[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 73 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5618-S5637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BOND:
S. 945. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the recognition of capital gain rule for home offices; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in 1997 Congress made an important change in
the tax code for small businesses by restoring the home-office
deduction. That change opened the door for millions of Americans to
operate successful small businesses from their homes. Now the home-
based financial planner or landscape can use an extra bedroom or a
basement to conduct her business without the cost of commercial office
space. In many cases, these home offices also allow today's
entrepreneurs to spend more time with their family by avoiding the
added time and expense of day-care and commuting.
With the restoration of the home-office deduction, however, came a
significant new complexity for home-based businesses, depreciation
recapture. If a home-based medical transcriber elects to claim the
home-office deduction, she will deduct the expenses relating to her
home office, such as a portion of her home-owners insurance, utilities,
repairs, and maintenance. She is also entitled to depreciate a portion
of the cost of her house relating to the home office. But there is a
big catch. When the home-based business owner sells her home, she must
recapture all of the depreciation deductions and pay income taxes on
them, even though her house qualifies for the exclusion from tax for
the sale of a principal residence.
The specter of depreciation recapture has several significant
ramifications. First, it requires additional recordkeeping for home-
based business owners, on top of the enormous burdens that the tax code
already imposes on a small business. Second, when the home-based
business owner decides to sell his home, he must struggle with the
complexities of calculating the depreciation recapture or, as is too
often the case, he must hire a costly tax professional to undertake the
calculations and prepare the required tax forms.
Additionally, the depreciation-recapture requirement creates a
disincentive for home-based business owners to claim the home-office
deduction in the first place. In fact, I have heard from accountants
and tax advisors in my home State of Missouri that they frequently
advise their clients to forego the home-office deduction simply to
avoid the recordkeeping and complexities associated with recapturing
the depreciation. That is clearly not what Congress intended when it
restored the home-office deduction in 1997.
In light of this problem, I rise today to introduce the ``Home-Office
Deduction Simplification Act of 2001.'' This bill simply repeals the
depreciation-recapture requirement and the disincentive for home-based
businesses to utilize the home-office deduction. At a time when the
Nation's small businesses are feeling real pain from the current
economic slow down, this bill will provide real relief, not only when
they sell their homes, but today by giving them the benefit of the
home-office deduction that Congress intended.
It is my pleasure to be working with Congressman Donald Manzullo,
Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, to raise this issue
in both Chambers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this
legislation and make the home-office deduction as simple and accessible
as possible. Our home-based businesses across the nation deserve
nothing less.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a description
of its provisions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 945
[Data not available at time of printing.]
Home-Office Deduction Simplification Act of 2001--Description of
Provisions
The bill repeals section 121(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Currently, this provision requires individuals who claim depreciation
deductions with respect to a home-office to recapture such deductions
upon the sale of their home. As a result, the amount of the recaptured
depreciation deductions is subject to income taxation without the
benefit of the income-tax exclusion for the sale of a principal
residence or the capital-gains tax rates in cases where the exclusion
does not apply.
By repealing the depreciation-recapture requirement, the bill
eliminates the paperwork and compliance burdens that frequently prevent
home-based business owners from claiming the home-office deduction. The
bill will be effective for sales or exchanges of homes occurring after
December 31, 2000.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 946. A bill to establish an Office on Women's Health within the
Department of Health and Human Services; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's
Health Office Act of 2001 and I am pleased to be joined on this
legislation by my friends and colleagues Senators Mikulski and Harkin.
Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by
Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney.
The Women's Health Office Act of 2001 provides permanent
authorization for Offices of Women's Health in five Federal agencies:
the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS; the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC; the Agency for Health Care
Research and Quality, AHRQ; the Health Resources and Services
Administration, HRSA; and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA.
Currently, only two women's health offices in the Federal Government
have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health
at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Office for Women's
Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, SAMHSA.
For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly
understood, and women were systematically excluded from important
health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined
hundreds of men. Another federally funded study examined the ability of
aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom
were men, despite the fact that heart disease is a leading cause of
death among women.
Today, Members of Congress and the American public understand the
importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical
research and health care services.
Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to
expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's
access to affordable, quality health services. As cochairs of the
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, CCWI, Representative Pat
Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry Waxman, called for a
GAO investigation, in the beginning of 1990, into the inclusion of
women and minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of
Health.
This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical
research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health
[[Page S5619]]
Equity Act, WHEA, in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided
Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed
to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical
research, prevention and services.
Three years later, Congress enacted legislation mandating the
inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the
National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, P.L. 103-43.
Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing
the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, language based on my
original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 101st
Congress.
Yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a
long way to go on women's health care issues. Last May, the GAO
released a report, a 10-year update, on the status of women's research
at NIH, ``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research''.
This report found that since the first GAO report and the 1993
legislation, NIH had made significant progress toward including women
as subjects in both intramural and external clinical trials.
However, the report noted that the Institute had made less progress
in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be
designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could
reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO
found that NIH researchers would include women in their trials--but
then they would either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no
difference was found, they would not publish the sex-based results.
NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in
clinical trials and has implemented several changes to improve the
accuracy and performance for tracking and analyzing data, but our
commitment to women's health is not about quotas and numbers. It is
about real scientific advances that will improve our knowledge about
women's health. At a time when we are on track to double funding for
NIH, it is troubling that the agency has still failed to fully
implement both its own guidelines and the Congressional directive for
sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be shortchanged
by Federal research efforts.
The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite that fact
that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH
is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing
the focus on women's health in offices that do not have this
legislative mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary
or Agency Director.
Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are
charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring
progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and
they have been successful in making Federal programs and policies more
responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good
work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service
authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's
health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health
research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future
years.
Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several
reasons. First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on
women's health. Second, it ensures that agencies will enact
congressional intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that
appropriations will be available in future years to fulfill these
commitments.
By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor
various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific,
legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a
Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize
which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also
provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies,
and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will
ensure the presence of offices dedicated to addressing the ongoing
needs and gaps in research, policy, programs, education and training in
women's health.
I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Harkin, and me in
supporting this legislation to help ensure that women's health will
never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Snowe and Senator
Harkin to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2001. I am pleased
to introduce this bill with my colleagues because it establishes an
important framework to address women's health within the Department of
Health and Human Services, HHS.
Historically, women's health needs have been ignored or inadequately
addressed by the medical establishment and the government. A 1990
General Accounting Office, GAO, report stated that: the National
Institutes of Health, NIH, had made little progress in implementing its
own inclusion policy on women's participation in clinical trials, NIH
inconsistently applied this policy, and NIH had done little to
implement analysis of research findings by gender. This was
unacceptable. Women make up half or more of the population and must be
adequately included in clinical research. That's why I fought to
establish the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH, at the NIH 11
years ago. We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical
research, so that we would know how treatments for a particular disease
or condition would affect women. Would men and women react the same way
to a particular treatment for heart disease? We can't answer this
question unless both men and women are being included in clinical
trials.
While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it
stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission,
part of which is to ensure that women are included in clinical
research. That's why I authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to
formally establish the ORWH in the Office of the Director of NIH. These
provisions were later enacted into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of
1993.
In 1999, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO
examine how well the NIH and the ORWH were carrying out the mandates
under the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While
NIH had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in
clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the
analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being
included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the
benefits of inclusion if the analysis of how interventions affect men
and women is not being done or not being reported. While the NIH and
others are taking steps to address this, we may be missing information
from research done over the last few years about how the outcomes
varied or not for men and women.
NIH is but one agency in HHS. Other agencies in HHS do not even have
women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing women's
health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, SAMHSA, have authorizations in law for offices
dedicated to women's health. In 1993, I requested language that
accompanied the Fiscal Year 1994 Senate Labor, Health and Human
Services Appropriations bill and the Agriculture Appropriations bill to
establish and provide funding for Offices of Women's Health in the
Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the Food and Drug
Administration, FDA, the Health Resources and Services Administration,
HRSA, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR, now
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ. Today, there are
offices of women's health in HHS, FDA, CDC, and HRSA. AHRQ has a
women's health advisor. These offices and advisors are important
advocates within the agency for women's health research, programs, and
activities. A recent HHS report to Congress describes their roles,
responsibilities, and future plans. The degree of support for these
offices, in terms of staff and financial resources, varies widely
across HHS. This can mean inadequate and inconsistent attention to
women's health needs within an agency.
I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address
the
[[Page S5620]]
needs of women's health in the HHS. This bill would do just that. The
Women's Health Office Act of 2001 would authorize women's health
offices in HHS, CDC, FDA, AHRQ, and HRSA.
This legislation establishes an important framework and builds on
existing efforts. Under the bill, the HHS Office on Women's Health
would take over all functions which previously belonged to the current
Office of Women's Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office
would be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who
would also chair an HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Health. The
responsibilities of the HHS Office would include establishing short and
long-term goals, advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health
issues, monitoring and facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS
activities on women's health, establishing a National Women's Health
Information Center to facilitate exchange of and access to women's
health information, and coordinating private sector efforts to promote
women's health.
Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA,
HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency
and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective
agency. Responsibilities of the offices include: an examination of
current women's health activities, the establishment of short-term and
long-term goals for women's health, the coordination of women's health
activities, and the establishment of a coordinating committee on
women's health within each agency to identify women's health needs and
make recommendations to the head of the agency. The FDA office would
also have specific duties regarding women and clinical trials. The
director of each office would serve on HHS's Coordinating Committee on
Women's Health. The bill authorizes appropriations for all the offices
through 2006.
I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent
framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and
Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research
will continue to have the attention and resources it needs in the
coming years. This bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research
Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of academic medical, health and
scientific institutions, as well as other organizations interested in
and supportive of women's health research. The Women's Research and
Education Institute recently released a list of 15 high-impact actions
Congress could take to improve the health of midlife women, including
the establishment of permanent offices of women's health at HHS and
related federal agencies. This bill is supported by over 45 other
organizations including the YWCA, the Society for Women's Health
Research, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Hadassah,
and the American Physical Therapy Association. I encourage my
colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation, and I
ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Women's Health Research Coalition,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2001.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: As organizations representing
millions of patients, health care professionals, advocates
and consumers, we thank you for your leadership in
introducing the ``Women's Health Office Act of 2001.'' We
enthusiastically support this legislation and look forward to
its passage.
Historically, women's health has not been a focus of study
nor has there been adequate recognition of the ways in which
medical conditions solely or differently affect women and
girls. In the decade since attention began to focus on
disparities between the genders, scientific knowledge has
accumulated alerting us to the importance of considering the
biological and psychosocial effects of sex and gender on
health and disease.
We support the work of the offices of women's health in
ensuring that women and girls benefit equitably in the
advances made in medical research and health care services.
The legislation will provide for the continued existence,
coordination and support of these offices so that they
analyze new areas of research, education, prevention,
treatment and service delivery.
We appreciate your firm commitment to improving the health
of women throughout the nation.
Sincerely,
Women's Health Research Coalition; Society for Women's
Health Research; American Association of University Women;
American Medical Women's Association; American Osteopathic
Association; American Physical Therapy Association; American
Psychological Association; American Urological Association;
Association for Women in Science; Association of Women
Psychiatrists; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and
Neonatal Nurses; Center for Ethics in Action.
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Center for Women
Policy Studies, Church Women United, Coalition of Labor Union
Women, General Board of Church and Society, the United
Methodist Church; Girls Incorporated; Hadassah; Jewish
Women's Coalition, Inc.; McAuley Institute; National Abortion
Federation; National Association of Commissions for Women;
National Center on Women and Aging; National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence; National Council of Jewish Women;
National Organization for Women; National Partnership for
Women and Families; National Women's Health Network; National
Women's Health Resource Center; National Women's Law Center;
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Organization of Chinese American Women; OWL; Religious
Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Society for Gynecologic
Investigation; Soroptimist International of the Americas; The
General Federation of Women's Clubs, The Woman Activist Fund,
Inc.; Voters for Choice Action Fund; Women Employed; Women
Heart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease;
Women Work!; Women's Business Development Center; Women's
Health Fund at University of Minnesota; Women's Institute for
Freedom of the Press; Women's Research and Education
Institute; YWCA of the U.S.A.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 947. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the
Governor of a State to waive the oxygen content requirements
for reformulated gasoline and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
James Inhofe of Oklahoma today in introducing a bill to allow the
governor of a State to waive the oxygenate content requirement for
reformulated or clean-burning gasoline. The bill retains all other
provisions of the Clean Air Act to ensure that there is no backsliding
on air quality.
We introduce this bill to address the widespread contamination of
drinking water by MTBE in California and at least 41 other States.
On April 12, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis asked Carol
Browner, who was the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, for a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. I have
written and called former Administrator Browner and the current
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and both former President Clinton
and President Bush, urging approval of the waiver. And we are still
waiting. It has been two years.
Today, yet again I call on EPA and the Administration to act. In the
meantime, I will push Congress to act.
MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, has been the oxygenate of choice
by many refiners in their effort to comply with the Clean Air Act's
reformulated gasoline requirements. California Governor Davis has
ordered a phase-out in our State, but the Federal law requiring two
percent oxygenates remains, putting our State in an untenable position.
This is because the most likely substitute for MTBE to meet the two
percent requirement is ethanol, but there is not a sufficient supply of
ethanol to meet the demand in California and the rest of the country
with the two percent law in place.
With inadequate supplies, we can expect disruptions and price spikes
during the peak driving months of this summer, at a time when there are
predictions that retail gasoline prices may climb to an unprecedented
$3.00 per gallon or more.
The California Energy Commission reports that without relief from the
two percent oxygenate mandate, California consumers will pay 3 to 6
cents more per gallon than they need to. This adds up to $450 million a
year.
The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated
gasoline, RFG, be sold in so-called ``non-attainment'' areas with the
worst violations of ozone standards: Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford,
New York Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee,
Sacramento. In addition, some States and areas have opted to use
reformulated gasoline as way to achieve clean air.
Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated gasoline,
including
[[Page S5621]]
the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 2.0 percent oxygen,
by weight.
In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE
in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. But, there is a
problem: increasingly, MTBE is being detected in drinking water. MTBE
is a known animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, according
to U.S. EPA. It has a very unpleasant odor and taste, as well.
The Feinstein-Inhofe bill would allow governors, upon notification to
U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0 percent oxygenate requirement, as long as
the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for reformulated
gasoline.
On July 27th, 1999, the non-partisan, broad-based U.S. EPA Blue
Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the two percent
oxygenate requirement be ``removed in order to provide flexibility to
blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-effective manner while quickly
reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.''
In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of MTBE should be
reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel recommended that
``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state authority to
regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that pose a
threat to drinking water supplies.''
The bill we are introducing today, while not totally repealing the
two percent oxygenate requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives
States that choose to meet Clean Air requirements without oxygenates
the option to do so. It allows States that choose an oxygenate, such as
ethanol, to do so. Areas required to use reformulated gasoline for
cleaner air will still be required to use it. The gasoline will have a
different but clean formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet
clean air standards.
MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California,
according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 sites
groundwater sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, according to the State
Department of Health Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled,
287, 38 percent, had MTBE.
Nationally, one EPA-funded study of 34 States found that MTBE was
present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 of the States. A U.S.
Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999
Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that at least 41
states have had MTBE detections in water.
In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a
significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE
be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a
sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE
in California, without huge gasoline supply disruptions and price
spikes.
In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without
oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of
having to meet a federal requirement that is 1. contaminating the water
and 2. is not necessary to achieve clean air.
A major University of California study concluded that MTBE provides
``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its use poses ``the
potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially
ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not necessary
for reformulated gasoline.
California has developed a gasoline formula that provides flexibility
and provides clean air. Refiners use an approach called the
``predictive model,'' which guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with
oxygenates, with less than two percent oxygenates, and with no
oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron and Tosco, are selling
MTBE-free gas in California, for example.
Under this bill, clean air standards would still have to be met and
gasoline would have to meet all other requirements of the federal
reformulated gasoline program, including the limits on benzene, heavy
metals, and the emission of nitrogen oxides.
This bill will give California and other States the relief they need
from an unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will give state
officials flexibility to determine whether to use oxygenates in their
gasoline. The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not
degrade air quality.
The two percent oxygenate requirement creates an unnecessary federal
``recipe'' for gasoline. It causes contamination of groundwater. It
adds to the price of gasoline unnecessarily, and it will probably
trigger disruptions in gasoline supplies this summer.
I call on this Congress to enact this legislation promptly.
Californians do not need to have MTBE -laced drinking water to enjoy
the benefits of cleaner air. It is that simple.
I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Sacramento Bee
describing the MTBE problem in California be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Sacramento Bee, Apr. 23, 2001]
Remember MTBE?--Political Inattention May Fuel Price Spikes
It was a poison brew that sent California into an
electricity swoon: rising demand, stagnant supplies and
missed political opportunities. Unfortunately, President Bush
may be about to stir up virtually the same potion with
another source of energy, gasoline. Like the electricity
crunch, this gasoline problem can be averted with timely
political action.
Under federal law, gasoline in dirty air basins must
contain an additive known as an oxygenate. These additives
produce cleaner-burning fuel. The primary additive in
California is the infamous MTBE; a byproduct of the refinery
process. It can cause drinking water to smell like turpentine
at minute concentrations, so the state plans to phase out
MTBE by the end of 2002.
Refiners say that can produce clean-burning gasoline
without an oxygenate but farm politics has kept the
requirement in law. For now, the only alternative to MTBE is
ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains.
That threatens California with the kind of imbalance
between supply and demand that could push up gasoline prices.
Switching from MTBE to ethanol as the additive of choice in
California would increase the nation's consumption of ethanol
by perhaps 800 million gallons a year. This represents about
a 50 percent jump in demand. California produces only 9
million gallons of ethanol a year. That means that the folks
who produce ethanol, who are concentrated in Iowa, may be
able to extort California with the same vigor as Texas-based
electricity marketers.
The seeds of this crisis were planted in some revisions of
the federal Clean Air Act, which combined the laudable goal
of cleaning up the skies with some unwise restrictions on the
legal recipes for fuel. Gov. Gray Davis has been asking for
federal government to waive this mandated recipe for the
fuel, letting the state meet its air-quality goals in a less
expensive way.
Yet with its seven precious electoral votes at stake, Iowa
made ethanol a litmus test for any and all presidential
candidates, and candidates Bush, like most others, said he
would stick to the recipe for gas that favors ethanol.
Is this now the policy of President Bush as well? Bush must
say something, and soon.
Ideally, he should use his administrative powers to waive
the oxygenate mandate and let various fuel recipes compete on
their costs and air-quality benefits. But he must say
something. His silence is preventing companies from building
ethanol (which could be produced from corn kernels or rise
straw) plants in California, if that is what must be done to
replace MTBE.
California can't afford the uncertainty on gasoline any
more than it can afford uncertainty about whether power
plants can be built. For a president who preaches the gospel
of sending clear signals to markets, Bush's silence on MTBE
and ethanol is an expensive sin.
______
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 948. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Transportation to carry out a grant program for providing
financial assistance for local rail line relocation projects, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the history of the geographic expansion of
our great Nation is closely tied to the development of our network of
railroad lines. Cities and towns sprang up and grew around the railroad
tracks that provided transportation vital to their survival and
economic future. While the development of modern automobiles, trucks
and airplanes have provided alternate forms of transportation,
railroads still fulfill important cargo and passenger transportation
requirements across the Nation.
However, in many cities and towns across our country, the increased
need for motor vehicle transportation, and the road infrastructure to
facilitate it, have led to increasing conflicts between railroads,
motor vehicles, and people for the use of limited, and increasingly
congested, space in downtown areas. Highway-rail grade crossings, even
properly marked and gated
[[Page S5622]]
ones, increase the risk of fatal accidents. Many rail lines cut
downtown areas in half while serving few, if any, rail customers in the
downtown area. Heavy rail traffic can cut off one side of a town to
vital emergency services, including fire, police, ambulance, and
hospital services. Downtown rail corridors can hamper economic
development by restricting access to bisected areas.
This situation is not the fault of the railroads. They own and have
invested heavily to maintain their existing rail lines. These conflicts
are due to economic and technological changes that occur faster and
more easily than railroads can economically adjust. In 1998, the
Congress enacted a landmark surface transportation bill, called TEA-21.
While TEA-21 provides some flexibility in the use of the Highway Trust
Fund to enable States to address some of these concerns, it is
primarily focused on solving transportation problems by building or
modifying roads, including road overpasses and underpasses, as it
should be. However, in many situations, this highway-rail conflict can
not, or should not, be fixed by cutting off or modifying a roadway. The
answer is often to relocate the rail line. I know of at least five such
situations in my home State of Mississippi, so there must be many more
in other States.
To address this need, I, along with Senator Kerry, today introduce
the Community Rail Line Relocation Assistance Act of 2001. The bill
would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to
States or communities to pay for the costs of relocating a rail line
where this solution makes the most sense. In those cases where the best
solution is to build a railroad tunnel, underpass, or overpass, or even
reroute the rail line around the downtown area, this bill will enable
these cities and towns to afford to undertake such a significant
infrastructure project.
Our bill would authorize grants to fund rail line relocation projects
that: (1) mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor
vehicle traffic flow, or economic development; (2) involve a lateral or
vertical relocation of the rail line in lieu of the closing of a grade
crossing or the relocation of a road; and (3) provide at least as much
benefit over the economic life of the project as the cost of the
project. The DOT would fund 90 percent of the cost of these rail line
relocation projects out of the general fund of the Treasury. The State
or local government would be required to pay the remaining 10 percent,
but would be allowed to cover this cost through appropriate in-kind
contributions or dedicated private contributions.
In awarding these grants, the Secretary of Transportation would have
to consider: (1) the ability of the State or community to fund the
project without Federal assistance; (2) the equitable treatment of
various regions of the country; (3) that at least 50 percent of the
available funding be spent on projects costing less than $50 million;
and (4) that not more than 25 percent of the available funding may be
spent on any single project. The bill would authorize $250 million in
grants during the first year, and $500 million over each of the
following five years.
I understand that some may ask ``why don't the railroads pay for
these relocation costs?'' As I noted earlier, the railroad has the
right of way and has no legal obligation to move. However, I know the
railroads to be concerned about maintaining good relations with the
communities they serve and pass through. They want to cooperate in
solving this problem. That is why the Association of American Railroads
and the Short Line and Regional Railroad Association support this bill.
The bill is also supported by the Railway Progress Institute and the
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association. This
proposal has been enthusiastically received by several State and local
government associations, and I hope to have their endorsements of the
bill soon. I ask my Senate colleagues to review the needs of their own
States and support this bill and 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. 948
[Data not available at time of printing.]
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 949. A bill for the relief of Zhenfu Ge; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today,
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Zhenfu Ge.
Mrs. Ge is the grandmother of two U.S. citizen children who face the
devastation of being separated from their grandmother after losing
their mother just last month.
Mrs. Ge came to the United States in 1998 to help care for her two
grandchildren while her U.S. citizen daughter Yanyu Wang and her son-
in-law John Marks worked. Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Ge's daughter filed
an immigration petition on her behalf. She was scheduled for an April
26 Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, interview, which is the
last step in the green card process. The family anticipated that the
interview would result in Mrs. Ge's gaining a green card.
In a tragic turn of events, Mrs. Ge's daughter was diagnosed with a
rare and deadly form of lymphoma and given only 7 months to live. As
Mrs. Wang's health quickly declined, she asked her mother to care for
her 3-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son after her death. Mrs. Ge
promised her daughter she would care for her grandchildren and quickly
became the most active maternal figure in their lives.
On April 15 of this year, 11 days before Mrs. Ge's scheduled INS
interview, her daughter died. Because current law does not allow Mrs.
Ge to adjust her status without her daughter, Mrs. Ge now faces
deportation.
This family has certainly felt the pain of a significant tragedy.
With the death of Yanyu Wang, her family must begin to rebuild their
lives and face a future without their loved one. Losing a grandmother
to deportation will only further the grief and compromise the emotional
health of her two young grandchildren, who are still mourning the loss
of their mother. According to her son-in-law, John Mark, Mrs. Ge
``represents continuity and a tie to their mother for our children, and
her presence will allow me to continue to successfully support my
family.
Mrs. Ge has done everything she could to become a permanent resident
of this country. But for the tragedy of her daughter's untimely death,
she likely would have attained that status.
I hope my colleagues will support this private legislation so that we
can help Mrs. Ge, her grandchildren, and son-in-law begin to rebuild
their lives in the wake of their family tragedy and allow Mrs. Ge to
keep the promise she made to her daughter.
I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in
the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Marks
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 949
[Data not available at time of printing.]
Sausalito, CA,
April 19, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I write to appeal for your help in
an exceptional immigration case regarding my mother-in-law,
Zhenfu Ge (United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
reference #A78192014.)
Mrs. Ge came to the United States from her native Shanghai,
China in 1998 after our daughter was born. The purpose of her
immigration was to care for our infant and for our nine-year-
old son to enable my wife and me to work. I have lived in
California most of my life and I work for Kaiser Permanente
in San Rafael; my wife, Yanyu Wang, was a research scientist
for Onyx Pharmaceuticals in Richmond, and a naturalized
citizen of the United States.
We had applied for naturalization for Mrs. Ge to allow her
to remain in the United States to care for her grandchildren
indefinitely. We had every expectation that the INS hearing
set for April 26 (see correspondence enclosed) would result
in the successful completion of her application.
My wife had learned that she was suffering from lymphoma in
1999. Unfortunately, despite every possible medical
intervention, she died on April 15, eleven days before her
mother's hearing for naturalization. We are advised by our
attorney that absent her daughter, Mrs. Ge's case will be
dismissed out-of-hand, and she will be forced to return to
China.
I hope you will agree that Mrs. Ge's presence in our family
is even more important following the death of my wife. She is
the
[[Page S5623]]
only maternal figure for our children, she represents
continuity and a tie to their mother for our children, and
her presence will allow me to continue to successfully
support my family notwithstanding the reduction of our income
to a single salary.
Before she died, my wife implored her mother to do
everything possible to remain in the United States to ensure
that our children would be raised with her care and love. I
ask for your help in enabling this to happen.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
John Mark.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 950. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to address problems
concerning methyl tertiary butyl ether, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, by now everyone knows of
the damage that the gasoline additive, MTBE, has done to our nation's
drinking water supply, including in the state of New Hampshire. MTBE
has been a component of our fuel supply for two decades. In 1990, the
Clean Air Act was amended to include a clean gasoline program. That
program mandated the use of an oxygenate in our fuel, MTBE was one of
two options to be used. The problem with MTBE is its ability to migrate
through the ground very quickly and into the water table. Several
states have had gasoline leaks or spills lead to the closure of wells
because of MTBE. MTBE is not a proven carcinogen, but its smell and
taste does render water unusable. Many homes in New Hampshire and
across the nation have lost use of their water supply because of MTBE
contamination.
Today I am introducing a bill with my friend Senator Reid, who is the
Ranking Member on the committee that I chair, the Environment & Public
Works Committee. This bill addresses the problems associated with MTBE,
but will not reduce any environmental benefits of the Clean Air
program. Briefly, this bill will: Authorize $400 million out of the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST Fund) to help the states
clean up MTBE contamination, address the integrity of Underground
Storage Tanks and the program; Ban MTBE four years after enactment of
this bill; Allow Governors to waive the gasoline oxygenate requirement
of the Clean Air Act; Preserve environmental benefits on air toxics,
and; Provide funds to help transition from MTBE to other clean, safe
fuels.
The funding for cleanup and transition is provided out of a sense of
fairness. Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be
irresponsible for the Federal Government not to bear some of the
financial burden associated with the clean up and the transition to a
less destructive alternative fuel.
This is a very complex issue that the Environment and Public Works
Committee has struggled with for months. It has always been my intent
to craft a solution that was direct and balanced. There are many
competing interests and a number of solutions have been offered. Most
of the competing interests are based on regional differences and
preferences.
Some prefer a simple ban of MTBE, this approach would make gas
dramatically more expansive and more dirty. Some would like a stand
alone mandate of Ethanol, that too has many problems associated with
it. Ethanol would bring with it both cost and smog concerns,
particularly in states like New Hampshire. Simply eliminating the RFG
mandate does not work either. Under this scenario, MTBE would continue
to be used and wells would continue to be contaminated.
I am also very pleased that this bill is consistent with the
President's National Energy Policy because it will reduce the intra-
regional patchwork of what are known as ``boutique'' fuels. This bill
will allow for the use of one fuel blend to meet RFG requirement in
many regions that currently require multiple boutique fuels. This will
ease the burden on refineries and fuel supply, which in turn will
reduce the risk of increased gas prices for the consumer. The fuel
suppliers recognize this benefit and I am very pleased that this bill
has the support of the American Petroleum Institute. While they have
raised some minor technical concerns that I am committed to addressing
prior to passage, I am pleased to have their support.
I believe that this bill provides for a workable solution to both our
MTBE problem as well as addressing the ``boutique'' fuels problems in
this country. We will clean up our nation's drinking water and preserve
the environmental benefits of RFG without undue added cost to the
consumers. I am convinced this is the right approach.
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. 950
[Data not available at time of printing.]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from
New Hampshire, the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, in introducing legislation to address the water resource
problems that have been caused in Lake Tahoe and around the country by
MTBE contamination.
As my colleagues may know, the oxygenate requirement that Congress
included in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for certain nonattainment
areas was met by most fuel providers and refiners with significantly
increased production of MTBE. While this additive has proven beneficial
in meeting air quality goals and reducing toxic air pollution, its
enhanced production and usage has led to major drinking and surface
water contamination, largely because of leaking underground storage
tanks, spills and watercraft releases.
Our bill seeks to deal with the MTBE problem and prevent such
unintended consequences from occurring again, while still protecting
air and water quality. This measure embodies several of the major
recommendations of the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in
Gasoline.
We are proposing to significantly enhance state authority and
resources to deal with remediation of MTBE releases from leaking
underground storage tanks, and to improve compliance and prevent
additional releases at these sources. Four years after enactment, MTBE
would be banned from the fuel supply. The bill would amend the Clean
Air Act to ensure that additives added to the fuel supply in the future
undergo regular testing and review of public health and water quality
impacts.
Our legislation allows Governors to waive out of the oxygenate
requirement imposed by the Act's reformulated gasoline, RFG provisions
and, for the RFG areas in those states, refiners and fuel providers
would have to ensure that there would be continued overcompliance with
toxics reductions performance standards based on regional averages. In
recognition of the industry investments made to comply with the
oxygenate requirement, the bill authorizes grants to American companies
making MTBE for domestic consumption in RFG areas if they opt to
convert to production of replacement additives that do not degrade
water quality, as well as continuing to improve public health and air
quality. Finally, the bill allows the EPA to improve on its mobile
source toxics rule and afford better protection to more sensitive and
exposed populations from these harmful substances.
This is a sensible bill that prevents backsliding on air quality and
is designed to improve water resource protection. I am hopeful that the
Committee and Congress will be able to act swiftly to resolve the MTBE
problems facing so many communities across the nation and in Nevada.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lott, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 951. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2001.
The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation.
Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000
lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 mariners
in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an
[[Page S5624]]
extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects
thousands of other people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial
fishing activities, and recreational boating.
The Coast Guard enforces Federal laws and treaties related to the
high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and
pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, the Coast Guard
provides a critical component of the nation's defense strategy. The
Coast Guard has joined with the Navy under the National Fleet Policy
Statement to integrate their complementary offshore assets and enhance
our national defense.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 was enacted on November 13,
1992 and authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. Last
year, I spend a considerable amount of time trying to enact meaningful
legislation to reauthorize the Coast Guard. To that end, the Commerce
Committee and the Senate unanimously passed the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2000 in July of 2000. Unfortunately, final
enactment of the bill was derailed by one provision that had nothing to
do with the Coast Guard itself and was outside the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. As a result, the dedicated and
hard-working men and women in uniform were penalized.
The Coast Guard deserves more. By introducing the Coast Guard bill
today, I intend to give them my full support, and I hope my colleagues
will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the support that they
have so clearly earned.
For the second year in a row, the Coast Guard has announced that it
will reduce routine non-emergency operations by at least 10 percent.
The Administration's Budget request for fiscal year 2002 would leave
the Coast Guard $250 million short in critical operating funds. This
shortfall will necessitate operations cutbacks to include
decommissioning ships and aircraft. The budget authorized in this bill
would restore those funding shortfalls and prevent the need for
operational cutbacks.
The bill my colleagues and I introduce today authorizes funding and
personnel levels for the Coast Guard in fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
The bill authorizes funding for FY 2002 at $5.2 billion. This
represents a 9.3 percent increase over the levels contained in last
year's Senate-passed bill authorization and a 14 percent increase over
the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The bill also contains
several provisions to provide greater flexibility on personnel
management matters and critical readiness concerns within the Coast
Guard.
The Coast Guard bill contains a new initiative on fishing vessel
safety training. Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous
professions in the United States. Over the last three years, over two
hundred fishermen have died at sea and even more fishing vessels have
been lost. Last year, the Maine fleet tragically lost ten fishermen.
This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to work with and support local
organizations that promote or provide fishing vessel safety training.
Under this proposal, active duty Coast Guard personnel, Coast Guard
Reserve, and members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary could serve as
instructors for training and safety courses; assist in the development
of curricula; and participate in relevant advisory panels. This new
initiative allows discretionary participation by the agency on a not-
to-interfere basic with other Congressionally mandated missions.
A major part of the Coast Guard's law enforcement mission remains
interdicting illegal narcotics at sea. In 2000, the Coast Guard seized
56 vessels and arrested 201 suspects transporting illegal narcotics
headed for our shores. The U.S. Coast Guard set a cocaine seizure
record for the second consecutive year by stopping 132,920 pounds of
cocaine from reaching American streets, playgrounds, and schools. The
Coast Guard also seized 50,463 pounds of marijuana products, including
hashish and hashish oil. At $4.4 billion, the street value of the drugs
seized last year nearly matched the entire Coast Guard budget.
In 2000, the Cost Guard also introduced the highly successful
Operation New Frontier force package, including specially armed
helicopters, over-the-horizon pursuit boats, and the use of non-lethal
tools to stop go-fast type smuggling boats. Operation New Frontier
forces documented an unprecedented 100 percent success rate by seizing
all six of the go-fast trafficking boats detected.
This bill provides funding to maintain many of the new drug
interdiction initiatives of the past few years. The Coast Guard has
proven time and again its ability to efficiently stem the tide of drugs
entering our nation through water routes.
The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for preventing and
responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It
responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year.
The recent oil spill in the fragile Galapagos Islands is an example
where our investment in the Coast Guard reaped international rewards.
Within 24 hours of the spill, a team of Coast Guard oil spill
professionals were on transport aircraft en route to the spill scene
with cleanup equipment. Their presence limited the ecological damage of
this potentially horrific environmental tragedy.
One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking
services. The FY 2000 budget request included a proposal to
decommission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital
icebreaking services throughout the Great Lakes and northeastern
states, including my home state of Maine. While I understand that the
age of this vessel class may require some action by the agency, it
would be premature to decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard
has identified a means to assure their domestic icebreaking mission
requirements are fulfilled. The Coast Guard has identified seven
waterways within Maine that would suffer a meaningful degradation of
service if these tugs were decommissioned. These waterways provide
transport routes for oil tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo
ships. The costs would be excessive to the local communities should
that means of transport be cut off. As we have seen during recent
winters, ready access to home heating fuel in Maine and elsewhere in
the Northeast is a necessity. As such, the bill I am introducing today
includes a measure that would prevent the Cost Guard from removing
these tugs from service unless adequate replacement assets are in
place.
Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a
force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology.
Of the 39 worldwide naval fleets, the United States Coast Guard has the
37th oldest fleet of ships and aircraft. This year the Coast Guard will
embark on a major recapitalization for the ships and aircraft designed
to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System
acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast
Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the ``system-of-
systems'' procurement strategy the Coast Guard has proposed. This bill
authorized funding for the first year of this critical long-term
recapitalization program.
This is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce
Committee. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in
sponsoring this bill. I know that my cosponsors, Senators Kerry,
McCain, Hollings, Breaux, Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine, also look
forward to moving the bill to the Senate floor at the earliest
opportunity.
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. 951
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 ``Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.
Sec. 103. LORAN-C.
Sec. 104. Patrol craft.
Sec. 105. Caribbean support tender.
TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Sec. 201. Coast Guard band director rank.
[[Page S5625]]
Sec. 202. Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of Governors.
Sec. 203. Compensatory absence for isolated duty.
Sec. 204. Suspension of retired pay of Coast Guard members who are
absent from the United States to avoid prosecution.
Sec. 205. Extension of Coast Guard housing authorities.
Sec. 206. Accelerated promotion of certain Coast Guard officers.
Sec. 207. Regular lieutenant commanders and commanders; continuation on
failure of selection for promotion.
Sec. 208. Reserve officer promotion
Sec. 209. Reserve Student Pre-Commissioning Assistance Program.
TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY
Sec. 301. Extension of Territorial Sea for Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge
Radiotelephone Act.
Sec. 302. Icebreaking services.
Sec. 303. Modification of various reporting requirements.
Sec. 304. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; emergency fund borrowing
authority.
Sec. 305. Merchant mariner documentation requirements.
Sec. 306. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe
operation.
Sec. 307. Fishing vessel safety training.
Sec. 308. Extend time for recreational vessel and associated equipment
recalls.
TITLE IV--RENEWAL OF ADVISORY GROUPS
Sec. 401. Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory Committee.
Sec. 402. Houston-Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee.
Sec. 403. Lower Mississippi River Waterway Advisory Committee.
Sec. 404. Navigation Safety Advisory Council.
Sec. 405. National Boating Safety Advisory Council.
Sec. 406. Towing Safety Advisory Committee.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Modernization of national distress and response system.
Sec. 502. Conveyance of Coast Guard property in Portland, Maine.
Sec. 503. Harbor safety committees.
Sec. 504. Limitation of liability of pilots at Coast Guard Vessel
Traffic Services.
TITLE VI--JONES ACT WAIVERS
Sec. 601. Repeal of special authority to revoke endorsements.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2000.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000 the following amounts:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard,
$2,853,000,000, of which $300,000,000 shall be available for
defense-related activities and of which $25,000,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $999,100,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of
section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of
technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating
to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in
support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine
safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws
and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and
defense readiness, $19,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $730,327,000, to
remain available until expended.
(5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast
Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated
with operations and maintenance), $17,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
(6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $15,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
(b) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2001 the following amounts:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard,
$3,483,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $428,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of
section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of
technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating
to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in
support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine
safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws
and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and
defense readiness, $21,320,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $868,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
(5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast
Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated
with operations and maintenance), $16,700,000, to remain
available until expended.
(6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $15,500,000,
to remain available until expended.
(c) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002.--Funds are
authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002, as follows:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard,
$3,633,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $660,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of
section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of
technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating
to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in
support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine
safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws
and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and
defense readiness, $22,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund.
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $876,350,000, to
remain available until expended.
(5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast
Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated
with operations and maintenance), $17,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
(6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $15,500,000,
to remain available until expended.
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND
TRAINING.
(a) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2000.--The Coast
Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty
personnel of 40,000 as of September 30, 2000.
(b) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2000.--For
fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard is authorized average
military training student loads as follows:
(1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
(2) For flight training, 100 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions, 300 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition, 1,000 student years.
(c) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2001.--The Coast
Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty
personnel of 44,000 as of September 30, 2001.
(d) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2001.--For
fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard is authorized average
military training student loads as follows:
(1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
(2) For flight training, 125 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions, 300 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition, 1,000 student years.
(e) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2002.--The Coast
Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength of active duty
personnel of 45,500 as of September 30, 2002.
(f) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2002.--For
fiscal year 2002, the Coast Guard is authorized average
military training student loads as follows:
(1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
[[Page S5626]]
(2) For flight training, 125 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions, 300 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition, 1,050 student years.
SEC. 103. LORAN-C.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Transportation, in addition to funds
authorized for the Coast Guard for operation of the LORAN-C
system, for capital expenses related to LORAN-C navigation
infrastructure, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The
Secretary of Transportation may transfer from the Federal
Aviation Administration and other agencies of the department
funds appropriated as authorized under this section in order
to reimburse the Coast Guard for related expenses.
(b) Fiscal Year 2002.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Transportation, in addition
to funds authorized for the Coast Guard for operation of the
LORAN-C system, for capital expenses related to LORAN-C
navigation infrastructure, $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
The Secretary of Transportation may transfer from the Federal
Aviation Administration and other agencies of the department
funds appropriated as authorized under this section in order
to reimburse the Coast Guard for related expenses.
SEC. 104. PATROL CRAFT.
(a) Transfer of Craft From DOD.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may accept,
by direct transfer without cost, for use by the Coast Guard
primarily for expanded drug interdiction activities required
to meet national supply reduction performance goals, up to 7
PC-170 patrol craft from the Department of Defense if it
offers to transfer such craft.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Coast Guard, in addition to amounts
otherwise authorized by this Act, up to $100,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for the conversion of,
operation and maintenance of, personnel to operate and
support, and shoreside infrastructure requirements for, up to
7 patrol craft.
SEC. 105. CARIBBEAN SUPPORT TENDER.
The Coast Guard is authorized to operate and maintain a
Caribbean Support Tender (or similar type vessel) to provide
technical assistance, including law enforcement training, for
foreign coast guards, navies, and other maritime services.
TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
SEC. 201. COAST GUARD BAND DIRECTOR RANK.
Section 336(d) of title 14, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``commander'' and inserting ``captain''.
SEC. 202. COAST GUARD MEMBERSHIP ON THE USO BOARD OF
GOVERNORS.
Section 220104(a)(2) of title 36, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary's
designee, when the Coast Guard is not operating under the
Department of the Navy; and''.
SEC. 203. COMPENSATORY ABSENCE FOR ISOLATED DUTY.
(a) In General.--Section 511 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 511. Compensatory absence from duty for military
personnel at isolated duty stations
``The Secretary may grant compensatory absence from duty to
military personnel of the Coast Guard serving at isolated
duty stations of the Coast Guard when conditions of duty
result in confinement because of isolation or in long periods
of continuous duty.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
13 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking
the item relating to section 511 and inserting the following:
``511. Compensatory absence from duty for military personnel at
isolated duty stations.''.
SEC. 204. SUSPENSION OF RETIRED PAY OF COAST GUARD MEMBERS
WHO ARE ABSENT FROM THE UNITED STATES TO AVOID
PROSECUTION.
Section 633 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) is amended by
redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) in order as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), and by inserting after
subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Application to Coast Guard.--Procedures promulgated
by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (a) shall apply
to the Coast Guard. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall
be considered a Secretary of a military department for
purposes of suspending pay under this section.''.
SEC. 205. EXTENSION OF COAST GUARD HOUSING AUTHORITIES.
Section 689 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``2001.'' and inserting ``2006.''.
SEC. 206. ACCELERATED PROMOTION OF CERTAIN COAST GUARD
OFFICERS.
Title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 259, by adding at the end a new subsection
(c) to read as follows:
``(c)(1) After selecting the officers to be recommended for
promotion, a selection board may recommend officers of
particular merit, from among those officers chosen for
promotion, to be placed at the top of the list of selectees
promulgated by the Secretary under section 271(a) of this
title. The number of officers that a board may recommend to
be placed at the top of the list of selectees may not exceed
the percentages set forth in subsection (b) unless such a
percentage is a number less than one, in which case the board
may recommend one officer for such placement. No officer may
be recommended to be placed at the top of the list of
selectees unless he or she receives the recommendation of at
least a majority of the members of a board composed of five
members, or at least two-thirds of the members of a board
composed of more than five members.
``(2) A selection board may not make any recommendation
under this subsection before the date the Secretary publishes
a finding that implementation of this subsection will improve
Coast Guard officer retention and management.
``(3) The Secretary shall submit any finding made by the
Secretary pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.'';
(2) in section 260(a), by inserting ``and the names of
those officers recommended to be advanced to the top of the
list of selectees established by the Secretary under section
271(a) of this title'' after ``promotion''; and
(3) in section 271(a), by inserting at the end thereof the
following: ``The names of all officers approved by the
President and recommended by the board to be placed at the
top of the list of selectees shall be placed at the top of
the list of selectees in the order of seniority on the active
duty promotion list.''.
SEC. 207. REGULAR LIEUTENANT COMMANDERS AND COMMANDERS;
CONTINUATION ON FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR
PROMOTION.
Section 285 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Each officer'' and inserting ``(a) Each
officer''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(b) A lieutenant commander or commander of the Regular
Coast Guard subject to discharge or retirement under
subsection (a) may be continued on active duty when the
Secretary directs a selection board convened under section
251 of this title to continue up to a specified number of
lieutenant commanders or commanders on active duty. When so
directed, the selection board shall recommend those officers
who in the opinion of the board are best qualified to advance
the needs and efficiency of the Coast Guard. When the
recommendations of the board are approved by the Secretary,
the officers recommended for continuation shall be notified
that they have been recommended for continuation and offered
an additional term of service that fulfills the needs of the
Coast Guard.
``(c)(1) An officer who holds the grade of lieutenant
commander of the Regular Coast Guard may not be continued on
active duty under subsection (b) for a period which extends
beyond 24 years of active commissioned service unless
promoted to the grade of commander of the Regular Coast
Guard. An officer who holds the grade of commander of the
Regular Coast Guard may not be continued on active duty under
subsection (b) for a period which extends beyond 26 years of
active commissioned service unless promoted to the grade of
captain of the Regular Coast Guard.
``(2) Unless retired or discharged under another provision
of law, each officer who is continued on active duty under
subsection (b), is not subsequently promoted or continued on
active duty, and is not on a list of officers recommended for
continuation or for promotion to the next higher grade,
shall, if eligible for retirement under any provision of law,
be retired under that law on the first day of the first month
following the month in which the period of continued service
is completed.''
SEC. 208. RESERVE OFFICER PROMOTIONS.
(a) Section 729(i) of Title 14, United States Code is
amended by inserting ``on the date a vacancy occurs, or as
soon thereafter as practicable, in the grade to which the
officer was selected for promotion, or if promotion was
determined in accordance with a running mate system,'' after
``grade''.
(b) Section 731 of title 14, United States Coast Code, is
amended by striking the period at the end of the sentence in
section 731, and inserting ``, or in the event that promotion
is not determined in accordance with a running mate system,
then a Reserve officer becomes eligible for consideration for
promotion to the next higher grade at the beginning of the
promotion year in which he completes the following amount of
service computed from his date of rank in the grade in which
he is serving:
(1) 2 years in the grade of lieutenant (junior grade);
(2) 3 years in the grade of lieutenant;
(3) 4 years in the grade of lieutenant commander;
(4) 4 years in the grade of commander; and
(5) 3 years in the grade of captain.''.
(c) Section 736(a) of title 14, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``the date of rank shall be the date of
appointment in that grade, unless the promotion was
determined in accordance with a running mate system, in which
event'' after ``subchapter,'' in the first sentence in
Section 736(a).
[[Page S5627]]
SEC. 209. RESERVE STUDENT PRE-COMMISSIONING ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 21 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 709 the following
new section:
``Sec. 709a. Reserve student pre-commissioning assistance
program
``(a) The Secretary may provide financial assistance to an
eligible enlisted member of the Coast Guard Reserve, not on
active duty, for expenses of the member while the member is
pursuing on a full-time basis at an institution of higher
education a program of education approved by the Secretary
that leads to-
``(1) a baccalaureate degree in not more than 5 academic
years; or
``(2) a doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree
in not more than 3 academic years.
``(b)(1) To be eligible for financial assistance under this
section, an enlisted member of the Coast Guard Reserve must-
``(A) be enrolled on a full-time basis in a program of
education referred to in subsection (a) at any institution of
higher education; and
``(B) enter into a written agreement with the Coast Guard
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) A written agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(B)
is an agreement between the member and the Secretary in which
the member agrees-
``(A) to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer in
the Coast Guard Reserve, if tendered;
``(B) to serve on active duty for up to five years; and
``(C) under such terms and conditions as shall be
prescribed by the Secretary, to serve in the Coast Guard
Reserve until the eighth anniversary of the date of the
appointment.
``(c) Expenses for which financial assistance may be
provided under this section are-
``(1) tuition and fees charged by the institution of higher
education involved;
``(2) the cost of books;
``(3) in the case of a program of education leading to a
baccalaureate degree, laboratory expenses; and
``(4) such other expenses deemed appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(d) The amount of financial assistance provided to a
member under this section shall be prescribed by the
Secretary, but may not exceed $25,000 for any academic year.
``(e) Financial assistance may be provided to a member
under this section for up to 5 consecutive academic years.
``(f) A member who receives financial assistance under this
section may be ordered to active duty in the Coast Guard
Reserve by the Secretary to serve in a designated enlisted
grade for such period as the Secretary prescribes, but not
more than 4 years, if the member''
``(1) completes the academic requirements of the program
and refuses to accept an appointment as a commissioned
officer in the Coast Guard Reserve when offered;
``(2) fails to complete the academic requirements of the
institution of higher education involved; or
``(3) fails to maintain eligibility for an original
appointment as a commissioned officer.
``(g)(1) If a member requests to be released from the
program and the request is accepted by the Secretary, or if
the member fails because of misconduct to complete the period
of active duty specified, or if the member fails to fulfill
any term or condition of the written agreement required to be
eligible for financial assistance under this section, the
financial assistance shall be terminated. The member shall
reimburse the United States in an amount that bears the same
ratio to the total cost of the education provided to such
person as the unserved portion of active duty bears to the
total period of active duty such person agreed to serve. The
Secretary shall have the option to order such reimbursement
without first ordering the member to active duty.
``(2) The Secretary may waive the service obligated under
subsection (f) of a member who is not physically qualified
for appointment and who is determined to be unqualified for
service as an enlisted member of the Coast Guard Reserve due
to a physical or medical condition that was not the result of
the member's own misconduct or grossly negligent conduct.
``(h) As used in 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).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
21 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by adding the
following new item after the item relating to section 709:
``709a. Reserve student pre-commissioning assistance program''.
TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY
SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL SEA FOR VESSEL BRIDGE-TO-
BRIDGE RADIOTELEPHONE ACT.
Section 4(b) of the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone
Act (33 U.S.C. 1203(b)), is amended by striking ``United
States inside the lines established pursuant to section 2 of
the Act of February 19, 1895 (28 Stat. 672), as amended.''
and inserting ``United States, which includes all waters of
the territorial sea of the United States as described in
Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.''.
SEC. 302. ICEBREAKING SERVICES.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall not plan, implement
or finalize any regulation or take any other action which
would result in the decommissioning of any WYTL-class harbor
tugs unless and until the Commandant certifies in writing to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House, that sufficient replacement assets have been
procured by the Coast Guard to remediate any degradation in
current icebreaking services that would be caused by such
decommissioning.
SEC. 303. MODIFICATION OF VARIOUS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Termination of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Annual
Report.--
(1) In general.--The report regarding the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund required by the Conference Report (House
Report 101-892) accompanying the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, as that
requirement was amended by section 1122 of the Federal
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (26 U.S.C. 9509
note), shall no longer be submitted to the Congress.
(2) Repeal.--Section 1122 of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (26 U.S.C. 9509 note) is
amended by--
(A) striking subsection (a); and
(B) striking ``(b) Report on Joint Federal and State Motor
Fuel Tax Compliance Project.--''.
(b) Preservation of Certain Reporting Requirements.--
Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) does not apply to
any report required to be submitted under any of the
following provisions of law:
(1) Coast guard operations and expenditures.--Section 651
of title 14, United States Code.
(2) Summary of marine casualties reported during prior
fiscal year.--Section 6307(c) of title 46, United States
Code.
(3) User fee activities and amounts.--Section 664 of title
46, United States Code.
(4) Conditions of public ports of the united states.--
Section 308(c) of title 49, United States Code.
(5) Activities of federal maritime commission.--Section 208
of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1118).
(6) Activities of interagency coordinating committee on oil
pollution research.--Section 7001(e) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761(e)).
SEC. 304. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND; EMERGENCY FUND
BORROWING AUTHORITY.
Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2752(b)) is amended after the first sentence by inserting
``To the extent that such amount is not adequate for removal
of a discharge or the mitigation or prevention of a
substantial threat of a discharge, the Coast Guard may borrow
from the Fund such sums as may be necessary, up to a maximum
of $100,000,000, and within 30 days shall notify Congress of
the amount borrowed and the facts and circumstances
necessitating the loan. Amounts borrowed shall be repaid to
the Fund when, and to the extent that removal costs are
recovered by the Coast Guard from responsible parties for the
discharge or substantial threat of discharge.''.
SEC. 305. MERCHANT MARINER DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Interim Merchant Mariners' Documents.--Section 7302 of
title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``A'' in subsection (f) and inserting
``Except as provided in subsection (g), a''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) The Secretary may, pending receipt and review of
information required under subsections (c) and (d),
immediately issue an interim merchant mariner's document
valid for a period not to exceed 120 days, to--
``(A) an individual to be employed as gaming personnel,
entertainment personnel, wait staff, or other service
personnel on board a passenger vessel not engaged in foreign
service, with no duties, including emergency duties, related
to the navigation of the vessel or the safety of the vessel,
its crew, cargo or passengers; or
``(B) an individual seeking renewal of, or qualifying for a
supplemental endorsement to, a valid merchant mariner's
document issued under this section.
``(2) No more than one interim document may be issued to an
individual under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.''.
(b) Exception.--Section 8701(a) of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(8);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) a passenger vessel not engaged in a foreign voyage
with respect to individuals on board employed for a period of
not more than 30 service days within a 12 month period as
entertainment personnel, with no duties, including emergency
duties, related to the navigation of the vessel or the safety
of the vessel, its crew, cargo or passengers; and''.
SEC. 306. PENALTIES FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATIONS AND INTERFERING
WITH SAFE OPERATION.
Section 2302(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``$1,000.'' and inserting ``$5,000 in the case of
a recreational vessel, or $25,000 in the case of any other
vessel.''.
[[Page S5628]]
SEC. 307. FISHING VESSEL SAFETY TRAINING.
(a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard may
provide support, with or without reimbursement, to an entity
engaged in fishing vessel safety training including--
(1) assistance in developing training curricula;
(2) use of Coast Guard personnel, including active duty
members, members of the Coast Guard Reserve, and members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary, as temporary or adjunct
instructors;
(3) sharing of appropriate Coast Guard informational and
safety publications; and
(4) participation on applicable fishing vessel safety
training advisory panels.
(b) No Interference with Other Functions.--In providing
support under subsection (a), the Commandant shall ensure
that the support does not interfere with any Coast Guard
function or operation.
SEC. 308. EXTEND TIME FOR RECREATIONAL VESSEL AND ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT RECALLS.
Section 4310(c)(2) of title 46, United Sates Code, is
amended in subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ``5''
wherever it appears and inserting ``10'' in its place.
TITLE IV--RENEWAL OF ADVISORY GROUPS
SEC. 401. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSEL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
(a) Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory
Committee.--Section 4508 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Safety'' in the heading after
``Vessel'';
(2) by inserting ``Safety'' in subsection (a) after
``Vessel'';
(3) by striking ``(5 U.S.C App. 1 et seq.)'' in subsection
(e)(1)(I) and inserting ``(5 U.S.C. App.)''; and
(4) by striking ``of September 30, 2000'' and inserting
``on September 30, 2005''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
45 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking
the item relating to section 4508 and inserting the
following:
``4508. Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory
Committee.''.
SEC. 402. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION SAFETY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
Section 18(h) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-241) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2000.'' and inserting ``September 30, 2005.''.
SEC. 403. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERWAY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
Section 19 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-241) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2000'' in subsection (g) and inserting ``September 30,
2005''.
SEC. 404. NAVIGATION SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL.
Section 5 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33
U.S.C. 2073) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' in
subsection (d) and inserting ``September 30, 2005''.
SEC. 405. NATIONAL BOATING SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL.
Section 13110 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``September 30, 2000'' in subsection (e) and
inserting ``September 30, 2005''.
SEC. 406. TOWING SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
The Act entitled ``An Act to Establish a Towing Safety
Advisory Committee in the Department of Transportation'' (33
U.S.C. 1231a) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000.''
in subsection (e) and inserting ``September 30, 2005.''.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. MODERNIZATION OF NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE
SYSTEM.
(a) Report.--The Secretary of Transportation shall prepare
a status report on the modernization of the National Distress
and Response System and transmit the report, not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter until completion of the project, to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a)
shall--
(1) set forth the scope of the modernization, the schedule
for completion of the System, and provide information on
progress in meeting the schedule and on any anticipated
delays;
(2) specify the funding expended to-date on the System, the
funding required to complete the system, and the purposes for
which the funds were or will be expended;
(3) describe and map the existing public and private
communications coverage throughout the waters of the coastal
and internal regions of the continental United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Caribbean, and identify
locations that possess direction-finding, asset-tracking
communications, and digital selective calling service;
(4) identify areas of high risk to boaters and Coast Guard
personnel due to communications gaps;
(5) specify steps taken by the Secretary to fill existing
gaps in coverage, including obtaining direction-finding
equipment, digital recording systems, asset-tracking
communications, use of commercial VHF services, and digital
selective calling services that meet or exceed Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System requirements adopted
under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea;
(6) identify the number of VHF-FM radios equipped with
digital selective calling sold to United States boaters;
(7) list all reported marine accidents, casualties, and
fatalities associated with existing communications gaps or
failures, including incidents associated with gaps in VHF-FM
coverage or digital selective calling capabilities and
failures associated with inadequate communications equipment
aboard the involved vessels;
(8) identify existing systems available to close identified
marine safety gaps before January 1, 2003, including
expeditious receipt and response by appropriate Coast Guard
operations centers to VHF-FM digital selective calling
distress signal; and
(9) identify actions taken to-date to implement the
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board
in its Report No. MAR-99-01.
SEC. 502. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN PORTLAND,
MAINE.
(a) Authority To Convey.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of General Services may
convey to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Development Corporation,
its successors and assigns, without payment for
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to approximately 4.13 acres of land, including
a pier and bulkhead, known as the Naval Reserve Pier
property, together with any improvements thereon in their
then current condition, located in Portland, Maine. All
conditions placed with the deed of title shall be construed
as covenants running with the land.
(2) Identification of property.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may
identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed
under this section. The floating docks associated with or
attached to the Naval Reserve Pier property shall remain the
personal property of the United States.
(b) Lease to the United States.--
(1) Condition of conveyance.--The Naval Reserve Pier
property shall not be conveyed until the Corporation enters
into a lease agreement with the United States, the terms of
which are mutually satisfactory to the Commandant and the
Corporation, in which the Corporation shall lease a portion
of the Naval Reserve Pier property to the United States for a
term of 30 years without payment of consideration. The lease
agreement shall be executed within 12 months after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(2) Identification of leased premises.--The Administrator,
in consultation with the Commandant, may identify and
describe the leased premises and rights of access, including
the following, in order to allow the Coast Guard to operate
and perform missions from and upon the leased premises:
(A) The right of ingress and egress over the Naval Reserve
Pier property, including the pier and bulkhead, at any time,
without notice, for purposes of access to Coast Guard vessels
and performance of Coast Guard missions and other mission-
related activities.
(B) The right to berth Coast Guard cutters or other vessels
as required, in the moorings along the east side of the Naval
Reserve Pier property, and the right to attach floating docks
which shall be owned and maintained at the United States'
sole cost and expense.
(C) The right to operate, maintain, remove, relocate, or
replace an aid to navigation located upon, or to install any
aid to navigation upon, the Naval Reserve Pier property as
the Coast Guard, in its sole discretion, may determine is
needed for navigational purposes.
(D) The right to occupy up to 3,000 gross square feet at
the Naval Reserve Pier property for storage and office space,
which will be provided and constructed by the Corporation, at
the Corporation's sole cost and expense, and which will be
maintained, and utilities and other operating expenses paid
for, by the United States at its sole cost and expense.
(E) The right to occupy up to 1,200 gross square feet of
offsite storage in a location other than the Naval Reserve
Pier property, which will be provided by the Corporation at
the Corporation's sole cost and expense, and which will be
maintained, and utilities and other operating expenses paid
for, by the United States at its sole cost and expense.
(F) The right for Coast Guard personnel to park up to 60
vehicles, at no expense to the government, in the
Corporation's parking spaces on the Naval Reserve Pier
property or in parking spaces that the Corporation may secure
within 1,000 feet of the Naval Reserve Pier property or
within 1,000 feet of the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Portland. Spaces for no less than 30 vehicles shall be
located on the Naval Reserve Pier property.
(3) Renewal.--The lease described in paragraph (1) may be
renewed, at the sole option of the United States, for
additional lease terms.
(4) Limitation on subleases.--The United States may not
sublease the leased premises to a third party or use the
leased premises for purposes other than fulfilling the
missions of the Coast Guard and for other mission related
activities.
(5) Termination.--In the event that the Coast Guard ceases
to use the leased premises, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Commandant, may terminate the lease
with the Corporation.
(c) Improvement of Leased Premises.--
[[Page S5629]]
(1) In general.--The Naval Reserve Pier property shall not
be conveyed until the Corporation enters into an agreement
with the United States, subject to the Commandant's design
specifications, project's schedule, and final project
approval, to replace the bulkhead and pier which connects to,
and provides access from, the bulkhead to the floating docks,
at the Corporation's sole cost and expense, on the east side
of the Naval Reserve Pier property within 30 months from the
date of conveyance. The agreement to improve the leased
premises shall be executed within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Further improvements.--In addition to the improvements
described in paragraph (1), the Commandant is authorized to
further improve the leased premises during the lease term, at
the United States sole cost and expense.
(d) Utility Installation and Maintenance Obligations.--
(1) Utilities.--The Naval Reserve Pier property shall not
be conveyed until the Corporation enters into an agreement
with the United States to allow the United States to operate
and maintain existing utility lines and related equipment, at
the United States sole cost and expense. At such time as the
Corporation constructs its proposed public aquarium, the
Corporation shall replace existing utility lines and related
equipment and provide additional utility lines and equipment
capable of supporting a third 110-foot Coast Guard cutter,
with comparable, new, code compliant utility lines and
equipment at the Corporation's sole cost and expense,
maintain such utility lines and related equipment from an
agreed upon demarcation point, and make such utility lines
and equipment available for use by the United States,
provided that the United States pays for its use of utilities
at its sole cost and expense. The agreement concerning the
operation and maintenance of utility lines and equipment
shall be executed within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Maintenance.--The Naval Reserve Pier property shall not
be conveyed until the Corporation enters into an agreement
with the United States to maintain, at the Corporation's sole
cost and expense, the bulkhead and pier on the east side of
the Naval Reserve Pier property. The agreement concerning the
maintenance of the bulkhead and pier shall be executed within
12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Aids to navigation.--The United States shall be
required to maintain, at its sole cost and expense, any Coast
Guard active aid to navigation located upon the Naval Reserve
Pier property.
(e) Additional Rights.--The conveyance of the Naval Reserve
Pier property shall be made subject to conditions the
Administrator or the Commandant consider necessary to ensure
that--
(1) the Corporation shall not interfere or allow
interference, in any manner, with use of the leased premises
by the United States; and
(2) the Corporation shall not interfere or allow
interference, in any manner, with any aid to navigation nor
hinder activities required for the operation and maintenance
of any aid to navigation, without the express written
permission of the head of the agency responsible for
operating and maintaining the aid to navigation.
(f) Remedies and Reversionary Interest.--The Naval Reserve
Pier property, at the option of the Administrator, shall
revert to the United States and be placed under the
administrative control of the Administrator, if, and only if,
the Corporation fails to abide by any of the terms of this
section or any agreement entered into under subsection (b),
(c), or (d) of this section.
(g) Liability of the Parties.--The liability of the United
States and the Corporation for any injury, death, or damage
to or loss of property occurring on the leased property shall
be determined with reference to existing State or Federal
law, as appropriate, and any such liability may not be
modified or enlarged by this Act or any agreement of the
parties.
(h) Expiration of Authority To Convey.--The authority to
convey the Naval Reserve property under this section shall
expire 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Aid to navigation.--The term ``aid to navigation''
means equipment used for navigational purposes, including but
not limited to, a light, antenna, sound signal, electronic
navigation equipment, cameras, sensors power source, or other
related equipment which are operated or maintained by the
United States.
(2) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the Gulf
of Maine Aquarium Development Corporation, its successors and
assigns.
SEC. 503. HARBOR SAFETY COMMITTEES.
(a) Study.--The Coast Guard shall study existing harbor
safety committees in the United States to identify--
(1) strategies for gaining successful cooperation among the
various groups having an interest in the local port or
waterway;
(2) organizational models that can be applied to new or
existing harbor safety committees or to prototype harbor
safety committees established under subsection (b);
(3) technological assistance that will help harbor safety
committees overcome local impediments to safety, mobility,
environmental protection, and port security; and
(4) recurring resources necessary to ensure the success of
harbor safety committees.
(b) Prototype Committees.--The Coast Guard shall test the
feasibility of expanding the harbor safety committee concept
to small and medium-sized ports that are not generally served
by a harbor safety committee by establishing 1 or more
prototype harbor safety committees. In selecting a location
or locations for the establishment of a prototype harbor
safety committee, the Coast Guard shall--
(1) consider the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a);
(2) consider identified safety issues for a particular
port;
(3) compare the potential benefits of establishing such a
committee with the burdens the establishment of such a
committee would impose on participating agencies and
organizations;
(4) consider the anticipated level of support from
interested parties; and
(5) take into account such other factors as may be
appropriate.
(c) Effect on Existing Programs and State Law.--Nothing in
this section--
(1) limits the scope or activities of harbor safety
committees in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) precludes the establishment of new harbor safety
committees in locations not selected for the establishment of
a prototype committee under subsection (b); or
(3) preempts State law.
(d) Nonapplication of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to harbor safety
committees established under this section or any other
provision of law.
(e) Harbor Safety Committee Defined.--In this section, the
term ``harbor safety committee'' means a local coordinating
body--
(1) whose responsibilities include recommending actions to
improve the safety of a port or waterway; and
(2) the membership of which includes representatives of
government agencies, maritime labor, maritime industry
companies and organizations, environmental groups, and public
interest groups.
SEC. 504. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF PILOTS AT COAST GUARD
VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 23 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2307. Limitation of liability for Coast Guard Vessel
Traffic Service pilots
``Any pilot, acting in the course and scope of his duties
while at a United States Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service,
who provides information, advice or communication assistance
shall not be liable for damages caused by or related to such
assistance unless the acts or omissions of such pilot
constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
23 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``2307. Limitation of liability for Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service
pilots''.
TITLE VI--JONES ACT WAIVERS
SEC. 601. REPEAL OF SPECIAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE ENDORSEMENTS.
Section 503 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998
(46 U.S.C. 12106 note) is repealed.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2001. Charged with maintaining our national
defense and the safety of our citizens, the Coast Guard is a multi-
mission agency. The Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces,
but it is also a unique instrument of national security, responsible
for search and rescue services and maritime law enforcement. Daily
operations include drug interdiction, environmental protection, marine
inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation,
waterways management, and boating safety.
Recently the Coast Guard has been forced to reduce its services and
cut its operations as a result of funding shortfalls. Earlier this
year, for the second year in a row, the Coast Guard reduced its non-
emergency operations by over 10 percent due to a shortfall in operating
appropriations. Mr. President, the Coast Guard and the American people
deserve better, and the bill I am proud to cosponsor today authorizes
funding at levels which would restore the Coast Guard to the full
operational level. Additionally, the bill provides necessary funding
for cutter and aircraft maintenance including the elimination of the
existing spare parts shortage.
This bill provides the funding necessary to maintain the level of
service and the quality of performance that the United States has come
to expect from the Coast Guard. I commend the men and women of the
Coast Guard for their honorable and courageous service to this country.
The bill authorizes $4.63 billion in FY 2000, $4.83 billion in 2001,
and $5.22 billion in FY 2002.
One critical goal of this bill is to provide parity with the
Department of Defense on certain personnel matters. We
[[Page S5630]]
should ensure that the men and women serving in the Coast Guard are not
adversely affected because the Coast Guard does not fall under the DOD
umbrella. This bill provides parity with DOD for military pay and
housing allowance increases, Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of
Governors, and compensation for isolated duty.
In today's strong economy, the Armed Services are seeing an exodus of
experienced officers and enlisted personnel. Additional funding in this
bill provides for recruiting and retention initiatives, to ensure that
the Coast Guard retains the most qualified young Americans. In
addition, it addresses the current shortage of qualified pilots and
authorizes the Coast Guard to send more students to flight school. New
programs will offer financial assistance to bring college students into
the Service and bring retired officers back on active duty to fill
temporary experience gaps.
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in maritime drug
interdiction. Therefore, they are often our nation's first line of
defense in the war on drugs. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to
acquire and operate up to seven ex-Navy patrol boats, thereby expanding
the Coast Guard's critical presence in the Caribbean, a major drug
trafficking area. With the vast majority of the drugs smuggled into the
United States on the water, the Coast Guard must remain well equipped
to prevent drugs from reaching our schools and streets. I was gratified
to learn that just a few weeks ago, the Coast Guard made the largest
single maritime cocaine seizure in history; more than 13 tons of
illegal drugs bound for U.S. streets are instead bound for an
incinerator.
Environmental protection, including oil-spill cleanup, is an
invaluable service provided by the Coast Guard. Under current law, the
Coast Guard has access to a permanent annual appropriation of $50
million, distributed by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to carry
out emergency oil spill response needs. Over the past few years, the
fund has spent an average of $42 to $50 million per year, without the
occurrence of a major oil spill. Clearly these funds would not be
adequate to respond to a large spill. For instance, a spill the size of
the Exxon Valdez could easily deplete the annual appropriated funds in
two to three weeks. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to borrow up
to an additional $100 million, per incident, from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, for emergency spill responses. In such cases, it
also requires the Coast Guard to notify Congress of amounts borrowed
within thirty days and repay such amounts once payment is collected
from the responsible party.
The 1999 President's Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles
and Missions reported ``The Coast Guard provides the United States a
broad spectrum of vital services that will be increasingly important in
the decades ahead.'' It further found that ``the nation must take
action soon to modernize and recapitalize Coast Guard forces, if the
Service is to remain Semper Paratus--Always Ready.'' Mr. President,
that modernization is just beginning and I am proud to support the
Administration's request for $338 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund
the Integrated Deepwater System project. The bill I am cosponsoring
today authorizes full funding for the first year of this multi-year
project to replace more than 115 old ships and 165 aircraft that will
soon reach their service lives. I support the Coast Guard's
groundbreaking procurement process that stresses life cycle cost
efficiency and not just lowest procurement cost.
This bill represents a thorough set of improvements which will make
the Coast Guard more effective, improve the quality of life of its
personnel, and facilitate their daily operations. I would like to thank
Senators Snowe and Kerry for their bipartisan leadership on Coast Guard
issues, as well as my fellow co-sponsors Senators Hollings, Breaux,
Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine for their longstanding support of the Coast
Guard.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, and Mr.
Bayh):
S. 952. A bill to provide collective bargaining rights for public
safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by
Senators Kennedy, DeWine, and Bayh in introducing the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001. This legislation would
extend to firefighters and police officers the right to discuss
workplace issues with their employers.
With the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State and
local government employees remain the only sizable segment of workers
left in America who do not have the basic right to enter into
collective bargaining agreements with their employers. While most
States do provide some collective bargaining rights for their public
employees, others do not.
The lack of collective bargaining rights is especially troublesome in
the public safety arena. Firefighters and police officers take
seriously their oath to protect the public safety, and as a result,
they do not engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. The absence of
collective bargaining denies these workers any opportunity to influence
the decisions that affect their lives or livelihoods.
Studies have shown that communities which promote such cooperation
enjoy much more effective and efficient delivery of emergency services.
Such cooperation, however, is not possible in the 18 States that do not
provide public safety employees with the fundamental right to bargain
with their employers.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the unique
situation and obligation of public safety officers. First, we create a
special collective bargaining right outside the scope of other Federal
labor law and specifically prohibit the use of strikes, work stoppages
or other actions that could disrupt the delivery of services. Second,
this legislation utilizes the procedures and expertise of the Federal
Labor Relations Authority to help resolve disputes between public
safety employers and employees. This bill simply requires that each
State provide minimum collective bargaining rights to their public
safety employees in whatever manner they choose. It outlines certain
provisions that must be included in state laws, but leaves the major
decisions to the state legislatures. States that already have the
minimum collective bargaining protections as outlined in this
legislation would be exempt from the Federal statute. And third, the
bill specifically prohibits strikes, lockouts, sickouts, work slowdowns
or any other job action which will disrupt the delivery of emergency
services.
Labor-management partnerships, which are built upon bargaining
relationships, result in improved public safety. Employer-employee
cooperation contains the promise of saving the taxpayer money by
enabling workers to give input as to the most efficient way to provide
services. In fact, States that currently give firefighters the right to
discuss workplace issues actually have lower fire department budgets
than states without those laws.
The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation act of 2001 will put
firefighters and law enforcement officers on equal footing with other
employees and provide them with the fundamental right to negotiate with
employers over such basic issues as hours, wages, and workplace
conditions.
I urge its adoption and 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. 952
[Data not available at time of printing.]
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join my colleagues,
Senators Gregg, DeWine, and Bayh, to introduce the ``Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001.''
For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and
management to work together to improve job conditions and increase
productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have
led the way on many important improvements in today's workplace--
especially with regard to health and pension benefits, paid holidays
and sick leave, and workplace safety.
[[Page S5631]]
Collective bargaining in the public sector, once a controversial
issue, is now widely accepted. It has been common since at least 1962,
when President Kennedy signed an Executive Order granting these basic
rights to federal employees. Congressional employees have had these
rights since enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act almost a
decade ago. It is long since time to give state and local government
employees federal protection for the basic right to enter into
collective bargaining agreements with their employers.
The act we are introducing today extends this protection to
firefighters, police officers, paramedics and emergency medical
technicians. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for
collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union; the right to
bargain over hours, wages and working conditions; the right to sign
legally enforceable contracts; and the right to a resolution mechanism
in the event of an impasse in negotiations. The bill also accomplishes
its goals in a reasonable and moderate way.
The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. It will lead to
safer working conditions for public safety officers. These valued
public employees serve in some of the country's most dangerous,
strenuous and stressful jobs. Every year, more than 80,000 police
officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. An average of
160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty
each year. Because these men and women serve on the front lines in
providing firefighting services, law enforcement services, and
emergency medical services, they know what it takes to create safer
working conditions. They deserve the benefit of collective bargaining
to give them a voice in decisions that can literally make a life-and-
death difference on the job.
Our bill will also save money for states and local communities.
Experience has shown that when public safety officers can discuss
workplace conditions with management, partnerships and cooperation
develop and lead to improved labor-management relations and better,
more cost-effective services. A study by the International Association
of Fire Fighters shows that states and municipalities that give
firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire
department budgets than states without such laws. When workers who
actually do the job are able to provide advice on their work
conditions, there are fewer injuries, better morale, better information
on new technologies, and more efficient ways to provide the services.
It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and
women the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers.
They put their lives on the line to protect us every day. They deserve
to have an effective voice on the job, and improvements in their work
conditions will benefit their entire community.
I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Allard, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Bennett, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Collins,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Craig, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Ensign,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Gramm, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lott, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon,
S. 953. A bill to establish a Blue Ribbon Study Panel and an Election
Administration Commission to study voting procedures and election
administration, to provide grants to modernize voting procedures and
election administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when election reform emerged on the
nation's agenda last winter, as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee,
the committee of jurisdiction over election law, I resolved to keep the
issue from getting bogged down in the partisan morass. The furor and
fervor surround the last election has finally given way to a
constructive bipartisan consensus. Today it is a distinct pleasure to
join with Senators Schumer, Torricelli, and Brownback in advancing
bipartisan legislation to restore faith in American elections.
Even more remarkable is the support in the endeavor of two reform
groups with whom I have been engaged over the years in something less
than a mutual admiration society, to say the least: Common Cause and
the League of Women Voters. Ours is perhaps the most curious alliance
since Bob Dole teamed up with Britney Spears to push Pepsi. And only
slightly less jarring.
Nearly as discombobulating was opening the New York Times editorial
page and seeing my name in print in the lead editorial applauding the
McConnell/Schumer/Torricelli/Brownback bill. My wife, the Secretary of
Labor, subsequently performed the Heimlich maneuver, lest I choke on
the New York Times' praise. No doubt the editorial writer experienced
similar bewilderment, as Darth Vader suddenly became Luke Skywalker
overnight.
As this alliance indicates, election reform must transcend
partisanship and result in real and lasting achievement by ensuring
what I call, the three A's of election reform: Accuracy, Access and
Accountability. This is the essence of this bill.
Our bill will establish, for the first time in our Nation's history,
a permanent Election Administration Commission. This new permanent
commission will bring focused expertise to bear on the administration
of elections, and, importantly, award matching grants to States and
localities to improve the accuracy and integrity of our election
system.
Accuracy. The last election produced outcries over inaccurate voter
rolls where some cities actually had more registered voters than the
voting age population. And, of course, we've all heard the stories of
both pets and dead people being registered to vote, and, in some
instances, actually voting.
This legislation will require accurate voter rolls to ensure that
those who vote are legally entitled to do so, and do so only once.
Access. This legislation also seeks to ensure that never again will
our men and women in uniform be denied the opportunity to vote. The
bill will merge the Department of Defense's Office of Voting Assistance
into the new permanent commission. Moreover, the bill will increase the
ability of disabled voters to both register and vote.
Accountability. The new Election Administration Commission will
dramatically increase accountability by awarding grants only to those
states and localities who ensure accurate and accessible voting.
Again, I applaud Senators Schumer, Torricelli, and Brownback for
their principled and diligent work on this effort over the past six
months. I believe this bill is the first, best step toward meaningful
election reform.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold,
and Mr. Akaka):
S. 955. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify
restrictions added by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act of 1996; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues,
Senators Graham, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, Dodd, Inouye, Akaka,
Feingold, and Durbin in introducing the Immigrant Fairness Restoration
Act. This legislation will restore the balance to our immigration laws
that was lost when Congress amended the immigration laws in 1996.
The changes made in 1996 went too far. They have had harsh
consequences that punish families and violate individual liberty,
fairness and due process.
[[Page S5632]]
Families are being torn apart. Persons who present no danger to their
communities have been left to languish in INS detention. Individuals
are being summarily deported from the United States, to countries they
no longer remember, separated from all that they know and love.
The bill we are introducing will undo many of these harsh
consequences. It will eliminate the retroactive application of the 1996
changes. Permanent residents who committed offenses long before the
enactment of the 1996 laws should be able to apply for the relief from
removal under the law as it existed when the offense was committed.
Current immigration laws too often punish permanent residents out of
all proportion to their crimes. Relatively minor offenses are turned
into aggravated felonies. Permanent residents who did not have criminal
convictions or serve prison sentences are blocked from all relief from
deportation.
Our proposal restores the discretion that immigration judges
previously had and responsibly exercised to evaluate cases on an
individual basis and grant relief from deportation to deserving
persons. Currently, immigration judges are precluded from granting such
relief to many permanent residents, regardless of the circumstances or
equities in the cases. As a result of the 1996 laws, the judges' hands
are tied, even in the most compelling cases. This legislation will
allow immigration judges to return to their proper role.
Our bill will also end mandatory detention. The Attorney General will
have the authority to release from detention persons who do not pose a
danger to the community and are not a flight risk. Detention is an
extraordinary power that should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. A judge should have the discretion to release from
detention persons who are not a danger to the community and who do not
pose a flight risk.
Clearly, dangerous criminals should be detained and deported. But
indefinite detention must end. No public purpose is served by wasting
valuable resources detaining non-dangerous individuals, many of whom
have lived in this country with their families for many years,
established strong ties to their communities, paid taxes, and
contributed in other ways to the fabric of our Nation.
The 1996 laws also stripped the Federal courts of any authority to
review the decisions of the INS and the immigration courts. Under
present law, harsh determinations are often made at the unreviewable
discretion of INS officers. Fundamental decisions are made on the basis
of a brief review of a few pages in a file, or a perfunctory
administrative hearing, without judicial review. Our proposal will
restore such review. Immigrants deserve their day in court.
Americans are proud of our heritage and history as a nation of
immigrants. It is long past time for Congress to correct the laws
enacted in 1996.
Many heart-wrenching stories could be cited about the ``nightmares''
created by the 1996 laws and the people caught by its provisions.
Consider the case of Carlos Garcia, who fled from his native land of
El Salvador in 1978 during the civil war. Upon arriving in the United
States, he became fluent in English and attended a local community
college, and in 1982, he became a permanent resident. All of his family
live in this country, including his U.S. citizen parents.
In 1993, he pleaded guilty to taking $200 from a department store
where he worked. He was sentenced to two years of probation, with a
suspended jail sentence, and he completed his probation early. Apart
from this single offense, he has no criminal history. For years, he has
worked as a caterer, holding a security clearance, since his employer
handled functions in Congress, the State Department and White House. He
regularly attends church and participates in a bone marrow transplant
program to help children.
In 1998, the INS placed Carlos in removal proceedings after he
returned from a four-day vacation cruise. Because the 1996 laws made
his crime an aggravated felony, the immigration judge no longer had
discretion to consider evidence of his positive contributions to his
community, his family ties, or the potential hardship that severing
those ties may cause.
Or consider the case of Claudette Etienne, who fled from Haiti at the
age of 23, and was a legal resident of the United States for 20 years.
She had two young U.S. citizen children and lived with her husband in
Miami. One day, during an argument, Claudette threatened her husband
with a broken bottle, and was sentenced to a year of probation. In June
1999, she was found guilty of selling a small amount of cocaine and was
sentenced to another year of probation. When she was summoned to see
her probation officer in February 2000, INS officers arrested her and
placed her in deportation proceedings under the 1996 immigration laws.
She was imprisoned in an INS detention center for the next seven
months, and in September was taken by U.S. Marshals and put on a flight
to Haiti.
Upon arriving in Haiti, the police immediately jailed her in a cell
that was pitch black. The air was thick with the stench of human sweat
and waste, and the temperature reached 105 degrees. Claudette had to
rely on the compassion of prisoners and guards for food, since the jail
provided none. During her imprisonment in Haiti, she became sick with
fever, stomach pains, diarrhea, and constant vomiting from drinking tap
water. She died in the jail a few days later.
Surely, Congress cannot ignore such abuses. Even many proponents of
the 1996 laws now admit that these changes went too far and need to be
corrected as soon as possible. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act
will help to protect families, assure fairness and due process, and
restore the integrity of our immigration laws, and I urge all my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Durbin, Inouye, Kerry, Leahy, Akaka, and
Wellstone to introduce the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act of 2001.
This legislation brings balance back to the legal system. It rights
some of the wrongs of the 1996 immigration law. It restores fairness
and justice to everyone in our country.
As it stands today, the immigration laws violate those core American
principles.
The original aim of the 1996 immigration bill was to control illegal
immigration. In practice, the law hurts legal permanent residents and
others who entered, or wanted to enter, the United States legally.
The 1996 laws, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, IIRAIRA, and Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act, AEDPA, mandated deportation of legal aliens for relatively
insignificant crimes. For the most part, these are crimes for which
they have already served their punishment. They have restricted access
to legal counsel and virtually no recourse in the courts.
This violates the tradition of our country. It also violates the
essence of our legal system. Our constitution demands that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law. This fundamental right applies to all persons, regardless of their
paperwork or where they were born.
Our legal system should be about granting people their day at court,
to provide a second chance, to keep the rules of the game fair.
When we think about fairness, or lack of fairness, we should think
about personal stories. John Gaul, formerly from Tampa, FL, has been
punished twice for his mistakes. John was adopted from Thailand by his
U.S. citizen parents when he was 4 years old. As a teenager, he was
convicted of car theft and credit card fraud, two nonviolent offenses
for which he served 20 months in jail. John does not remember Thailand.
He does not speak Thai, nor does he know of relatives there. None of
that mattered. John was deported to Thailand and may never be allowed
to return to his parents in the United States.
Was it fair to threaten Carolina Murry of Neptune Beach with
deportation for voting, even though she never knew she was not a U.S.
citizen? Carolina's father told her that she had become a U.S. citizen
shortly after she moved with him from the Dominican Republic at the age
of 3. Only in 1998, when she applied for a passport, did she learn that
in fact she was not. In the process of becoming a citizen, INS
officials asked her if she ever voted in a
[[Page S5633]]
U.S. election. She replied she had, because she takes her civic duties
seriously. As a consequence, INS not only denied her application but
also told her that she faced criminal prosecution and deportation for
voting illegally. Only after the case caught media attention and raised
a lot of public protest did the charges get dropped.
Would it be fair to separate Aarti Shahani, a U.S. citizen, from her
father, a legal permanent resident in the United States since 1984? Her
father, a small businessman, is facing deportation to India. As early
as next week he will be transferred to INS detention following a State
sentence relating to his failure to report taxable business earnings.
Aarti has taken a leave from the University of Chicago to help support
her family. She and her two U.S. citizen siblings continue to fight for
their father's right to stay in the United States. They are fighting to
keep the family together.
Earlier this month, President Bush urged Congress to establish
immigration laws that recognize the importance of families and that
help to strengthen them. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act does
exactly that. Right now, our immigration laws tear families apart. The
laws are harsh and offer no chance for review or appeal.
I strongly believe that criminals should be punished. They should
repay their debt to society by incarcertaion, monetary restitution or
other sanctions. But I also believe that everyone deserves a chance at
a fresh start after the debts are paid. No one should be punished
twice.
The 1996 law went too far. It is time to eliminate retroactivity. It
is time to restore a system that punishes legal residents in proportion
to their crimes. It is time to restore discretion so immigration judges
can evaluate cases individually and grant relief to those deserving. It
is time to ensure legal residents are not needlessly jailed or
imprisoned.
We need legislation that lives up to our nation's legacy as a country
of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support the Immigrant Fairness
Restoration Act to grant everyone equal protection under the law.
______
By Mr. CORZINE:
S. 956. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to promote the
use of safety belts and child restraint systems by children, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child
Passenger Safety Act, a bill to ensure that our children are adequately
restrained and protected in cars. I am pleased to join my colleague
Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who has introduced this
legislation in the House and who has a longstanding interest in child
safety. I also want to recognize Senator Peter Fitzgerald's commitment
to child safety. His recent hearing on the subject of child passenger
safety laws shed important light on the need to encourage States to
strengthen their laws, and I look forward to working with him to
address this issue.
No child should be placed at risk by a simple trip to the local
grocer. No child should be in danger on a family trip to the beach. No
child should be placed in jeopardy in the daily ride to school. Yet
unfortunately, every year almost 1,800 children aged 14 and under die
in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 274,000 kids are injured. In
fact, traveling in a car without a seatbelt is the leading killer of
children in America.
Despite this compelling statistic, the lack of reasonable safety
measures for kids in this country is staggering. We know that children
who are not restrained are far more likely to suffer severe injuries or
even death in motor vehicle crashes, yet approximately 30 percent of
children ages four and under ride unrestrained, and of those who do
buckle up, four out of five children are improperly secured. Only five
percent of four- to eight-year-olds ride in booster seats.
Unfortunately, States have done too little to protect child
passengers, a conclusion documented in a recent study of child car
safety laws by the non-profit National Safe Kids Campaign. This report
rated the effectiveness of each State's laws in protecting children
from injury in traffic accidents, and twenty-four of the fifty States
received a failing grade, while only two States, Florida and
California, received grades higher than a C. My own State of New
Jersey's laws were ranked dead last in the survey, because the State
does not require any protection for children aged five or older riding
in the back seat.
Among the study's alarming findings: no State fully protects all
child passengers ages 15 and under, no States require children aged 6-8
to ride in booster seats, 34 States allow child passengers to rider
unrestrained due to exemptions, and in many States, children are
legally allowed to ride completely unrestrained in the back seat of a
vehicle.
Statistics like these make it clear that we need new Federal
legislation. States are simply not doing enough to protect children in
car accidents, especially older children. That is why today I am
introducing a bill that would help ensure that all children are safely
secured in cars, no matter where they live. The Child Passenger Safety
Act would encourage States to enact laws requiring that children up to
age eight are properly secured in a child car safety seat or booster
seat appropriate to the child's age or size. The legislation also would
encourage States to ensure that children up to the age 16 are
restrained in a seatbelt, regardless of where they are sitting in the
vehicle.
States that do not meet these critical goals would be subject to the
loss of Federal transportation funds, the same approach used to
encourage States to establish strong drunk driving standards.
We cannot sit idly by while so many of our children are exposed to
unnecessary danger on our nation's roads. I ask my colleagues to join
me in support of the Child Passenger Safety Act.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Byrd, and Ms.
Stabenow)
S. 957. A bill to provide certain safeguards with respect to the
domestic steel industry; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, on
behalf of myself and Senators Dayton, Byrd, and Stabenow, the Steel
Revitalization Act of 2001. This is the companion measure to H.R. 808,
which, as of this moment, has 189 cosponsors in the House. The measure
represents a comprehensive approach to the serious crisis facing our
domestic iron ore and steel industry.
I want to note that several of the provisions contained in the Act
are ones that my colleagues in the bi-partisan Steel Caucus here in the
Senate and our counterparts in the House have been working on for some
time. I want to publicly acknowledge and thank, in particular, Senators
Rockefeller and Specter for their work in co-chairing the Caucus, and
Senator Byrd for his unflinching support of the entire steel industry
and his creative efforts on behalf of the industry's working families.
The Steel Revitalization Act includes the following four components:
1. A five-year period of quantitative restrictions on the import of
iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel products. Import
levels would be set for each product line at the average level of
penetration that occurred during the three years prior to the onset of
the steel import crisis in late 1997. 2. Creation of a Steelworker
Retiree Health Care Fund to be administered by a Steelworker Retiree
Health Care Board at the Department of Labor which would be accessible
by all steel companies that provide health insurance to retirees at the
time of enactment. The Fund would be underwritten through a 1.5 percent
surcharge on the sale of all steel products in the United States, both
imported and domestic. 3. Enhancement of the current Steel Loan
Guarantee program to provide steel companies greater access to funds
needed to invest in capital improvements and take advantage of the
latest technological advancements. Among other things, the Act would
(a) increase the current Steel Loan Guarantee authorization from $1
billion to $10 billion, (b) increase the loan coverage from 85 percent
to 95 percent, and (c) extend the duration of financing from 5 to 15
years. 4. Creation of a $500 million grant program at the Department of
Commerce to help defray the cost of environmental mitigation and
restructuring as a result of consolidation. Companies which have merged
[[Page S5634]]
will be eligible to apply for such funds if their grant application
outlines a merger that will retain 80 percent of the domestic blue-
collar workforce and production capacity for 10 years after the merger.
The recent economic conditions facing the U.S. iron ore and steel
industry are of particular concern to those in my home state of
Minnesota. We are extremely proud of our state's history as the
nation's largest producer of iron ore. The iron ore and taconite mines,
located on the Iron Range in Minnesota and in our sister state of
Michigan, have provided key raw materials to the nation's steel
producers for over a century.
You will not find a harder working, more committed group of workers
anywhere in this country than you find in the iron ore and taconite
industry. This is a group of people who work under the toughest of
conditions, are absolutely committed to their families, and who now
face dire circumstances, through no fault of their own, because of the
effects of unfairly traded iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished
steel products.
Earlier this year, for example, citing poor economic conditions, LTV
Steel Mining Company halted production at the Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota
mine, leaving 1,400 workers out of good-paying jobs and affecting
nearly 5,000 additional workers as well. These are people who believe
in the importance of a strong domestic steel industry to the economic
and national security of our country.
The Steel Revitalization Act is a comprehensive measure designed to
address the multiplicity of needs facing the iron ore and steel
industry today. It provides import relief, industry-wide sharing of the
huge retiree health care cost burdens resulting from massive layoffs
during the 1970's and 1980's, improved access to capital, and
assistance for industry consolidation that protects American jobs.
It is imperative that we act and that we act soon. Failing economic
conditions, huge health care legacy cost burdens, and staggering levels
of iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel imports pose
immense threats to this essential industry. I urge my colleagues in the
Senate to join in helping to pass this critical legislation at the
earliest possible date. Relief for this essential industry is long
overdue. We cannot afford to delay.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary--Steel Revitalization Act
In mid-January, the United States Steelworkers of America
presented a proposal for a comprehensive steel revitalization
package. The results is H.R. 808, the Steel Revitalization
Act, outlined below. This was introduced on March 1, 2001 by
Congressional Steel Caucus Vice Chairman Peter Visclosky,
with 84 other original cosponsors, including Congressional
Steel Caucus Chairman Jack Quinn and Congressional Steel
Caucus Executive Committee Chairman Phil English and Vice
Chairman Dennis Kucinich. The measure currently has 172
cosponsors.
TITLE I--Import Relief
This title will mirror H.R. 975, the Steel Import Quota
Bill, which was approved by the House in the 106th Congress,
but failed to achieve cloture in the Senate.
provisions of title i
Provides import relief by imposing 5-year quotas on the
importation of steel and iron ore products into the U.S.
The quotas will limit import penetration to the average
pre-crisis (1994 to 1997) levels (i.e., the import levels
allowed in will be linked to the percentage of domestic
consumption of foreign steel in the years preceding the
import crisis).
changes from h.r. 975
H.R. 975 based quotas on tonnage, not percentage of
penetration. Because the market is weakening, we expect
tonnage imported to decrease anyway. Therefore, we will link
quota numbers to penetration to account for expected
decreases in imported tonnage. However, due to differences in
statistical methodology, iron ore, semifinished steel and
coke product quotas will be determined by tonnage.
H.R. 975 did not include stainless and specialty steel
products. This provision will include those products.
This measure will include a short supply clause to ensure
that sufficient supplies of steel products are available and
to prevent overpricing in some product areas.
TITLE II--Legacy Cost Sharing
This title will address the overwhelming cost many steel
companies face in retiree health care due to massive
downsizing and restructuring in the 1980s.
Provisions of Title II
Imposes a 1.5 percent surcharge on the sale of steel and
iron ore in the U.S. The average cost of a ton of steel is
about $500, translating to a $7.50 per ton payment. With an
average of 130 million tons of steel sold in the U.S. per
year, the fund should generate approximately $880 million per
year.
Revenues will be placed in a Steelworker Retiree Health
Care Trust Fund, to be administered by the Department of
Labor through a newly established Steel Retiree Health Care
Board.
The Board will accept applications from steel and iron ore
companies for access to the Fund to defray the cost of
retiree health care benefits.
Eligible retirees will have retired prior to enactment of
the bill.
The fund will be available to defray up to 75 percent of
the cost of health care per individual, based on benefits
available at the time of enactment adjusted for inflation in
the health care market. New benefits negotiated by the union
or offered by the company will not be eligible for increased
funding.
If there are insufficient funds to cover all eligible
health care rebates, the funds will be divided equally on a
per-beneficiary basis. The funds will not be divided based on
benefit costs.
After the first year the level of the tax will be adjusted
annually based on the size of the fund and projected outlays,
until the tax sunsets automatically. The tax will never
exceed 1.5 percent.
TITLE III--Steel Loan Guarantee Adjustments
This title will address problems with the Steel Loan
Guarantee program, which has proven ineffective in finalizing
loans. Currently, 7 loans have been approved, but only one
has actually resulted in financing for a steel company
(Geneva Steel). Steel companies are finding it almost
impossible to raise capital through other sources, especially
due to plummeting stock prices and decreasing demand. This
portion of the bill was hammered out with the help of Senator
Byrd's office.
provisions of title iii
The authorization of the program will be increased from $1
billion to $10 billion.
The guarantee will cover 95 percent of the loan, up from
85% under the current program.
The duration of the loan guarantee will be extended from 5
to 15 years.
The period between application to the Board and
determination of a guarantee will be set at 45 days.
The Board will be composed of the Secretaries of Treasury,
Commerce, and Labor, or their designees, with the
Chairmanship held by the Commerce Secretary. Currently the
Board includes the Fed and SEC Chairmen, who have limited
experience with the steel industry.
The funds made available from loans will be limited to
capital expenditures, and will not be used to service
existing debt.
TITLE IV--Incentives for Consolidation
This title will encourage the responsible consolidation of
the steel industry, which is currently deeply fragmented.
Provisions of Title IV
A $500 million grant program at the Department of Commerce
will be created.
Any time up to 1 year after a merger is completed, an
eligible company, as defined as a producer of products
protected under the Quota portion of the bill, will be able
to apply for up to $100 million in grants to defray costs
associated with the merger.
The Department of Commerce will review the merger proposal
to determine if the merger will promote the retention of jobs
and production capacity.
If the merger meets certain thresholds in employment and
production capacity retention (retention of 80 percent of the
workforce and at least 50 percent of the workforce of the
acquired company and 80 percent of production capacity, not
utilization), the company applying will be awarded up to $100
million in funds to defray the costs of environmental
mitigation. There is clear language stating that the intent
of the measure is to promote the MAXIMUM retention of
workers, regardless of the 80 percent cutoff.
The applicant will also be given access to the Steelworker
Retiree Health Care Trust Fund for new retirees created by
the merger, if the merger occurs prior to 2010.
Requirements for employment must be met for ten years to
avoid penalties. Penalties for violation of the grant
agreements will be weighted more heavily in the first five
years, then will gradually phase out during the following
five years.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I join with the senior Senator from
Minnesota and all my colleagues from steel states, in making every
effort to revitalize this important and basic American industry.
There are thirty-four Senators representing twenty-four States in the
Steel Caucus, and we all agree that without immediate relief from the
flood of foreign steel, the future of the United States steel industry
is in jeopardy. The provisions of the Steel Revitalization Act will
give our domestic steel industry the time it needs to recover from the
import surges of the past three years.
[[Page S5635]]
This bill also acknowledges the highly integrated process of making
steel. It provides import relief for steel products that include iron
ore and semi-finished steel. Minnesota and Michigan are the two leading
states in the production of taconite. Taconite is essentially
pelletized iron ore that is melted in blast furnaces and then blown
with oxygen to make steel. Every ton of imported, semi-finished steel
displaces 1.3 tons of iron ore in basic, domestic steel production.
This means reduced production, cutbacks, and plant closings, causing
devastating economic uncertainty in critical regions of these states.
This bill will provide much needed help to the hardworking people and
their families who live in the Iron Range regions of Northeastern
Minnesota and Northern Michigan. The bill also helps the steelworkers
and the steel-making communities of West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Ohio, to name only a few. In this crisis, we are all one
family. We are people who believe that America's steel industry is a
basic industry, essential to the economic and national security of our
country.
Yesterday, the Department of Labor informed 1,400 workers from the
LTV Steel Mining Company in Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota that they are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance because of the increase in
imported steel products. Last December, LTV declared bankruptcy, making
these workers permanently unemployed. Trade adjustment assistance will
help with extended unemployment benefits, training and relocation. I
know that these workers are grateful for this assistance, but it is
help that comes after LTV has closed its doors forever.
The bill we introduce today will give the industry time to
restructure and provide needed capital to companies through the Steel
Loan Guarantee program, a program established through the efforts of
the distinguished Senator, Robert Byrd. The Steel Revitalization Act
will help retired steelworkers with a health care fund; and help
companies with necessary consolidation while at the same time requiring
them to retain the majority of their workforce.
The United Steelworkers state: ``On a level playing field, there
would be no steel crisis, but there is no level playing field.'' The
Steel Revitalization Act will help strengthen the steel industry and
make American steel competitive once again.
I promise the Minnesota taconite workers, their families, and the
communities of the Iron Range, to work hard to pass this bill.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 958. A bill to provide for the use and distribution of the funds
awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under Indian Claims
Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, 326-K, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and for Senator
Ensign, to introduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. I am
re-introducing this much needed bill for the Western Shoshone Tribe
from the second session of the 106th Congress. It had been referred to
the Indian Affairs Committee, but there was not enough time at the end
of the Congress to act on it.
In 1946, the Indian Claims Commission was established to compensate
Indians for lands and resources taken from them by the United States.
The Commission determined in 1962 that Western Shoshone homeland had
been taken through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977, the Commission
awarded the Tribe in over $26 million dollars. However, it was not
until 1979, that the United States appropriated the funds to reimburse
the descendants of these Tribes for their loss. Plans for claims
distribution were further delayed by litigation; and the Western
Shoshone concern that accepting the claims would impact their right to
get back some of their traditional homelands.
The Western Shoshone are an impoverished people. There is relatively
little economic activity on some of their scattered reservations. Those
who are employed, work for the tribal government, work in livestock and
agriculture, or work in small businesses, such as day-cares and
souvenir shops. They live from pay check to pay check, with little or
no money for heating their homes, much less for their children's
education. Many of the Western Shoshone continue to be
disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational achievement.
Many individuals of the Western Shoshone are willing to accept the
distribution of the claim settlement funds to relieve these difficult
economic conditions. About $128.8 million (in principal and interest)
would be distributed to over 6,000 eligible members of the Western
Shoshone; $1.27 million (in principal and interest) would be placed in
an educational trust fund for the benefit of and distribution to future
generations of the Tribe.
The Western Shoshone have waited long enough for the distribution of
these much needed funds. The final distribution of this fund has
lingered for more than twenty years, and the best interests of the
Tribe will not be served by a further delay in enacting this
legislation. My bill will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone
tribal members, and ensure that future generations will be able to
enjoy the financial benefits of this settlement by establishing a grant
program for education and other individual needs. The Western Shoshone
Steering Committee, a coalition of Western Shoshone individual tribal
members, has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to
affect this distribution.
This Act also provides that acceptance of these funds is not a waiver
of any existing treaty rights pursuant to the Ruby Valley Treaty. Nor
will acceptance of these funds prevent any Western Shoshone Tribe or
Band or individual Western Shoshone Indian from pursuing other rights
guaranteed by law.
Twenty-three years has been more than long enough.
Finally, I would like to highlight the fact that Senator Ensign of
Nevada joins me today to introduce this important bill. I know that
Senator Ensign is concerned, as I, about the delay of the distribution
of the claims to the Western Shoshone, and his support for this bill
will help ensure that the Tribe will receive their long-awaited
compensation.
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. 958
[Data not available at time of printing.]
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 959. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Transportation to consider the impact of severe
weather conditions on Montana's aviation public and establish
regulatory distinctions consistent with those applied to the State of
Alaska; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Montana
Rural Aviation Improvement Act.
As many in this body know, flying in Montana can be an adventure.
There's an old saying in Montana that ``if you want the weather to
change, wait five minutes''.
Simply put, this act would provide the aviation public with an
accurate report of Montana's weather conditions at airports across the
state.
This year the Federal Aviation Administration eliminated the use of
on-site certified weather observers at Service Level D Airports in
Montana. These Level D Airports are an important part of Montana's
transportation infrastructure and economy. Without accurate
information, both commercial and private planes may not be able to land
at these airports because of inaccurate readings from the Automated
Surface Observing System, ASOS.
In August 2000 I directed a member of my staff to spend a day at the
Miles City weather observation station, where the Automated Surface
Observing Systems system was being tested.
I am now even more convinced that the commission of the Automated
Surface Observing Systems as a stand-alone weather observation service
is a grave mistake.
Many of the following conditions are characteristic of Montana's
complicated weather patterns and can't be
[[Page S5636]]
accurately read by the Automated Surface Observing System.
The Automated Surface Observing System User's Guide, dated March
1998, states that the following weather elements cannot be sensed or
reported by Automated Surface Observing System; hail; ice crystals
(snow grains, ice pellets, snow pellets); drizzle, freezing drizzle;
volcanic ash; blowing obstruction sand, dust, spray; smoke; snow fall
and snow depth; hourly snow increase; liquid equivalent of frozen
precipitation; water equivalent of snow on the ground; clouds above
12,000 feet; operationally significant clouds above 12,000 feet in
mountainous areas; virga; distant precipitation in mountainous and
areas and distant clouds obscuring mountains; and operationally
significant local variations in visibility.
Five of the seven airports affected provide commercial airline
service through the Essential Air Service, EAS, program--a program that
is indispensable to the transportation and economy of Eastern Montana.
With Automated Surface Observing System on stand-alone, Montana's EAS
commercial carrier has expressed real reservations to landing at
airports where data may or may not be current or correct, and
especially in circumstances where Automated Surface Observing System
does not yet read inclement or severe weather conditions common to
Montana. As you know, airline service is dependent on one thing--
passengers. If they cannot land, who would pay to fly?
This past summer I hosted the Montana Economic Summit, a statewide
conference that brought together a strong public- private partnership
to examine the evidence, chart a course and focus on those elements we
can execute to help move this state forward. Transportation is a strong
component of this state's economy. If commercial air service is
impacted, it will have a dire and immediate impact on my state's
economy, currently ranked at 49th in per capita income and struggling
to climb out of the basement.
I would like to add an accountability log compiled by the Miles City
weather observers that identifies errors Automated Surface Observing
System in data collected and reported by the Automated Surface
Observing System at the Miles City Airport from April-July 2000. My
staff observed the hourly accounting throughout the day, particularly
noting the frustration by weather observers to input, correct and
transmit data via the keyboard and terminal. It is extremely important
to note that Montana's weather observers see the Automated Surface
Observing System as a compatible tool to complement their professional
training and provide the safest environment for Montana aviation.
Maintenance and operational backup are of additional concern in
Montana's rural landscape. It goes without saying that in instances of
severe weather, when the Automated Surface Observing System should go
down without backup, it effectively closes the airport to any traffic,
commercial or private, that cannot or will not land without the
technological benefit of reliable weather data. This process could
clearly impact the safety of Montana's flying public.
It cannot be overemphasized that in many smaller airports,
specifically Service Level C&D sites, these observers are critical to
the overall operation and safety of community airspace. I know you
would have felt the same pride and support for the human weather
observer positions that I do. We are one team, working for the same
goal.
The best available tools should be used to provide the most accurate
data in situations involving public safety. The human weather observers
assure me that Automated Surface Observing System as a tool, combined
with their individual ability to override, correct or supplement
weather data gathered by the sensors, will provide the American public
with the highest quality safety and weather reporting capability in the
world.
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. 959
[Data not available at time of printing.]
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cochran, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Stabenow, and Mr. Warner):
S. 960. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
expand coverage of medical nutrition therapy services under the
Medicare program for beneficiaries with cardiovascular diseases; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan
legislation with my good friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig
and a bipartisan group of additional Senators. This legislation,
entitled the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of
2001,'' provides for the coverage of nutrition therapy for
cardiovascular disease under Part B of the Medicare program by a
registered dietitian.
This bill builds on provisions in the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act,'' otherwise known as BIPA,
which included coverage of Medicare nutrition therapy for diabetes and
renal disease taken from my legislation last year, S. 660, the
``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999.''
This bipartisan legislation is necessary because there is currently
no consistent Medicare Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition
therapy, despite the fact that poor nutrition is a major problem in
older Americans. Nutrition therapy in the ambulatory or outpatient
settings has been considered by Medicare to be a preventive service,
and therefore, not explicitly covered.
While it was significant that nutrition therapy coverage was added to
Part B of the Medicare program for diabetes and renal disease, it is
critical that the Congress also takes action to cover cardiovascular
disease through passage of this legislation, as recommended by the
Institute of Medicine in its report, The Role of Nutrition in
Maintaining Health in the Nation's Elderly: Evaluating Coverage of
Nutrition Services for the Medicare Population.
The report, which had been requested by Congress in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, found that nutrition therapy has been shown to be
effective in the management and treatment of many chronic conditions
which affect Medicare beneficiaries, including diabetes and chronic
renal insufficiency, but also cardiovascular disease. As the IOM notes,
``Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death and major
contributors to medical utilization and disability . . . Furthermore,
there is a striking age-related rise in mortality from heart disease
such that the vast majority of deaths due to heart disease occur in
persons age 65 and older.''
In addition, the costs associated with cardiovascular disease are
substantial with regard to the Medicare program. According to the IOM,
``. . . in 1995, Medicare spent $24.6 billion for hospital expenses
related to [cardiovascular diseases], an amount that corresponds to 33
percent of its hospitalization expenditures.''
Providing nutrition therapy to Medicare beneficiaries could
positively impact the Medicare Part A Trust Fund if hospitalization
could be reduced or avoided. The IOM found this would likely occur. As
the report notes, ``Such programs can prevent readmissions for heart
failure, reduce subsequent length of stay, and improve functional
status and quality-of-life . . . In view of the high costs of managing
heart failure, particular admissions for heart failure exacerbations,
and the rapid response to therapies, there is a real potential for cost
savings from multidisciplinary heart failure programs that include
nutrition therapy.''
It is exactly the type of cost effective care that we should
encourage in the Medicare program. As the American Heart Association
adds in their letter of support for this legislation, Dr. Robert Eckel
points out that, in one study, ``for every dollar spent on [Medicare
nutrition therapy] there is a three to ten dollar cost savings realized
by reducing the need for drug therapy.'' With drug costs increasing
dramatically, this could potentially result in significant cost savings
to Medicare beneficiaries.
Therefore, both the Medicare program and beneficiaries would benefit
[[Page S5637]]
from this expanded benefit. As the IOM concludes, ``Expanded coverage
for nutrition therapy is likely to generate economically significant
benefits to beneficiaries, and in the short term to the Medicare
program itself, through reduced healthcare expenditures. . . .''
Most importantly, it would also improve the quality of care of
Medicare beneficiaries. As the IOM report adds, ``Whether or not
expanded coverage reduces overall Medicare expenditures, it is
recommended that these services be reimbursed given the reasonable
evidence of improved patient outcomes associated with such care.''
For these reasons, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Medicare
Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001'' today with Senator
Craig.
However, as this legislation is introduced, I do want to note that
the IOM also recommended nutrition therapy be covered based on
physician referral rather than a specific medical condition. The
original legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senator Craig
and myself did just that but was made disease-specific in conference
last year. While I am pleased to introduce this legislation to include
cardiovascular disease, I do believe that we need to move toward
eliminating this disease-specific approach in the near future. For
example, I believe that Medicare should also provide Medicare nutrition
therapy for HIV/AIDS, cancer, and osteoporosis, among other things.
In the meantime, I urge the Congress to expand Medicare nutrition
therapy benefits to cover cardiovascular diseases as soon as possible.
I request 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. 960
[Data not available at time of printing.]
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 962. A bill to preserve open competition and Federal Government
neutrality towards the labor relations of Federal Government
contractors on Federal and federally funded construction projects; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. 962
[Data not available at time of printing.]
____________________