory for all
baggage screeners at airports, not just those who have significant gaps
in their employment histories. It would require screeners to undergo
extensive training requirements, since U.S. training standards fall far
short of European standards. The legislation would also seek tighter
enforcement against unauthorized access to airport secure areas.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of adequate training and
competency checks for the folks who check airline baggage for weapons
and bombs. The turnover rate among this workforce is as high as 400
percent at one of the busiest airports in the country! The work is
hard, and the pay is low. Obviously, this legislation does not
establish minimum pay for security screeners. By asking their employers
to invest more substantially in training, however, we hope that they
will also work to ensure a more stable and competent workforce.
Several aviation security experts appeared before the Aviation
Subcommittee at a hearing last week. They raised additional areas of
concern that I expect to address as this bill proceeds through the
legislative process. For instance, government and industry officials
alike agree that the list of ``disqualifying'' crimes that are
uncovered in background checks needs to be expanded. Most of us find it
surprising that an individual convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon, burglary, larceny, or possession of drugs would not be
disqualified from employment as an airport baggage screener.
Fortunately, this bill is not drafted in response to loss of life
resulting from a terrorist incident. Even so, it is clear that even our
most elementary security safeguards may be inadequate, as evidenced by
the loaded gun that a passenger recently discovered in an airplane
lavatory during flight.
I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, as well as experts
in both government and industry circles, to make sure that any
legislative proposal targets resources in the most effective manner. By
and large, security at U.S. airports is good, and airport and airline
efforts clearly have a deterrent effect. What is also clear, however,
is that we cannot relax our efforts as airline travel grows, and
weapons technologies become more sophisticated.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 2441. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
establish a program for fisheries habitat protection, restoration, and
enhancement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
fishable waters act
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Fishable Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln.
This is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of
interests to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based,
locally-led program to improve and restore our fisheries.
Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get
together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will
be eligible for some $350 million federal assistance to implement for
the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change any
existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water Act.
The Fishable Waters Act compliments existing clean water programs
that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of
landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people
at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have
hands-on involvement in its implementation.
It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which
includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the
Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association,
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman
Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These
groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several
years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the
Clean Water Act.
As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this
town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is
too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce
it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits.
A companion bill is being introduced by Congressman John Tanner in
the House. That measure is being cosponsored by Representatives Roy
Blunt, John Dingell, Nancy Johnson, Charles Stenholm, Sherwood
Boehlert, Wayne Gilchrest, Pat Danner, Phil English, Christopher John
and Jim Saxton.
Joining us yesterday for the kickoff were representatives of the
Fisable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who
some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why
am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,''
Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for
fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what
I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.''
This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture
opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It
enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70
percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects
that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for
the benefit of our fisheries and water quality.
Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and
instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for
it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be
eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting
land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the
farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and
their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and
provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to
pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2
million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for
themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need
partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This
legislation recognizes that reality.
While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any
comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around
this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be
the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water
quality.
I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting
this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator
Lincoln
[[Page S2761]]
and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation forward.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page
summary of the bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Fishable Waters Act Bill Summary in Brief
purpose
This legislation begins with the premise that while great
progress has been made in improving water quality under the
Clean Water Act, more opportunities remain. The particular
emphasis on this legislation is on opportunities to address
fisheries habitat and water quality needs.
The findings include that it shall be the policy of the
United States to protect, restore, and enhance fisheries
habitat and related uses through voluntary watershed planning
at the state and local level that leads to sound fisheries
conservation on an overall watershed basis.
To carry out this objective, a new section is added to the
Clean Water Act.
program
The legislation authorizes the establishment of voluntary
and local Watershed Councils to consider the best available
science to plan and implement a program to protect and
restore fisheries habitat with the consent of affected
landowners.
Each comprehensive plan must consider the following
elements: characterization of the watershed in terms of
fisheries habitat; objectives both near- and long-term;
ongoing factors affecting habitat and access; specific
projects that need to be undertaken to improve fisheries
habitat; and any necessary incentives, financial or
otherwise, to facilitate implementation of best management
practices to better deal with non-point source pollution
including sediments impairing waterways.
Projects and measures that can be implemented or
strengthened with the consent of affected landowners to
improve fisheries habitat including stream side vegetation,
instream modifications and structures, modifications to flood
control measures and structures that would improve the
connection of rivers to low-lying backwaters, oxbows, and
tributary mouths.
With the consent of affected landowners, those projects,
initiatives, and restoration measures identified in the
approved plan become eligible for funding through a Fisheries
Habitat Account.
Funds from the Fisheries Habitat Account may be used to
provide up to 15 percent for the non-federal matching
requirement under including the following conservation
programs: The Wetlands Reserve Program; The Environmental
Quality Incentives Program; The National Estuary Program; The
Emergency Conservation Program; The Farmland Protection
Program; The Conservation Reserve Program; The Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program; The North American Wetlands
Conservation Program; The Federal Aid in Sportfish
Restoration Program; The Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine
Ecosystem Restoration Program; The Environmental Management
Program; and The Missouri and Middle Mississippi Enhancement
Project.
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to develop an
urban waters revitalization program ($25m/yr) to improve
fisheries and related recreational activities in urban waters
with priority given to funding projects located in and
benefitting low-income or economically depressed areas.
$250 million is authorized annually through Agriculture for
the planning and implementation of projects contained in
approved plans.
States with approved programs may, if they choose, transfer
up to 20 percent of the funds provided to each state through
the Clean Water Act's $200 million Section 319 non-point
source program to implement planned projects.
Up to $25 million is authorized annually through Interior
for measures to restrict livestock assess to streams and
provide alternative watering opportunities and $50 million is
authorized annually to provide, with the cooperation of
landowners, minimum instream flows and water
quantities.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Missouri, Kit Bond, in introducing the Fishable Waters Act. This bill
is aimed at restoring and maintaining clean water in our Nation's
rivers, lakes, and streams. This bill will provide funding for programs
with a proven track record of conserving land, cleaning up the
environment, and promoting clean and fishable waters. This legislation
takes the right approach to reducing non-point source pollution. It's
voluntary. It's incentive-based. And if encourages public-private
partnerships.
Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to
preserving the unique natural landscape that is Arkansas. We have
towering mountains, rolling foothills, an expansive Delta, countless
pristine rivers and lakes, and a multitude of timber varieties across
our state. From expansive evergreen forests in the South, to the
nation's largest bottomland hardwood forest in the East, as well as one
of this nation's largest remaining hardwood forests across the Northern
one-half of the state, Arkansas has one of the most diverse ecosystems
in the United States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or
run through our timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime
recreation, and countless other uses. We also have numerous outdoor
recreational opportunities and it is vital that we take steps to
protect the environment.
This bill utilizes current programs within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture that have a proven track record of reducing non-point
sources of pollution and promoting clean and fishable water through
voluntary conservation measures. Existing USDA programs like the
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
assist farmers in taking steps towards preserving a quality
environment.
CRP and WRP are so popular with farmers, that they will likely reach
their authorized enrollment cap by the end of 2001. Mr. President,
farmers wouldn't flock to these programs unless there was an inherent
desire to ensure that they conserved and preserved our Nation's water
resources.
Arkansas ranks third in the number of enrolled acres in USDA's
Wetlands Reserve Program because our farmers have recognized the vital
role that wetlands play in preserving a sound ecology.
WRP is so popular in AR that we have over 200 currently pending
applications that we cannot fill because of lack of funding. That's
over 200 farmers that want to voluntarily conserve wetland areas around
rivers, lakes, and streams. We need to fill that void in funding for
these beneficial programs. This bill will help farmers in Arkansas and
across the nation to voluntarily conserve sensitive land areas and
provide buffer strips for runoff areas.
Farmers make their living from the soil and water. They have a vested
interest in ensuring that these resources are protected. I don't
believe that our nation's farmers have been given enough credit for
their efforts to preserve a sound environment.
As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because
I was raised in a seventh generation farm family. I know first hand
that farmers want to protect the viability of their land so they can
pass it on to the next generation. This bill is about more than
agriculture though. It strikes the right balance between our
agricultural industry and another pastime that I feel very strongly
about, hunting and fishing.
Over the years many people have been surprised when they learn that I
am an avid outdoorsman. I grew up in the South where hunting and
fishing are not just hobbies, they're a way of life. My father never
differentiated between taking his son or daughters hunting or fishing,
it was just assumed that we would all take part. For this, I will be
forever grateful because I truly enjoy the outdoors, and the time I
spent hunting and fishing is a big part of who I am today.
We are blessed in Arkansas to have such bountiful outdoor
opportunities. For these opportunities to continue to exist we must
take steps to ensure that our nation's waters are protected. Trout in
Arkansas' Little Red River and mallards in the riverbottoms of the
Mississippi Delta both share a common need of clean water. And that is
what we are ultimately striving for with this legislation: an
effective, voluntary, incentive based plan to provide funding for
programs that promote clean water.
Mr. President, I want to again stress the importance of voluntary
programs.
We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed approach to
regulate our farmers, ranchers, and foresters into environmental
compliance. Trying to force people into a permitting program to reduce
the potential for non-profit runoff may actually discourage responsible
environmental practices.
I agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our nation's impaired
rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe that a permitting
program is not the best solution to the problem of maintaining clean
water. Placing another unnecessary layer of regulation
[[Page S2762]]
upon our nation's local foresters will only slow down the process of
responsible farming and forestry and the implementation of voluntary
Best Management Practices.
Mr. President, this legislation takes the right approach to clean and
fishable waters. It's voluntary. It's incentive-based. And it
encourages public-private partnerships to clean up our Nation's rivers,
lakes, and streams.
I encourage my colleagues to join us in the fight for clean and
fishable waters.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY:
S. 2442. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide long-term,
low-interest loans to apple growers; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
apple orchard diversification act
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Apple Orchard Diversification Act of 2000.
Mr. President, I am proud that Washington state produces more apples
than any other state in the nation. The apple industry is an
independent group. It has made Washington state and U.S. apples and
apple products popular in many corners of the world. In the mid-1990s,
growers were doing well, markets were opening and expanding, and the
future looked bright.
But in 1998 and 1999, the bottom fell out from under them. Low prices
and weather-related disasters devastated apple producers, and growers
of hundreds of other commodities nationwide. In northeastern and mid-
Atlantic states, fruit and vegetable growers were hit hard by freezing
temperatures and drought. In the Pacific Northwest, some growers were
hurt by bad weather.
But the biggest problem is low prices. These low prices are caused by
the Asian financial crisis; by market access problems; by below-cost
apple juice concentrate dumping by China; by record world-wide
production and oversupply; and other factors.
The results are devastating, especially in my home state of
Washington. Nationwide, the industry lost an estimated $300 million on
the 1998 crop. In Okanogan County in Washington state, some
organizations have estimated that 90 percent of apple growers will not
recover their 1999 expenses. Okanogan County already experiences high
unemployment. It cannot afford a long-term, depressed farm economy. The
county declared an economic disaster and urged the state to do the
same. Meanwhile, other counties, especially in north central
Washington, are trying to respond to this disaster. Many growers will
go out of business. Others will not be able to get commercial lending
this year.
The Administration and members of this Congress are working to
resolve some of the issues facing the industry and rural communities.
Last year, Congress passed a large disaster relief package for
agriculture. I supported this package because it kept many producers
above water for another year. However, like many of my colleagues, I
was frustrated this package did not do more for specialty crop
producers. Congress provided $1.2 billion in crop loss assistance.
Specialty crop producers, including apple growers, were eligible to
receive assistance to address weather-related disasters, and some
growers did. But, in states like Washington, the aid package did too
little.
Fortunately, action is occurring on the most important issue facing
the apple industry. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Commerce
levied anti-dumping duties of 51.74 percent on the majority of imports
of below-cost apple juice concentrate from China. The Administration's
preliminary anti-dumping duty ruling in November 1999 helped our
producers by raising the price of both juice apples and concentrate. By
May 22, the U.S. International Trade Commission will make its final
injury ruling. If an injury determination is made, the Administration
will implement anti-dumping duties at the levels prescribed by the
Commerce Department.
Our second victory was to address pest control in abandoned orchards.
During my trip to central Washington last August, I heard from
community leaders that this was a real problem.
Low prices have caused many producers to abandon their orchards, and
some of these orchards became infested. Infested orchards impact the
operations of other producers and create potential trade problems. In
response, counties tore out trees and sprayed orchards. But last year,
funds in many counties were running low.
USDA holds defaulted loans on some of these abandoned orchards. Last
year, I urged the agency to take responsibility for pest control on
those properties. The Farm Service Agency in Washington state created a
strategy for reimbursing counties for pest control In October 1999, I
wrote to Secretary Glickman to urge him to approve FSA's reimbursement
strategy. Shortly thereafter, USDA implemented this initiative so
counties could continue to control pests.
The third victory for apple and specialty crop producers may come
soon, when President Clinton signs risk management reform legislation
into law. The bill passed by the Senate would make major changes to
federal crop insurance policy to ensure that all producers, including
specialty crop growers, will have access to more viable risk management
products.
But more needs to be done. My highest priorities for agriculture
remain investing in research, expanding trade, and providing a safety
net when economic and natural disasters strike.
Last November, I introduced S. 1983, the Agricultural Market Access
and Development Act. My bill would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than the current
$90 million--for the Market Access Program. And it would set a floor of
$35 million for spending on the Foreign Market Development
``Cooperator'' Program. Senators Craig, Boxer, Feinstein, Gordon Smith,
Gorton, Wyden, Cleland, and Coverdell have all cosponsored this
legislation, and I appreciate their support.
The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service has reported that in 1999 we
experienced our first agricultural trade deficit with the European
Union. We imported $7.7 billion of EU agricultural products and
exported $6.8 billion. Our competitors have increased market promotion
spending by 35 percent, or $1 billion, over the past three years. Our
spending, however, has decreased one percent.
Agricultural exports are key to maintaining a reasonable trade
balance. Other nations have invested in market development, and it's
worked. We need to enhance our trade programs to give our producers a
more level playing field and a fighting chance.
Besides expanding trade, we must strengthen the safety net for
producers. We should not go back to our old Federal farm policies. Our
program commodity growers do not want that, and our specialty crop
producers do not want a new, permanent relationship with the federal
government.
But I believe this farm crisis has taught us that we need flexible
tools available for all producers when economic or natural disasters
strike. For some commodities this may mean counter-cyclical payments.
Or it may mean a variety of flexible loans that meet the needs of all
producers or specific commodities. As we debate the next farm bill, we
should give USDA flexibility, within fiscally-responsible guidelines,
to respond to crises in agriculture.
Today, I am introducing legislation to create a one-time Apple
Orchard Diversification Program. I have heard from growers that they
could very much use a loan program to diversify their orchards into
more commercially-viable varieties. Many of our producers invested
heavily in Red and Golden Delicious apples, which are the varieties
hardest hit by the economic crisis. We need a mechanism to allow these
growers to diversify their orchards.
My bill would do just that. It would authorize USDA to provide up to
$75 million in long-term, low-interest loans to apple producers. The
loans could be used by producers to purchase trees for converting
existing apply orchards into more profitable apple varieties.
My bill waives much of the regulatory process. USDA has been
overwhelmed with managing disaster programs, and that has delayed
relief. Instead, my bill bill requires USDA to conduct a stakeholder
process, which
[[Page S2763]]
would include three hearings around the country. The industry would
help develop the program, and address issues such as income and acreage
qualifications for growers who receive loans, and parameters on
payments, acreage and varietal stock quality.
The concept of orchard diversification was born when Under Secretary
Gus Schumacher visited Quincy, Washington, in July 1999. The Under
Secretary has spent a great deal of time in apply producing regions
around the country. Mr. Schumacher has been criticized by some elected
officials and individuals for holding the listening session in
Washington state. But I appreciate, and I know many of our family
farmers appreciate, his interest in these issues.
In conclusion, my grandfather moved to the Tri-Cities in the early
1990s to work for Welch's. As a young child, I remember many trips to
central Washington at harvest time to visit my grandmother, who
remained in the area after my grandfather's death. To this day, the
smell of fresh picked peaches and apples remind me of my childhood. To
my Dad, it meant much more; it meant how his family put food on the
table and paid the mortgage. We grew up understanding how important
family-run orchards were to our state's economy.
As I raised my own family, I always made sure we had a fruit tree in
our yard. I wanted to remind myself of my years growing up and also to
show my kids what a resource we have in our state. I could not imagine
discussing Washington's economy without a box of apples being part of
the picture. I want to make sure it stays that way for many generations
to come.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and help pass this
important legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 2443. A bill to increase immunization funding and provide for
immunization infrastructure and delivery activities; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Reed):
S. 2444. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to require comprehensive health insurance coverage
for childhood immunization; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the state immunization funding and infrastructure act of 2000 and
comprehensive insurance coverage of childhood immunization act of 2000
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as National Immunization Week approaches,
I rise today to introduce legislation addressing childhood
immunizations. National Immunization Week (April 17-21) recognizes one
of the most powerful health care and public health achievements in this
century. Remarkable advances in the science of vaccine development and
widespread immunization efforts have led to a substantial reduction in
the incidence of infectious disease. Today, vaccination coverage is at
record high levels. Smallpox has been eradicated; polio has been
eliminated from the Western Hemisphere; and measles and Hib invasive
disease, the leading cause of childhood meningitis and postnatal
retardation, have been reduced to record lows.
The two bills I introduce today build on these successes. One
proposal, ``The State Immunization Funding and Infrastructure Act of
2000,'' ensures that state and local health departments are adequately
funded to continue successful efforts to immunize children and improve
their ability to reach pockets of underimmunized populations. The
other, ``The Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization
Act of 2000,'' requires all health plans to cover recommended childhood
and adolescent immunizations.
In spite of our successes, we must remain vigilant. Every day, nearly
11,000 infants are born and each baby will need up to 19 doses of
vaccine by age two. New vaccines continue to enter the market. Although
a significant proportion of the general population may be fully
immunized at a given time, coverage rates in the United States are
uneven and life-threatening disease outbreaks do occur. In fact, in
many of the Nation's urban and rural areas, rates are unacceptably low
and are actually declining.
Unfortunately, one of the areas most in need of attention is in my
own home State of Illinois. Childhood immunization coverage rates in
Chicago have dropped each year since 1996 when they peaked at 76
percent. The most recent National Immunization Survey indicates that
Chicago's coverage rate is now 66.7 percent--one of the lowest rates in
the United States. Coverage rates for African American children in
Chicago are the worst in the Nation.
It is notable, however, that during this same period when Chicago has
struggled to improve vaccination rates, Federal financial assistance to
state and local health departments for immunization outreach activities
has been significantly reduced. In 1999, Chicago received a 38 percent
reduction in Federal funds for the operation of their immunization
program. In 2000, Chicago suffered another 37.5 percent reduction. The
State of Illinois suffered a 58 percent reduction in 1999 and a further
16 percent reduction in the year 2000. And the story in my State is not
that different from other areas of the country. Federal support for
vaccine delivery activities has declined by more than 30 percent since
1995.
Purchasing vaccines is not enough. The Section 317 immunization
program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
provides grants to state and local public health departments for
``operations and infrastructure'' activities. These grants are a
critical source of support, indeed the sole source of Federal support,
for essential efforts to get children immunized. They fund immunization
registries, provider education programs, outreach initiatives to
parents, outbreak control, and linkages with other public health and
welfare services. These grants get the vaccine from the warehouse to
our children.
The State Immunization Funding And Infrastructure Act of 2000
authorizes an increase in Federal support for Section 317 grants to
states by $75 million for a total of $214 in FY2001. This restores
funding to the levels States and localities received in the mid-1990's
and will help to stabilize many of the key functions that have been cut
back in the face of steep funding reductions. In the past few years,
many states have already had to reduce clinic hours, cancel contracts
with providers, suspend registry development and implementation, limit
outreach efforts and discontinue performance monitoring. The bill also
provides a $20 million increase over last year's funding level ($10
million over the President's budget) for vaccine purchase. This will
ensure that States are able to purchase adequate amounts of all
currently licensed and recommended vaccines.
The other proposal I am introducing today, The Comprehensive
Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act of 2000, will require
that all health plans cover all immunizations in accordance with the
most recent version of the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These
vaccinations must be provided without deductibles, coinsurance or other
cost-sharing for all children and adolescents under the age of 19.
I was shocked to learn that, according to a recent survey of
employer-sponsored health plans conducted by William M. Mercer, Inc.
and Partnership for Prevention, one out of five employer-sponsored
plans do not cover childhood immunizations and one out of four fail to
cover adolescent immunizations. Not only is this a significant gap in
our health system, but it is simply financially illogical. Childhood
and adolescent immunizations have been proven to save money. They
decrease the direct medical costs due to vaccine-preventable illnesses
and reduce the time parents spend off the job, tending sick children.
I invite my colleagues to join me in these efforts to maintain and
improve our nation's national immunization record and to ensure that
all areas of the country and all populations benefit from the advances
we have made over the last century. Despite remarkable progress, many
challenges still face the U.S. vaccine delivery system. Approximately
one million children are still not adequately immunized. Our
infrastructure must be capable of successfully implementing an
increasingly complex vaccination schedule. Pockets
[[Page S2764]]
of underserved children still leave us vulnerable to deadly disease
outbreaks.
______
By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 2445. A bill to provide community-based economic development
assistance for trade-affected communities; to the Committee on Finance.
assistance development for communities act
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce the Assistance in
Development to Communities Act. This bill addressed the importance--and
need--for community-based, economic development to assist areas in
trade-related, economic transitions.
Despite the increased globalization of our economy, many communities
nationwide are still one-company or one-industry towns. If that company
or industry is adversely affected by trade, the entire community faces
economic strain. When these communities lose a major employer or
industry, they sadly also lose something far more valuable--they lose
their way of life, and too often their strong sense of community.
Currently, when an individual loses a job because of the effects of
trade, the federal government provides Trade Adjustment Assistance or
NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance to help with income support and
worker retraining. But what good is that training without jobs?
While we continue to open new avenues of free trade, the federal
government has an obligation to help trade affected communities attract
good jobs. Unfortunately, prospective employers don't automatically
appear on the community's doorstep. Workers have mortgages, car
payments, health concerns, family obligations and ties to the
community, so relocation isn't always feasible. Local officials must
find a way to lure industries to the area. Yet, they are caught in
vicious cycle--employers are reluctant to move to economically
depressed areas, but without jobs, communities will never recover.
This is an on-going reality in the Martinsville/Henry County region
of Virginia. In January, I spoke with local officials about the steady
stream of job losses they've endured, including the loss of the number
two employer in Martinsville. They've faced double-digit unemployment--
something that's virtually unheard of in this strong economy. They told
me they need help.
This legislation is borne from their ideas. The AID to Communities
bill give local communities the resources they need to implement their
own ideas for attracting new employers--quickly and easily. It does
this by providing an automatic, one-time grant to help affected
communities formulate an economic development plan. This grant, up to
$100,000, gives communities the resources they need to develop a long-
term plan to readjust their economic base. Once that plan has been
developed, the AID to Communities bill establishes a second,
competitive grant program to help affected areas implement their plans.
These grants can be used in a variety of ways, from expanding
commercial infrastructure to establishing small business incubators.
My bill also offers two incentives to attract prospective employers.
The first incentive would expand the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
to provide employers with a tax credit if they hire someone who lives
in an affected community and has lost a job due to trade. My bill would
also make explicit that the New Markets Tax Credit, which provides
incentives for private sector investment and capital access in certain
areas, is available for trade-affected communities.
Finally, the bill makes the federal government a better partner be
creating a one-stop, easily accessible clearinghouse of economic
development information. This clearinghouse would provide access to
cross-agency economic development tools, such as grants or low-interest
loans, for affected communities so local officials don't have to hunt
through each federal agency for the information they need.
Our neighbors in places like Martinsville/Henry County, Virginia are
eager to enjoy the economic prosperity that the rest of the country
enjoys, yet has so far eluded them. The AID to Communities bill is one
way to help. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure
that this bill becomes law and that the people of Martinsville/Henry
County, and in so many other small towns across America, get the help
we owe them.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2446. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
assistance to homeowners and small businesses to repair Formosan
termite damage; to the Committee on Finance.
Formosan Termite Tax Credit
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention
of the Senate a plague that has been afflicted upon our country--
formosan termites. Clearly, any termite is bad news for home and
building owners, but the formosan termite is especially a problem. This
aggressive termite species is becoming even more prevalent than native
termite species in some areas. While native species generally feed on
dead trees and processed wood, formosan termites have an unbelievably
horrific appetite with a diet that consists of anything that contains
wood fiber including homes, buildings and live trees as well as crops
and plants. Believe it or not, formosan termites can even penetrate
plaster, plastic and asphalt to get to a new food source.
Coptotermes formosanus (otherwise known as the formosan termite),
have invaded port cities in the United States and are spreading rapidly
across the rest of the country. Right now this exotic species is
wrecking their special brand of havoc in 14 states including
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Virginia, and Hawaii with their map of destruction growing wider daily.
Experts have estimated that it costs Americans an astonishing $1
billion each year to repair the harm, with each new case costing
homeowners an average of $20,000.
Since the formosan termites was first brought to the United States it
has spread like a plague through the Southeast. The infestation is most
severe in New Orleans, where these pests have caused more damage than,
``tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods combined'' and the total annual
cost of termite damage and treatment is estimated at $217,000,000. In
areas like the famed historic French Quarter, where close-packed houses
share common walls, entire city blocks must be treated--a procedure
that is costly and complicated. Outside the Quarter, officials fear
that infestation may have hit as many as one-third of the beloved live
oaks that shade historic thoroughfares such as St. Charles Avenue. A
voracious blind creature that eats history--it sounds like something
from a science-fiction nightmare, but it's real.
Unfortunately, the only explanation for how this pest came to exist
in the United States is that it was introduced from east Asia in the
1940s through the mishandling of U.S. military cargo and troops
returning home from World War II--I believe that since the government
caused the damage, the government should do something to relieve the
burden.
The bill I am introducing today seeks to provide the victims of
Formosan Termites with some much needed relief. Under current law,
small business owners are allowed to deduct the cost to repair Formosan
Termite damage as a capital loss under IRS code Section 165. For some
reason, individual homeowners have been denied this same right,
although they can deduct the cost to repair damages caused by disasters
which are defined as casualty losses, such as flood and fire. My bill
simply changes the definition of casualty loss to include Formosan
Termites so that homeowners are allowed the same deduction that
business owners are already getting.
This measure also seeks to make low interest loans financed by the
issuance of ``qualified'' private activity tax exempt bonds more
accessible for homeowners and small businesses seeking to repair the
expensive damage which was inflicted upon their homes by formosan
termite damage. It does this by expanding current mortgage revenue bond
provisions to permit homeowners to receive up to a $25,000 home
improvement loan to repair this damage and also allows small businesses
and landlords to use issue revenue bonds to finance loans for this same
purpose. As
[[Page S2765]]
an added incentive, as long as the proceeds are used to purchase tax
exempt bonds to finance the repair of Formosan Termite damage, banks
will be allowed to deduct the interest payments on these loans.
Obviously this legislation will not solve all of the problems
formosan termites have caused. However, I do believe it is a good first
step towards alleviating the burden these pests bring upon homeowners
across the country. I urge everyone to join with me and give the
victims of this plague a little relief. Thank you.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2446
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR LOSSES CAUSED BY
FORMOSAN TERMITE DAMAGE.
(a) Inclusion of Formosan Termite Damage as Casualty
Loss.--Section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to limitation of deduction of losses of
individuals) is amended by inserting ``Formosan termite
damage,'' after ``shipwreck,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 165(h)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining personal casualty
gain) is amended by inserting ``Formosan termite damage,''
after ``shipwreck,''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.
SEC. 2. PROCEEDS OF MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS ALLOWED FOR LOANS
TO HOMEOWNERS TO REPAIR FORMOSAN TERMITE
DAMAGE.
(a) Exception From Income Requirements.--Section 143(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income
requirements) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(7) Exception for qualified home improvement loans.--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any qualified
home improvement loan used for the repair of Formosan termite
damage.''.
(b) Amounts up to $10,000 Used for Termite Repair Not
Included in Calculating Limit for Home Improvement Loan.--
Paragraph (4) of section 143(k) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (defining qualified home improvement loan) is amended
by adding at the end the following flush sentence: ``In
calculating the $15,000 amount, any amount up to $10,000 used
for the repair of Formosan termite damage shall not be taken
into account.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 3. PROCEEDS OF SMALL ISSUE BONDS ALLOWED FOR LOANS TO
LANDLORDS AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO REPAIR
FORMOSAN TERMITE DAMAGE.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 144(a)(12) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to bonds to
finance manufacturing facilities and farm property) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by
striking the period and inserting ``, or'' at the end of
clause (ii), and by adding at the end the following new
clause:
``(iii) any Formosan termite damage repair loan.''.
(b) Definition of Formosan Termite Damage Repair Loan.--
Section 144(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Formosan termite damage repair loan.--For purposes of
this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `Formosan termite damage repair
loan' means the financing of repairs on or in connection with
residential rental property or property used by a small
business by the owner thereof, for damage caused by Formosan
termites.
``(ii) Small businesses covered.--The term `small business'
means, for any taxable year, any corporation or partnership
if the entity meets the $5,000,000 gross receipts test of
section 448(c) for the prior taxable year.''.
(c) Amounts Used in Formosan Termite Repair Not Included in
Calculating Limit on Amount of Bond.--Clause (i) of section
144(a)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to certain capital expenditures not taken into account) is
amended by inserting ``Formosan termite damage,'' after
``storm,''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The heading in section
144(a)(12)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by striking ``and farm property'' and inserting ``farm
property, and formosan termite repair''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXCEPTION FROM VOLUME CAP FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS
USED TO REPAIR FORMOSAN TERMITE DAMAGE.
(a) Exception From Volume Cap.--Section 146(g) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for
certain bonds) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(4) and inserting a comma, and by adding after paragraph (4)
the following new paragraphs:
``(5) any qualified mortgage bond if 95 percent or more of
the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide home
improvement loans for the repair of Formosan termite damage,
and
``(6) any qualified small issue bond if 95 percent or more
of the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide
Formosan termite damage repair loans (as defined in section
144(a)(12)(D)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 5. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN BONDS USED TO REPAIR FORMOSAN
TERMITE DAMAGE FROM RESTRICTIONS ON DEDUCTION
BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR INTEREST.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 265(b)(3)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified tax-exempt
obligations) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subclause (I), by redesignating subclause (II) as subclause
(IV), and by inserting after subclause (I) the following new
subclauses:
``(II) any qualified mortgage bond if 95 percent or more of
the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide home
improvement loans for the repair of Formosan termite damage,
``(III) any qualified small issue bond if 95 percent or
more of the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to
provide Formosan termite damage repair loans (as defined in
section 144(a)(12)(D)), or''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Baucus):
S. 2447. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make competitive
grants to establish National Centers for Distance Working to provide
assistance to individuals in rural communities to support the use of
teleworking in information technology fields; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
telework act of 2000
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and
Senators Daschle and Baucus to introduce the Rural Telework Act of
2000, a bill that is designed to make information technology (IT)
industries a part of diverse, sustainable rural economies while helping
IT employers find skilled workers. The goal of this bill is to link
unemployed and underemployed individuals in rural areas and on Indian
reservations with jobs in the IT industry through telework.
We are in the midst of an information revolution which has the
potential to be every bit as significant to our society and economy as
the industrial revolution two hundred years ago. But in recent months
there has been much discussion of the ``digital divide,'' the idea that
one America is not able to take advantage of the promise of new
technologies to change the way we learn, live, and work while the other
America speeds forward into the 21st Century. As advanced
telecommunications and informaiton technology become the new engines of
our economy, it is critical that all no communities are left behind.
Many rural communities and Indian reservations are already facing
severe unemployment underemployment, and population loss due to a lack
of economic opportunities. A study last year by the Center for Rural
Affairs reports that widespread poverty exists in agriculturally based
counties in a six-state region including Minnesota. Over one-third of
households in farm counties have annual income less than $15,000 and,
in every year from 1988 to 1997, earnings in farm counties
significantly trailed other counties. Unemployment on many Indian
reservations exceed 50% and remote locations make traditional
industries uncertain agents for economic development.
There are troubles ahead for the new economy as well: the information
technology industry reports that it faces a dramatic shortage of
skilled workers. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security projects
that over the next decade, almost 8,800 workers will be needed each
year to fill position openings in specific IT occupations.
Approximately 1,000 students graduate each year from IT-related post-
secondary programs in Minnesota, not anywhere near enough to fill the
demand, according to this same state agency. This shortage is reflected
nation wide, with industry projecting
[[Page S2766]]
shortfalls of several hundred of thousand IT workers per year in coming
years.
Rural workers need jobs. High tech employers need workers. This
legislation would create models of how to bring these communities
together to find a common solution to these separate challenges.
The Rural Telework Act of 2000 would authorize the Department of
Agriculture to make competitive grants to qualified organizations to
implement five year projects to train, connect, and broker employment
in the private sector, through telework, a population of rural workers
in their community. A grant recipient would be desgnated as a National
Center for Distance Working. The National Centers for Distance Working,
located in rural areas, are intended to be locally developed and
implemented national models of how telework relationships can meet the
needs of rural communities for new economic opportunities and the need
of IT intensive industries for new workers.
Mr. President, telework is a new term that may be unfamiliar to
colleagues so I want to take a moment to explain what it is. According
to the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), telework
is defined as using information and communications technologies to
perform work away from the traditional work site typically used by the
employer. For example, a person who works at home and transmits his or
her work product back to the office via a modern is a teleworker, also
known as a telecommuter; as is someone who works from a telework
center, which is a place where many teleworkers work from--often for
different companies.
The nature of IT jobs allow them to be performed away from a
traditional work site. As long as workers have the required training,
and a means of performing work activities over a distance--through the
use of advanced telecommunications--there is no reason that skilled IT
jobs cannot be filled from rural communities.
Because it essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a
promising tool for rural development and for making rural and
reservation economies sustainable. Very soon, a firm located in another
city, another state or even another country need not be viewed as a
distant opportunity for rural residents, but as a potential employer
only as far away as a home computer or telework center. Likewise,
telework arrangements allow employers to draw from a national labor
pool without the hassles and cost associated with relocation.
Many businesses and organizations are already using telework or
telecommuting as a tool to reduce travel and commuting times and to
accommodate the needs and schedules of employees. Many metropolitan
communities with high concentrations of IT industries are already
looking to telework as a means of addressing urban and suburban ills
such as housing shortages, traffic congestion, and pollution.
However, the IT industry does not currently view rural America as a
potential source of skilled employees. Nor do many rural communities
know how to turn IT industries into a viable source of good jobs to
revitalize local economies. Moreover, many rural community leaders fear
that providing IT job skills to rural residents--when there are no
opportunities for using those skills in the community--will lead to
further population losses as retrained workers seek opportunities in
metropolitan areas. At the same time, management of off-site employees
requires new practices to be developed by employers and in some cases,
dramatic paradigm shifts. Rural areas and Indian reservations are in
danger of being left behind by a revolution which actually holds the
most promise for those communities which are the most distant. IT
employers risk missing a pool of potential employees with a strong work
ethic.
Establishment of a National Center for Distance Working in a rural
community or Indian reservation will give that community access to
federal resources to implement a locally designed proposal to employ
rural residents in IT jobs through telework relationships, linking
prospective employers with rural residents. Successful National Centers
for Distance Work would be locally developed and implemented national
models for how telework can be used as a tool for rural development.
The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS) would
administer the program which would have a $11 million annual
authorization level. At least $10 million of authorized funds would be
used for the purpose of making competitive grants to establish National
Centers for Distance Working.
Grant money made available under the program would be highly
flexible, and would need to be leveraged with private, local and state
resources. For example, they could be used to provide or enhance the
quality of: IT skills training and education, technology and
telecommunications, promotion of teleworking, brokering employment for
rural IT workers, and other necessary elements to establish IT work
opportunities in that rural community.
The funds are not intended to duplicate existing federal training and
connectivity programs. Nor is it intended that Centers use these funds
to supplant existing telecommunications providers who offer appropriate
services to make telework a reality in rural communities. Rather, the
federal investment is targeted to augment these existing sources of
funding and allow rural communities to fill in the gaps in existing
public and private resources and services. Prospective grant recipients
would need to form partnerships with local, state, and private
entities, including potential employers.
The grants made available under this program would not be sufficient
to cover the full cost of training, connecting, and employing rural
workers, but are intended to be ``seed money'' leveraged with dollars
from other sources. Grant recipients would be required to match the
funds provided under this program with funds from non-federal sources.
Finally, up to $1 million of the $11 million could be used by RUS to
make grants for the purpose of promoting the development of teleworking
in rural areas by making grants to entities to conduct research on
economics, operational, social, and policy issues related to
teleworking in rural areas, including the development of best practices
for businesses that employ teleworkers.
The necessary vision of how to make telework a reality already exists
in some employers and in some rural communities. In Sebeka, Minnesota--
a town with a population of little more than 600 people--a small firm
called Cross Consulting was founded. That company employs over 20
people through a contract with Northwest Airlines to provide do
programming on Northwest's mainframe computers. These people are rural
teleworkers. The new economy is not leaving Sebeka behind and we need
to incubate that kind of innovation in rural areas and Indian
reservations across the country.
Mr. President, for many jobs, in many industries, telework may be the
future of work. It may also be the future of diverse, sustainable rural
economies. This legislation offers an early opportunity to invest in
local innovation to harness this potential.
Mr. President, 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. 2447
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 ``Rural Telework Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) many rural communities and Indian reservations have not
benefited from the historic economic expansion in recent
years, and high levels of unemployment and underemployment
persist in the rural communities and reservations;
(2) many economic opportunities, especially in information
technology fields, are located away from many rural
communities and reservations;
(3) the United States has a significant and growing need
for skilled information technology workers;
(4) unemployed and underemployed rural employees represent
a potential workforce to fill information technology jobs;
(5) teleworking allows rural employees to perform skill
intensive information technology jobs from their communities
for firms located outside rural communities; and
(6) employing a rural teleworkforce in information
technology fields will require--
[[Page S2767]]
(A) employers that are willing to hire rural residents or
contract for work to be performed in rural communities;
(B) recruitment and training of rural residents appropriate
for work in information technology fields;
(C) means of connecting employers with employees through
advanced telecommunications services; and
(D) innovative approaches and collaborative models to
create rural technology business opportunities and facilitate
the employment of rural individuals.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make
competitive grants to establish National Centers for Distance
Working in rural areas to provide assistance to individuals
in rural communities to support the use of teleworking in
information technology fields;
(2) to promote teleworking arrangements, small electronic
business development, and creation of information technology
jobs in rural areas for the purpose of creating sustainable
economic opportunities in rural communities;
(3) to promote the practice of teleworking to information
technology jobs among rural, urban, and suburban residents,
Indian tribes, job training and workforce development
providers, educators, and employers;
(4) to meet the needs of information technology and other
industries for skilled employees by accelerating the training
and hiring of rural employees to fill existing and future
jobs from rural communities and Indian reservations;
(5) to promote teleworking and small electronic business as
sustainable income sources for rural communities and Indian
tribes; and
(6) to study, collect information, and develop best
practices for rural teleworking employment practices.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL CENTERS FOR DISTANCE WORKING PROGRAM.
Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 376. NATIONAL CENTERS FOR DISTANCE WORKING PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Center.--The term `Center' means a National Center
for Distance Working established under subsection (b) that
receives a grant under this section.
``(2) Eligible organization.--The term `eligible
organization' means a nonprofit entity, an educational
institution, a tribal government, or any other organization
that meets the requirements of this section and such other
requirements as are established by the Secretary.
``(3) Information technology.--The term `information
technology' means any equipment, or interconnected system or
subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic
acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement,
control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or
reception of data or information, including a computer,
ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar
procedures, services (including support services), and
related resources.
``(4) Rural area.--The terms `rural' and `rural area' have
the meaning given the terms in section 381A.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary,
acting through the Administrator of the Rural Utility
Service.
``(6) Teleworking.--The term `teleworking' means the use of
telecommunications to perform work functions over a distance
and to reduce or eliminate the need to perform work at a
traditional worksite.
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a National
Centers for Distance Working Program under which the
Secretary shall make competitive grants to eligible
organizations to pay the Federal share of the cost of
establishing National Centers for Distance Working in rural
areas to conduct projects in accordance with subsection (c).
``(2) Eligible organization.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria that an organization must meet to be eligible to
receive a grant under this section.
``(c) Projects.--A Center shall use a grant received under
this section to conduct a 5-year project--
``(1) to provide training, referral, assessment, and
employment-related services and assistance to individuals in
rural communities and Indian tribes to support the use of
teleworking in information technology fields, including
services and assistance related to high technology training,
telecommunications infrastructure, capital equipment, job
placement services, and other means of promoting teleworking;
``(2) to identify skills that are needed by the business
community and that will enable trainees to secure employment
after the completion of training;
``(3) to recruit employers for rural individuals and
residents of Indian reservations;
``(4) to provide for high-speed communications between the
individuals in the targeted rural community or reservation
and employers that carry out information technology work that
is suitable for teleworking;
``(5) to provide for access to or ownership of the
facilities, hardware, software, and other equipment necessary
to perform information technology jobs; and
``(6) to perform such other functions as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
``(d) Eligibility Criteria.--
``(1) Application and plan.--As a condition of receiving a
grant under this section for use with respect to a rural
area, an organization shall submit to the Secretary, and
obtain the approval of the Secretary of, an application and
5-year plan for the use of the grant to carry out a project
described in subsection (c), including a description of--
``(A) the businesses and employers that will provide
employment opportunities in the rural area;
``(B) fundraising strategies;
``(C) training and training delivery methods to be
employed;
``(D) the rural community of individuals to be targeted to
receive assistance;
``(E) any support from State and local governments and
other non-Federal sources; and
``(F) outreach activities to be carried out to reach
potential information technology employers.
``(2) Non-federal share.--
``(A) In general.--As a condition of receiving a grant
under this section, an organization shall agree to obtain,
after the application of the organization has been approved
and notice of award has been issued, contributions from non-
Federal sources that are equal to--
``(i) during each of the first, second, and third years of
a project, 1 non-Federal dollar for each 2 Federal dollars
provided under the grant; and
``(ii) during each of the fourth and fifth years of the
project, 1 non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar
provided under the grant.
``(B) Indian tribes.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an
Indian tribe may use Federal funds made available to the
tribe for self-governance to pay the non-Federal
contributions required under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Form.--The non-Federal contributions required under
subparagraph (A) may be in the form of in-kind contributions,
including office equipment, office space, and services.
``(e) Selection Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) establish criteria for the selection of eligible
organizations to receive grants under this section; and
``(B) evaluate, rank, and select eligible organizations on
the basis of the selection criteria.
``(2) Factors.--The selection criteria established under
paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) the experience of the eligible organization in
conducting programs or ongoing efforts designed to improve or
upgrade the skills of rural employees or members of Indian
tribes;
``(B) the ability of the eligible organization to initiate
a project within a minimum period of time;
``(C) the ability and experience of the eligible
organization in providing training to rural individuals who
are economically disadvantaged or who face significant
barriers to employment;
``(D) the ability and experience of the eligible
organization in conducting information technology skill
training;
``(E) the degree to which the eligible organization has
entered into partnerships or contracts with local, tribal,
and State governments, community-based organizations, and
prospective employers to provide training, employment, and
supportive services;
``(F) the ability and experience of the eligible
organization in providing job placement for rural employees
with employers that are suitable for teleworking;
``(G) the computer and telecommunications equipment that
the eligible organization has or expects to possess or use
under contract on initiation of the project; and
``(H) the means the applicant proposes, such as high-speed
Internet access, to allow communication between rural
employees and employers.
``(3) Publication.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) publish the selection criteria established under this
subsection in the Federal Register; and
``(B) include a description of the selection criteria in
any solicitation for applications for grants made by the
Secretary.
``(f) Studies of Teleworking.--
``(1) In general.--To promote the development of
teleworking in rural areas, the Secretary may make grants to
entities to conduct research on economic, operational,
social, and policy issues relating to teleworking in rural
areas, including the development of best practices for
businesses that employ teleworkers.
``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$1,000,000 of funds made available for a fiscal year under
subsection (g) to carry out this subsection.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $11,000,000 for
each fiscal year.''.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK:
S. 2449. A bill to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the
sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States
and countries around the world through prevention, prosecution, and
enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and assistance
to victims of trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
[[Page S2768]]
The International Anti-Trafficking Act of 2000
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation
entitled the International Anti-Trafficking Act of 2000 which combats
the insidious practice of trafficking of persons worldwide.
As we begin the 21st Century, the degrading institution of slavery
continues throughout the world. Sex trafficking is a modern day form of
slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery in the world
today.
Every year, approximately 1 million women and children are forced
into the sex trade against their will, internationally. They are
usually transported across international borders so as to ``shake''
local authorities, leaving the victims defenseless in a foreign
country, virtually held hostage in a strange land. It is estimated that
at least 50,000 women and children are brought into the United States
annually, for this purpose. The numbers are staggering, and growing
rapidly. Some report that over 30 million women and children have been
enslaved in this manner since the 1970's. I believe this is one of the
most shocking and rampant human rights abuses worldwide.
One of two methods, fraud or force, is used to obtain victims. The
most common method, ``fraud,'' is used with villagers in under-
developed areas. Typically the ``buyer'' promises the parents that he
is taking their young daughter to the city to become a nanny or
domestic servant, giving the parents a few hundred dollars as a ``down
payment'' for the future money she will earn for the family. Then the
girl is transported across international borders, deposited in a
brothel and forced into the trade, until she is no longer useful
(becoming sick with AIDS). She is held against her will under the
rationale that she must ``work off'' her debt which was paid to the
parents, which typically takes several years. The second method used
for obtaining victims is ``force'' which is used in the cities, where a
girl is physically abducted, beaten, and held against her will,
sometimes in chains. The routes are specific and definable, and include
Burma to Thailand, Eastern Europe to the Middle East, and Nepal to
India, among numerous other routes, through which victims of this
practice are channeled.
Presently, no comprehensive legislation has been adopted, yet, which
holistically challenges the practice of trafficking and assists the
victims. I am introducing this legislation, the International Anti-
Trafficking Act of 2000, today as a companion to the legislation
introduced by Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Sam Gejdenson,
known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244).
Senator Wellstone has also introduced legislation which closely mirrors
the Smith-Gejdenson bill. Our primary difference is the methods for
enforcement. Unless the President implements one of the broad waivers
granted to him in this legislation, non-humanitarian, non-trade foreign
assistance (listed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) to
countries will be suspended if countries fail to meet the minimum
standard to stop the flow of traffickers in their own countries. Please
note that there is an extremely broad national interest waiver
provision granted to the President which allows him to exempt any and
all programs, as well as an additional waiver which allows the
President to guard against any adverse effect on vulnerable victims of
trafficking, including women and children.
This bill presents a comprehensive scheme to ``penalize the full
range of offenses'' involved in elaborate trafficking networks. It also
provides a doorway of freedom for those who are presently enslaved
throughout the world and promotes their recovery in civil society. Some
of the provisions include: establishment of an Interagency Task Force
to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, enhanced reporting by the State
Department on this practice, protection and assistance for victims of
trafficking, changes in immigration status allowing victims to stay to
testify in prosecutions, strengthens prosecution and punishment of
traffickers, among other provisions.
In short, we believe it's time to challenge this evil slavery
practice known as trafficking, and I believe this legislation is a
first step to gaining freedom for those who are presently bound.
______
By Mr. COVERDELL:
S. 2452. A bill to reduce the reading deficit in the United States by
applying the findings of scientific research in reading instruction to
all students who are learning to read the English language and to amend
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve literacy
through family literacy projects and to reauthorize the inexpensive
book distribution program; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
READING DEFICIT ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, America has a reading deficit!
According to the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), 41 million
adults are unable to perform even the simplest literacy tasks. The most
recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) conducted in
1998 continues to show that almost 70 percent of 4th grade students
cannot read at a proficient level. Even worse, 40 percent of those 4th
graders could not read at even a basic level for their grade.
In short, Mr. President, unless we treat this situation as the
national emergency that it is--and soon--the next decade will see an
astonishing 70 percent of our 4th grade students joining the ranks of
those 41 million American adults who are unable to perform simple
literacy tasks.
The ability to read the English language with fluency and
comprehension is essential if individuals, old and young, are to reach
their full potential in any field of endeavor. As the saying goes,
``reading is fundamental.''
And the statistics bear that out as well. Workers who lack a high
school diploma earn a mean monthly income of $452, compared to $1,829
for those with a bachelor's degree. Forty three percent of people with
the lowest literacy skills live in poverty, 17 percent receive food
stamps, and 70 percent have no job or a part-time job.
And make no mistake that the nation itself and not just individuals
will suffer. If our children are not taught to read, who will man our
high tech defenses or fill the high tech jobs in America's future?
Compounding these astounding statistics, Mr. President, the 1998 NAEP
also found that minority students on average continue to lag far behind
in reading proficiency, even though many of them are in Title I
programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or participated
in Head Start programs.
Clearly, throwing taxpayer money at the problem does not work. Our
children's reading scores continue to decline or remain stagnant, even
though Congress has spent more than $120 million over the past 30 years
for academic enrichment programs under Title I and other federal
efforts ostensibly with the primary purpose of improving reading skills
among disadvantaged children.
It should also be pointed out that more than half of the students
being placed in the special learning disabilities category of our
Special Education programs are there in large part because they have
not learned to read. The national cost of special education at the
federal, state, and local levels now exceeds $60 billion each year. The
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development says that 90-
95 percent of these students could learn to read and be returned to
their regular classrooms if they were given instruction using
scientifically based reading principles. This would result in over $12
billion in savings nationwide every year by eliminating the need for
special education for these children.
In response to these disturbing national statistics concerning the
inability of so many children to read, I worked with Representative
Bill Goodling--Chairman of the Education Committee in the House of
Representatives--to develop the Reading Deficit Elimination Act of
2000, which I am introducing today.
By providing funds for teacher training, textbook and curriculum
purchases, student assessments, teacher bonuses, and tuition assistance
grants to parents, this legislation offers the States a helping hand in
teaching students nationwide to read. Unlike the unfunded mandates that
have failed in the past, this legislation will give states and
communities funds to institute reading instruction based on years
[[Page S2769]]
of federally sponsored research, giving them the ability and the
flexibility to help our children succeed.
The National Reading Panel--requested by Congress and created by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development--released its
report just this morning on scientifically-based reading instruction
and research in a hearing of the Senate's Labor/HHS Appropriations
Subcommittee chaired by Senator Cochran.
The report clearly articulates the most effective approaches to
teaching children to read, the status of the research on reading,
reading instruction practices that are ready to be used by teachers in
classrooms around the country, and a plan to rapidly disseminate the
findings to teachers and parents. The report also constitutes the most
comprehensive review of existing reading research to be undertaken in
American education history. Panel members identified more than 100,000
research studies completed since 1966, developed and submitted them to
rigorous criteria for their review.
A major finding of the report was that systematic phonics instruction
is one of the necessary components of a total reading program.
Similarly, the NRP also found that the sequence of reading instruction
that obtains maximum benefits for students should include instruction
in phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, reading fluency, spelling,
writing and reading comprehension strategies. We must use the knowledge
of reading skills and the principles for teaching reading skills gained
from these studies from the government and the private sector to reduce
the number of individuals and students who cannot read.
The programs and provisions in the Reading Deficit Elimination Act of
2000 are based on these finding by the National Reading Panel.
Mr. President, Frederick Douglass, arguably the most influential
African American of the nineteenth century said, ``Once you learn to
read, you will be forever free.'' Douglass knew the importance of
freedom, and he knew the importance of literacy. The ability to read
the English language with fluency and comprehension is essential if
individuals are to reach their full potential in any endeavor. Again,
as the saying goes: ``Reading is fundamental.'' No one should be left
behind because they can't read. We must not limit the success of the
next generation by allowing them to continue down the path of
illiteracy. We must teach them to read and give them this fundamental
tool they need to succeed in life as well as in school.
______
By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
S. 2454. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to authorize
low-power television stations to provide digital data services to
subscribers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BURNS. 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. 2454
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROVISION OF DIGITAL DATA SERVICES BY LOW-POWER
TELEVISION STATIONS.
Section 336 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
336) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) LPTV Provision of Digital Data Services.--
``(1) In general.--A low-power television station may
utilize its authorized spectrum to provide digital data
services to the public by subscription.
``(2) Notice required.--Before providing such services
under paragraph (1), a low-power television station shall
provide notice to the Commission in such form and at such
time as the Commission may require.
``(3) Protection from interference.--The Commission may not
authorize any new service, television broadcast station, or
modification of any existing authority that would result in
the displacement of, or predicted interference with, a low-
power television station providing such services.
``(4) Protection of television signals.--The Commission
shall prevent interference with television signal reception
from low-power television stations providing such services.
``(5) Digital data service defined.--In this subsection,
the term `digital data service' includes--
``(A) digitally-based interactive broadcast service; and
``(B) wireless Internet access, without regard to whether
such access is--
``(i) provided on a one-way or a two-way basis;
``(ii) portable or fixed; or
``(iii) connected to the Internet via a band allocated to
Interactive Video and Data Service, and
without regard to the technology employed in delivering such
service, including the delivery of such service via multiple
transmitters at multiple locations.''.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bunning,
Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Enzi, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Frist, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Grams, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr.
McCain, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr.
Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr.
Warner):
S. 2453. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on
behalf of Congress to Pope John Paul II in recognition of his
outstanding and enduring contributions to humanity, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
congressional gold medal for pope john paul ii
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II.
Mr. President, Pope John Paul II is the most recognized person in the
world, having personally visited tens of millions, in almost every
continent and country. He has been one of the greatest pastoral leaders
of this century, fearlessly guiding the Catholic Church into the new
millennium. Due to his tremendous faith and leadership he was elected
bishop at a very early age, and elected to the papacy on October 16,
1978, at the age of 58.
Though many people see the Pope as an important statesman, diplomat,
and political figure, Pope John Paul II is much more than that. As
spiritual leader to the world's 1 billion Catholics, the Pope has
commenced a great dialog with modern culture, one that transcends the
boundaries of political or economic ideology.
As have his predecessors of happy memory, he stands boldly as an ever
vigilant sign of contradiction to a culture that is darkened by the
clouds of death. In the face of this mounting storm, he has tirelessly
proclaimed the need for a culture of life.
In what is now one of the Pope's most famous encyclicals, and the one
which he regards to be the most significant of this pontificate,
Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life), the argues powerfully for an
increased respect for all human life:
Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and
with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the
name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the
genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: ``Whatever is
opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide,
abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever
violates the integrity of the human person, such as
mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to
coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such
as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment,
deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and
children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where
people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as
free and responsible persons; all these things and others
like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and
they do more harm to those who practice them than to those
who
[[Page S2770]]
suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor
to the Creator.''
That is from the Pope's Evangelium.
Mr. President, the urgency of this message--the Pope's message--
becomes more acute by the day; particularly at the beginning of the new
millennium.
The Pope, having witnessed first-hand the brutal inhumanity of Nazi
and Communist regimes, understands, in a way few of us can appreciate,
the true dignity of each and every human being. He is a crusader
against the offenses against human dignity that have transpired in the
20th century. More than any other single person this century, Pope John
Paul II has worked to protect the rights of each individual.
As well, John Paul II has addressed almost every major question posed
by the modern mind at the turn of the millennium.
As noted by the biographer of the Pope, George Weigel, the Pope has
provided answers to the questions and desires facing today's world: The
human yearning for the sacred, the meaning of freedom, the quest for a
new world order, the nature of good and evil, the moral challenge of
prosperity, and the imperative of human solidarity in the emerging
global civilization. Through his teaching, the Pope has brought the
timeless principles of truth contained in the gospel into
active conversation with contemporary life and thought. The Pope has
started a peaceful dialogue between ideas of the modern world and the
age-old truths contained in the Gospel message.
One of the gospel messages emphasized by the Pope is the need for
forgiveness and reconciliation with God, and with our sisters and
brothers. A week before his historic personal pilgrimage to the Holy
Land the Pope asked forgiveness from God on behalf of Christians who
were inactive, or who were not active enough in opposing the forces of
evil that have ravaged humanity during the past century.
This apology preceded his recent personal pilgrimage to the Holy
Land; a pilgrimage in which the Pope opened up yet another dialog--this
time with the people of the Middle East--a region ripped apart by
centuries old conflict, bitterness, and war. Again, in the Holy Land,
he empathized with those who suffered under the tyranny of the Nazi
regime. The Pope highlighted during his trip, and he has on other
occasions, his deep compassion for those who suffered under the
brutality of Hitler's Germany and their genocidal war.
In the midst of the conflict in the Holy Land, the Pope again shone
through as a beacon of light and peace as he proclaimed yet again to
the people of the Middle East and the World, the universal calls to
holiness.
As the New York Times so eloquently noted after the Pope's visit to
Jerusalem's Yad Vashem:
John Paul has done more than any modern pope to end the
estrangement between Catholics and Jews. He was the first
pope to pray in a synagogue, the first to acknowledge the
failure of individual Catholics to deter the Holocaust and
the first to call anti-Semitism a sin ``against God and
man.''
There is a valedictory quality to the Pope's actions and
travels as the church approaches its third millennium. He
seems determined to trace the birth of Christianity in this
epochal year, to right the wrongs of the church and to bring
a spirit of conciliation to the Middle East. Not long ago he
went to Egypt and visited Mount Sinai, where Moses received
God's law. This week he stood atop Mount Nebo in Jordan and
looked across the Promised Land. He prayed in silence near
the places where Jesus was born and baptized. Most people as
infirm as John Paul would not dare make such strenuous trips.
But he seems to be a man on a mission, and the world is
better for it.
That was from the New York Times.
He is indeed a man on a mission. His message was peacefully conveyed
in the Middle East to peoples with whom he has obvious deep religious
differences. His serenity in the midst of such turmoil, as well as his
obvious love for all people should be a model for us all as we
encounter people in our daily life with whom we radically disagree, or
with whom we have had a difficult relationship.
His epoch journey to the Holy Land will be remembered by history.
And, I have no doubt that his presence there will leave a lasting
impression, and I hope that it will work to bring about true peace as
well.
His trip to the Middle East is just one particular example. The
Pope's dialog with the modern era has taken him across the world, and
has brought the Church into active conversation with people that many
in the modern world have chosen to either forget or to ignore. It is a
dialog that is ultimately a challenge to the people of the United
States as well.
For example, his trip to Cuba initiated a dialog between politically
opposed forces both here in America and in Cuba.
Also, Pope John Paul II's recent call to forgive the debt incurred by
Third World countries during the past century, was and is, a challenge
to the industrialized nations of the world to join hands in an effort
to begin lifting the forgotten people of heavily indebted countries
into the next millennium by providing some of the economic relief that
they need. This is the challenge presented to those in industrialized
countries, to remember and to help those who are less fortunate.
The legislation I just introduced has been cosponsored by 66 of my
Senate colleagues, and I am hopeful that we can pass this legislation
quickly in order to honor so great a man who has done such great
things.
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S.J. Res. 45. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to allow the States to limit the
period of time United States Senators and Representatives may serve; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
amendment to constitution of the united states to allow states to limit
the period of time united states senators and representatives may serve
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment regarding Congressional
term limits and the ability of States to set term limits for members of
the United States Congress. Mr. President, I would like to summarize
the history of this proposed constitutional amendment.
On November 29, 1994, the Clinton administration argued before the
Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the
right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has
spoken against the right of the states and of the people to limit the
number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress.
On May 23rd, 1995, in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton (514 U.S. 779), the
Supreme Court denied the people the right to limit congressional terms.
Before the court ruling, 23 states, including my home state of
Missouri, had some limit on the number of terms members of Congress
could serve.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated measures which represented
over five years of work and were supported by 25 million voters. These
voters wanted nothing more than to rein in congressional power, restore
competitive elections, and create a Congress that looked, and
legislated, like America.
Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and
the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the
people to limit the terms of individuals who represent them in
Congress.
There has been limited debate on terms limits in this Congress. In
1995, the House of Representatives fell well short of the two-thirds
majority required to forward to the people a constitutional amendment
on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin required for a constitutional
amendment, they mustered only 227 votes. What would normally be a
significant majority vote in the House, was clearly not enough to
ensure that States would have the opportunity to vote on a
constitutional amendment permitting term limits.
One hope for the overwhelming number of people in this country who
endorse term limits is for Congress to extend them the opportunity to
amend the Constitution in a way that would allow individual States to
limit the terms members of Congress may serve. More than 3 out of 4
people in the United States endorse the concept of term limits. They
have watched individuals come to Washington and spend time here,
captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits and the power that
exists in this city. The people of America know that the talent pool in
America is substantial and there are many who ought to have the
opportunity to serve in Congress. Furthermore, they know that term
limits
[[Page S2771]]
would ensure that individuals who go to Washington return someday to
live under the very laws that they enact.
In January of 1995, Senator Thompson and I introduced a
constitutional amendment that would have limited members of Congress to
three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. As a result of
its defeat and of the administration's refusal to recognize the will of
the people, in May of 1995, I introduced S.J. Res. 36, a different kind
of constitutional amendment. This amendment simply would give States
the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate
that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the
individuals who represent it in the Congress. Instead, it would give
the States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the members'
terms who represent that State. I am reintroducing that amendment
today.
In the Thornton case, Justice Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution
is silent it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.'' I
believe he is correct. This is the concept embodied in the often
forgotten Tenth Amendment that would not cede all power to the federal
government, only to have it doled back to us where the federal
government thinks it appropriate. This proposed amendment is offered to
rectify that situation.
The people of this Republic should have the opportunity to limit the
terms of those who serve them in Congress. In light of the fact that
the administration has argued against term limits, the executive branch
is not going to support term limits, and because the judicial branch
has ruled conclusively now that the States have no constitutional
authority to act in this area, it is up to those of us in Congress to
give the people the opportunity to be heard on this issue.
We must, at least, give them the opportunity to vote on that right by
sending to them this joint resolution on the right of States and
individuals to limit members' terms who serve the States and the
districts of those States in the U.S. Congress.
It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the
people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in
making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes
that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater
opportunities to be involved.
____________________