[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6992-S7002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself Mr. Wellstone, Mr Kennedy, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dodd, Mrs Murray, Mr.
Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Rockefeller and Mrs. Boxer).
S. 1107. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the
Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in
labor disputes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I, along with 15 of my colleagues are
introducing a bill today that addresses an issue we haven't talked
enough about in the Senate in recent years--but it's a critically
important issue that we cannot continue to ignore.
I'm talking about workers' rights--specifically the erosion of a
worker's fundamental right to strike, to protect that right.
Today, we are introducing the Workplace Fairness Act. This may sound
familiar to many of my colleagues here in the Senate. It was a bill my
good friend and former colleague Senator Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio
introduced in the 102nd and 103rd congress.
The Workplace Fairness Act would amend the National Labor Relations
[[Page S6993]]
Act and the Railway Labor Act by prohibiting employers from hiring
permanent replacement workers during a strike. It would also make it an
unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to allow a striking
worker who has made an unconditional offer to return to go back to
work.
Why do we need this legislation?
Because right now, a right to strike is a right to be permanently
replaced--to lose your job. Every cut-rate, cutthroat employer knows
they can break a union if they are willing to play hardball and ruin
the lives of the people who have made their company what it is. In my
own state of Iowa--Titan Tire Company out of Des Moines, is trying to
drive out the union workers with permanent replacements--the union has
been on strike for three years now.
Over the past two decades, workers' right to strike has too often
been undermined by the destructive practice of hiring permanent
replacement workers. Since the 1980s, permanent replacements have been
used again and again to break unions and to shift the balance between
workers and management.
Titan Tire just outside is just one of many examples.
On May 1, 1998, the 650 members of the United Steelworkers of
America, Local 164, who work in Des Moines Titan Tire plant, were
forced into an Unfair Labor Practice Strike.
During the contract negotiations preceding this strike, Titan
International Inc. President and CEO, Morry Taylor, attempted to
eliminate pension and medical benefits and illegally move jobs and
equipment out of the plant. He also forced employees to work excessive
mandatory overtime, sometimes working people as many as 26 days in a
row without a day off.
Well, the membership decided that Titan's final offer was impossible
to accept, and they voted to strike. Two months later, in July, 1998,
Titan began hiring permanent replacement workers.
During the past three years, approximately 500 permanent replacement
workers have been hired at the Des Moines plant. And little or no
progress has been made toward reaching a fair settlement. In fact on
April 30, 2000, the day before the second anniversary of the Titan
strike, Morrie Taylor predicted that the strike would never be settled.
Workers deserve better than this. Workers aren't disposable assets
that can be thrown away when labor disputes arise.
When we considered this legislation in 1994, the Senate labor and
Human Resources Committee heard poignant testimony about the emotional
and financial hardships caused by hiring permanent replacement workers.
We heard about workers losing their homes; going without health
insurance because of the high costs of COBRA coverage; feeling useless
when they were permanently replaced after years of loyal service.
The right to strike--which we all know is a last resort since no
worker takes the financial risk of a strike lightly--is fundamental to
preserving workers' rights to bargain for better wages and better
working conditions. Without the right to strike, workers forgo their
fair share of bargaining power.
Permanent striker replacement not only affects the workers who were
replaced. It affects other workers in competing companies. When one
employer in an industry breaks a union, hires permanent replacements,
and cuts salaries and benefits, it affects all the other companies in
the industry. Now they either have to find a way to compete with the
low-wages and shoddy benefits of a cut-rate, cut-throat business--or
they have to follow suit.
Also, workers faced with being replaced are forced to make a choice.
They can either stay with the union and fight for their jobs, or they
can cross the picket line to avoid losing the jobs they've held for ten
or twenty or thirty years.
Is this a free choice, as some of our colleagues would suggest? Or is
this blackmail that takes away the rights and the dignity of the
workers of this country? What does it mean to tell workers, ``you have
the right to strike''--when we allow them to be summarily fired for
exercising that right?
In reality, there is no legal right to strike today. And because
there is no legal right to strike, there is no legal right to bargain
collectively. And since there is no legal right to bargain
collectively, there is no level playing field between workers and
management.
In other words, Management gets to say that you must bargain on their
terms--or find some other place to work. If you're permanently
replaced, that means you're out of work; you lose all your pension
rights; you lose your seniority; you lose your job forever.
How did this happen? We've got to go back to the 1930's for the
answer.
In response to widespread worker abuses--and union busting--Congress
passed the National Labor Relations Act--the Wagner Act--in 1935 and it
was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The Wagner Act guarantees
workers the right to organize and bargain collectively and strike if
necessary. It makes it illegal for companies to interfere with these
rights. In fact, it specifies the right to strike and states: `Nothing
in this act--except as specifically provided herein--shall be construed
so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to
strike.'
In 1938, the Supreme Court dealt the Wagner Act a mortal blow in the
case National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Mackay Radio and
Telegraph Co. In that case, the Court said that Mackay Radio could hire
permanent replacement workers for those engaged in an economic strike.
There are two types of strikes: economic and unfair labor practices.
Employers must rehire employees in unfair labor practice strikes. The
NLRB determines if the strike is economic or based on unfair labor
practices. Unions cannot know in advance whether NLRB will rule that
their employer has engaged in unfair labor practices. So any employee
participating in a strike runs a risk of permanently losing his or her
job.
What's interesting is that following the Court's ruling, companies
did not take advantage of this loophole until the 1980s. Before then,
they recognized that doing that would upset this level playing field.
For almost 40 years, management rarely hired permanent replacements.
That began to change in the 1980s. Since then, hiring permanent
replacements has become a routine practice to break unions and shift
the balance between workers and management.
Again, the Workplace Fairness Act would restore the fundamental
principle of fair labor-management relations--the right of workers to
strike without having to fear losing their jobs.
Permanent striker replacement keeps us from moving forward as a
nation into an era of high-wage, high-skilled, highly productive jobs
in the global marketplace. Without the right to strike, workers' rights
will continue to erode. The result will be fewer incentives and less
motivation to produce good work, and companies will also suffer with
less quality in their products.
Obviously, this legislation won't be adopted this year. But we are
introducing it today to signal my intent on raising it and other
fundamental labor law reforms in the next session of Congress. It's
time for us to level the playing field for hard-working Americans.
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. 1107
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION DURING AND AT THE
CONCLUSION OF LABOR DISPUTES.
Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraph:
``(6)(i) to offer, or to grant, the status of a permanent
replacement employee to an individual for performing
bargaining unit work for the employer during a labor dispute;
or
``(ii) to otherwise offer, or grant, an individual any
employment preference based on the fact that such individual
was employed, or indicated a willingness to be employed,
during a labor dispute over an individual who--
[[Page S6994]]
``(A) was an employee of the employer at the commencement
of the dispute;
``(B) has exercised the right to join, to assist, or to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
through the labor organization involved in the dispute; and
``(C) is working for, or has unconditionally offered to
return to work for, the employer.''.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION DURING AND AT THE
CONCLUSION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.
Paragraph Fourth of section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45
U.S.C. 152) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Fourth.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) No carrier, or officer or agent of the carrier,
shall--
``(1) offer, or grant, the status of a permanent
replacement employee to an individual for performing work in
a craft or class for the carrier during a dispute involving
the craft or class; or
``(2) otherwise offer, or grant, an individual any
employment preference based on the fact that such individual
was employed, or indicated a willingness to be employed,
during a dispute over an individual who--
``(A) was an employee of the carrier at the commencement of
the dispute;
``(B) has exercised the right to join, to organize, to
assist in organizing, or to bargain collectively through the
labor organization involved in the dispute; and
``(C) is working for, or has unconditionally offered to
return to work for, the carrier.''.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend
Senator Harkin as an original cosponsor of the Workplace Fairness Act
of 2001. This measure, along with the ``Right to Organize Act of
2001,'' which I introduced yesterday, are two of the most important
pieces of legislation that will come before the Senate this year.
Together, these measures strengthen workers' rights to organize, to
join a union, and to advocate for fair collective bargaining and fair
agreements. Together, these measures produce the basic platform for
healthy economies, healthy communities, and healthy families.
Specifically, the Striker Replacement Act is designed to combat an
unfair labor practice which strikes at the very heart of the collective
bargaining process in this country: the permanent replacement of
striking workers. The goal of this Act is to restore the labor-
management balance in today's workplace by preventing the fundamental
right to strike from being transformed into a right to be fired.
The record shows that permanent replacement of striking workers has
been used increasingly over the years. Private sector employers,
emboldened by the Reagan Administration's permanent replacement of
striking Federal employees in the early 1980's, began to use the
permanent replacement of striking workers as a means of abrogating
collective bargaining agreements and bringing in new hires often
screened for their anti-union biases.
The process is fairly simple: require major and unreasonable
concessions of a union; force them to strike; permanently replace them
with workers unsympathetic to the union; and move to decertify the
union. This should be called what it is: outright union busting. And it
should not be tolerated.
The purpose of the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations
Act was to respond to the persistent--and sometimes violent--denial by
certain employers of the right to organize and bargain collectively.
The resulting strikes and other forms of industrial unrest in the
1930's were held by the courts to have severely burdened free and open
commerce across the country. As a result, the Railway Labor Act and the
National Labor Relations Act were passed, guided by two fundamental
principles: 1. Employees have a right to pursue their interests
collectively without fear of employer reprisals, and 2. Questions about
representation must be separated from substantive issues in dispute.
Government-supervised procedure should be established to ensure fair
representation; while collective bargaining should be the forum for
settling the remaining substantive disputes.
This system and these principles are sound. Workers have a right to
organize without being retaliated against for exercising that right.
And they have a right to negotiate wages, benefits, and other items
through collective bargaining.
But these principles only work if the right to strike, in the words
of the National Labor Relations Act, is not ``interfered with or
impeded or diminished in any way.'' In 1938, the Supreme Court in the
Mackay Radio case cut a huge swath through these guiding principles by
creating the striker replacement doctrine. Under this doctrine,
affirmed in subsequent decisions, such as Belknap v. Hale (1983) and
TWA v. IFFA (1989), even though it is unlawful to fire a striking
worker, it is not unlawful to permanently replace him or her.
The distinction between firing and permanent replacement, is
ludicrous--and it is untenable. The central practical reality--as any
man or woman who has exercised his or her right to strike and has paid
the consequences can tell you--in either case, whether it is called a
firing or a permanent replacement--the employee loses their job because
he or she has exercised the right to strike. That's the reality. That's
the harsh reality.
The measure we are introducing today is a simple one. It does two
things: 1. It amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway
Labor Act to prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacement
workers during a strike, or giving employment preference to cross over
employees, and 2. It makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer
to refuse to allow a striking worker to return to work if that worker
has unconditionally offered to return to work.
It's that simple. These are fundamental protections. These are
protections that are part of the basic compact with the American worker
created by the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act.
It is long past time that workers seeking to better their lives, their
families, and their communities are given access to a collective
bargaining process that is fair and even-handed. It is long past time
that workers be allowed to advocate for reasonable terms and conditions
of their employment without fear of devastating retribution.
Finally, this measure not only meets the needs of workers, their
families, and their communities, it also serves the interest of our
nation in a global economy. As others have pointed out, if we are to
remain strong and competitive as a nation, we must develop a highly
motivated and skilled workforce and we must create stable worker-
employer relationships that are based on mutual respect and a mutual
commitment to a joint economic enterprise. This will only happen if we
level the playing field and support a just, sound, and effective
collective bargaining process.
This measure, the Workplace Fairness Act, is one key to achieving
these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1108. A bill to authorize the transfer and conveyance of real
property at the Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleague from Maine
to introduce legislation facilitating the land conveyance at Winter
Harbor, ME.
First, may I note that this bill is the product of countless hours of
hard work and deliberation by the communities it affects--Winter Harbor
and Gouldsboro--the State of Maine, and the Maine Delegation. I would
like to thank those involved: Chairmen Stan Torrey and Tom Mayor and
members of the Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor Base Reuse Committees; Jean
Marshall, the Defense Conversion Coordinator for Eastern Maine
Development; Linda Pagels and Roger Barto, Town Managers for Gouldsboro
and Winter Harbor; and Commander Edwin Williamson, Commanding Officer
of Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor, for their efforts in
crafting legislation that all concerned can support.
The Navy has been a strong and supportive presence in the Winter
Harbor region since the establishment of their facility over 80 years
ago. What started as one man's patriotic efforts in World War I to
establish a radio station for transatlantic communications developed
into a complex network of sophisticated equipment that became Winter
Harbor Naval Security Group Activity. Throughout the two World Wars and
subsequent Cold War, the men and women stationed at Winter Harbor
provided invaluable services in our Nation's defense.
[[Page S6995]]
Maine and the Navy have always had a special relationship, and that
relationship extended to Winter Harbor. The base and community embraced
one another and developed a good neighbor relationship seldom seen
between a military installation and the surrounding community. For both
sides, it was truly a win-win situation. The sailors and their families
enjoyed the hospitality of Maine while the towns of Winter harbor and
Gouldsboro economically benefited from the Navy's presence.
Unfortunately, the advent of new technology has made the equipment
and mission of Winter Harbor obsolete. With the announcement that the
Winter Harbor Naval Activity would close in June 2002, the communities
began the laborious process of planning for life without the good
neighbors of Winter Harbor NSGA.
With this base closing, Maine will lose an economic base it has
depended on for over 80 years. At its high point, Winter Harbor had
approximately 250 sailors, 140 civilian employees, and their family
members in residence and the base became an economic focal point for
the region with an estimated $11 to $15 million being contributed to
the local economy on an annual basis.
To offset this impending loss, the towns applied for and received a
small Economic Development Administration Defense Conversion Planning
Grant in the amount of $200,000. While these funds proved crucial to
the start of the reuse process, many needs still remain unmet. This
legislation is intended to address some of those needs and to minimize
the financial consequences of the base closure.
The towns of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro are not looking for
charity. As you will see, this legislation's intent is to reimburse the
towns for infrastructure improvements made at the Navy's behest and to
provide the means for the region to restore its economic viability.
As I mentioned earlier, the Maine Delegation has been working with
the local communities, the State, Navy, and National Park Service to
develop a comprehensive plan for reuse of the property and facilities.
The primary facilities at Winter Harbor are located on a beautiful and
breathtaking portion of the Maine coastline known as Schoodic Point.
Once the base closes, this legislation dictates that the Schoodic Point
property will shift to the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction
for inclusion in Acadia National Park.
In preparation for this property transfer, the National Park Service
has initiated a plan to establish a Research and Education Center at
the site. This center will host educational programs and private and
public research facilities, becoming a source for meaningful employment
and economic generation for the communities. However, the National Park
Service effort will not be achieved overnight and, like all programs,
requires adequate funding.
As such, this legislation was drafted to include financial provisions
to ease and expedite this transition as well as to reimburse the
community for local services and infrastructure improvements.
In closing, I would like to thank all of those in the local
communities, the State of Maine, the Navy, and the National Park
Service and, of course, my colleagues from the Maine Delegation for
their assistance in crafting this legislation. I urge my colleagues to
support this initiative and allow the good people of Winter Harbor and
Gouldsboro to make the most of this unique base reuse opportunity.
I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1108
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL SECURITY GROUP
ACTIVITY, WINTER HARBOR, MAINE.
(a) Transfer of Jurisdiction of Schoodic Point Property
Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may transfer,
without consideration, to the Secretary of the Interior
administrative jurisdiction of a parcel of real property,
including any improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto,
consisting of approximately 26 acres as generally depicted as
Tract 15-116 on the map entitled ``Acadia National Park
Schoodic Point Area'', numbered 123/80,418 and dated May
2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection
in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
(2) The transfer authorized by this subsection shall occur,
if at all, concurrently with the reversion of administrative
jurisdiction of a parcel of real property consisting of
approximately 71 acres, as depicted as Tract 15-115 on the
map referred to in paragraph (1), from the Secretary of the
Navy to the Secretary of the Interior as authorized by Public
Law 80-260 (61 Stat. 519) and to be executed on or about June
30, 2002.
(b) Conveyance of Corea and Winter Harbor Properties
Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may convey, without
consideration, to the State of Maine, any political
subdivision of the State of Maine, or any tax-supported
agency in the State of Maine, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to any of the parcels of real
property, including any improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereto, consisting of approximately 485 acres
and comprising the former facilities of the Naval Security
Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine, located in Hancock
County, Maine, except for the real property described in
subsection (a)(1).
(c) Transfer of Personal Property.--The Secretary of the
Navy shall transfer, without consideration, to the Secretary
of the Interior in the case of the real property transferred
under subsection (a), or to any recipient of such real
property in the case of real property conveyed under
subsection (b), any or all personal property associated with
such real property so transferred or conveyed, including--
(1) the ambulances and any fire trucks or other
firefighting equipment; and
(2) any personal property required to continue the
maintenance of the infrastructure of such real property,
including the generators and an uninterrupted power supply in
building 154 at the Corea site.
(d) Maintenance of Property Pending Conveyance.--The
Secretary of the Navy shall maintain any real property,
including any improvements thereon, appurtenances thereto,
and supporting infrastructure, to be conveyed under
subsection (b) in accordance with the protection and
maintenance standards specified in section 101-47.4913 of
title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, until the earlier of--
(1) the date of the conveyance of such real property under
subsection (b); or
(2) September 30, 2003.
(e) Interim Lease.--(1) Until such time as any parcel of
real property to be conveyed under subsection (b) is conveyed
by deed under that subsection, the Secretary of the Navy may
lease such parcel to any person or entity determined by the
Secretary to be an appropriate lessee of such parcel.
(2) The amount of rent for a lease under paragraph (1)
shall be the amount determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate, and may be an amount less than the fair market
value of the lease.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall credit any amount received for a lease of
real property under paragraph (1) to the appropriation or
account providing funds for the operation and maintenance of
such property or for the procurement of utility services for
such property. Amounts so credited shall be merged with funds
in the appropriation or account to which credited, and shall
be available for the same purposes, and subject to the same
conditions and limitations, as the funds with which merged.
(f) Reimbursement for Environmental and Other
Assessments.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may require each
recipient of real property conveyed under subsection (b) to
reimburse the Secretary for the costs incurred by the
Secretary for any environmental assessment, study, or
analysis carried out by the Secretary with respect to such
property before completing the conveyance under that
subsection.
(2) The amount of any reimbursement required under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Secretary, but may
not exceed the cost of the assessment, study, or analysis for
which reimbursement is required.
(3) Section 2695(c) of title 10, United States Code, shall
apply to any amount received by the Secretary under this
subsection.
(g) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property transferred under subsection
(a), and each parcel of real property conveyed under
subsection (b), shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary of the Navy. The cost of any survey under
the preceding sentence for real property conveyed under
subsection (b) shall be borne by the recipient of the real
property.
(h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the
Navy may require such additional terms and conditions in
connection with any conveyance under subsection (b), and any
lease under subsection (e), as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of
the Interior amounts as follows:
(1) $5,000,000 for purposes of capital investments for the
development of a research and education center at Acadia
National Park, Maine.
(2) $1,400,000 for purposes of operation and maintenance
activities at Acadia National Park Maine.
SEC. 3. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Grant Assistance for Town of Winter Harbor.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy
[[Page S6996]]
shall, by grant, provide financial assistance to the Town of
Winter Harbor, Maine (in this subsection referred to as the
``Town''), in each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, for
the purpose of reimbursing the Town for costs incurred in
making improvements to the water and sewer systems of the
Town for the benefit of the Naval Security Group Activity,
Winter Harbor, Maine, located in Hancock County, Maine.
(2) The amount of the grant under paragraph (1) in fiscal
year 2002 shall be $68,000.
(3) The amount of the grant under paragraph (1) in each of
fiscal years 2003 and 2004 shall be the amount, not to exceed
$68,000, jointly determined by the Secretary and the Town to
be appropriate to reimburse the Town as described in that
paragraph in the applicable fiscal year.
(b) Grant Assistance for School Administrative District.--
(1) The Secretary shall, by grant, provide financial
assistance to the School Administrative District (SAD)
operating Sumner High School, Sullivan, Maine.
(2) The purpose of the grant is to offset the loss of
impact aid under title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 that the local educational agency
experienced for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 as a result of the
closure of the Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor,
Maine.
(3) The amount of the grant under paragraph (1) shall be
$86,000.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Transfers of Funds to Department of Interior.--There is
hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2002, $6,400,000 for purposes of the
transfers of funds required by section 2.
(b) Grants.--There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the Department of the Navy for purposes of the grants
required by section 3, amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2002, $154,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004, such amounts as
may be necessary.
(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this section for the Department of Defense,
or for the Department of the Navy, for a fiscal year are in
addition to any other amounts authorized to be appropriated
for such Department for such fiscal year under any other
provision of law.
(d) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by
this section for a fiscal year shall remain available until
expended, without fiscal year limitation.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my
distinguished colleague, Senator Snowe, today in introducing this
legislation, the Naval Security Group Activity at Winter Harbor
Conveyance Act. This conveyance legislation will authorize the transfer
of land, which has been under the control of the Naval Security Group
for some seventy plus years back to the Department of the Interior, and
to the State, ultimately to be put to good use by our local
communities.
Over the past seven decades, the Navy has performed a key national
security mission called Classic Wizard at Winter Harbor. The Navy has
played a significant role in the economic development of the local
communities as Maine residents and Navy personnel have supported this
mission. As the requirement for the Classic Wizard mission at Winter
Harbor is coming to an end, and as technology advances, this naval
activity will be ending its ties to the base in the summer of 2002.
While the Navy will be missed, it has worked hand-in-hand with me and
the other members of the Maine delegation, the Department of Interior,
National Park Service, and our local communities in creating a viable
economic development and reuse plan for the naval base and its
associated property.
As part of its reuse plan for the site, the National Park Service has
proposed developing a research and education center at the Schoodic
Point. The center would accommodate and promote a variety of research
activities including wildlife genetics and serve as a base for
permanent and visiting scientists to conduct interdisciplinary
research.
I worked with the National Park Service in the development of its
proposal, and I have offered to help make the concept a reality. Maine
Governor Angus King shares my support for the proposed research and
learning center and has expressed the State's willingness to work as a
partner in the effort to establish a wildlife genetics laboratory at
the center. We believe that such a laboratory would generate good jobs
and promote the region's economy. The work done at Schoodic Point also
would compliment the world class research underway at other area
facilities in the area such as The Jackson Laboratory, the Mount Desert
Island Biological Laboratory, and the University of Maine's Cooperative
Aquaculture Research Center.
The National Park Service's proposed reuse of the peninsula also
includes an educational component that would promote the public's
understanding of the important natural and cultural resources that are
a part of our national park system. Moreover, those who have visited
Schoodic would agree that the remarkably beautiful 100 acres are worthy
of being a part of Acadia National Park, one of our Nation's greatest
natural treasures.
It is important for the Federal Government to lend a hand to
communities that are struggling to cope with the adverse effects of a
base closure. Our legislation, which was developed in consultation with
the local communities, the State, the Department of the Interior and
the Navy, provides the options and opportunities that the region needs
to move beyond the loss of the Naval Security Group Activity at Winter
Harbor. I will work to secure approval of this bill by the Senate Armed
Services committee and the full Senate.
______
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 1110. A bill to require that the area of a zip code number shall
be located entirely within a State, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a
bill that would help preserve the identity of American communities that
have struggled with the United States Postal Service to acquire their
own, individual zip codes. The bill would do this by prohibiting the
Postal Service from extending zip codes across State boundaries.
This bill was introduced in response to concerns raised by the
community of Alta, WY. Alta is a small, rural town situated next to the
Wyoming-Idaho border at the western base of the Grand Teton Mountains.
Because of treacherous travel conditions to the east of Alta, the
Postal Service made the decision to serve Alta residents out of the
post office in neighboring Driggs, ID. Alta is isolated from other
parts of Wyoming and it simply would be too dangerous to require the
Postal Service to cross the Teton mountain range in the winter to
deliver mail to Alta. In providing this service, however, the post
office has not provided Alta residents their own zip code at the Driggs
post office, but has required them to use the Driggs zip code even
though Alta residents live in an entirely different State.
While this may not seem like a big deal on its face, there are a
number of technical complications that arise in the lives of Alta
residents because the Postal Service has not been willing to extend the
courtesy of an Alta zip code.
By requiring Alta residents to use the Driggs zip code, the Postal
Service has created a lot of confusion for Alta residents who attempt
to conduct business with mail order companies. What sales tax do they
pay? Idaho or Wyoming? Although the Postal Service maintains that zip
codes are not used to identify specific locations, other companies use
zip codes as an important location code that is necessary to adequately
conduct their business. Sales tax is often programmed by zip code, so
are car insurance rates, life insurance, homeowner's insurance, even
our Federal and State income taxes use zip codes as an indicator of
when and where to pay taxes.
The requirements of this bill will not be onerous for the Postal
Service to implement. It will not require the service to build new
facilities or even to change its method of operations. All it will do
is require the Postal Service to identify those communities whose mail
service crosses State boundaries and to assign them the necessary
identification number that they need to provide the rest of the world a
clear and concise description of where they live and who they are.
I urge my colleagues to support this most important legislation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Allard, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Burns, Ms. Collins, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Mikulski,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr.
[[Page S6997]]
Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, and
Mr. Wellstone):
S. 1111. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to authorize the National Rural Development Partnership, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad to
introduce the National Rural Development Partnership Act of 2001--a
bill to codify the National Rural Development Partnership, NRDP or the
Partnership, and provided a funding source for the program, I am
pleased that Senators Allard, Baucus, Bingaman, Burns, Collins, Crapo,
Daschle, Dayton, Dorgan, Enzi, Gramm, Grassley, Hagel, Helms,
Hutchison, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Lugar, Mikulski,
Murray, Ben Nelson, Reed, Roberts, Sarbanes, Bob Smith, Gordon Smith,
Thomas, and Wellstone are joining us as original cosponsors.
The Partnership was established under the Bush administration in
1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the partnership has existed
for ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. The
current basis for the existence of the partnership is found in the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Rural
Development Policy Act of 1980. In addition, the conference committee
report on the 1996 federal farm bill created specific responsibilities
and expectations for the partnership and State rural development
councils, SRDCs.
The partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose
mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the Nation by
strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in
determining their futures.'' The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other
entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and
between Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments and
the private and non-profit sectors to increase coordination of programs
and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in
more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually
add value to the efforts and dollars of others.
On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and
Rural Revitalization, which I chaired, held an oversight hearing on the
operations and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The subcommittee
heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and Health and Human
Services, State agencies, and private sector representatives. The
hearing established the need for some legislative foundation and
consistent funding. The legislation we introduced last year and are
reintroducing this Congress accomplishes just that.
This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of
the partnership, the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee,
NRDCC, and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific
responsibilities to each component of the Partnership and authorizes it
to receive congressional appropriations.
Specifically, the bill formally establishes the NRDP and indicates it
is composed of the NRDCC and SRDCs. NRDP is established for empowering
and building the capacity of rural communities, encouraging
participation in flexible and innovative methods of addressing the
challenges of rural areas, and encouraging all those involved in the
partnership to be fully engaged and to share equally in decisionmaking.
This legislation also identifies the role of the Federal Government in
the partnership as being that of partner, coach, and facilitator.
Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to
participate in the NRDCC and to encourage field staff to participate in
SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, State
rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal
organization of a State rural development council.
The composition of the NRDCC is specified as being one representative
from each Federal agency with rural responsibilities, and governmental
and non-governmental for-profit and non-profit organizations that elect
to participate in the NRDCC. The legislation outlines the duties of the
council as being to provide support to SRDCs; facilitate coordination
among Federal agencies and between the Federal, State, local and tribal
governments and private organizations; enhance the effectiveness,
responsiveness, and delivery of Federal Government programs; gather and
provide to Federal agencies information about the impact of government
programs on rural areas; review and comment on policies, regulations,
and proposed legislation; provide technical assistance to SRDCs; and
develop strategies for eliminating administrative and regulatory
impediments. Federal agencies do have the ability to opt out of
participation in the council, but only if they can show how they can
more effectively serve rural areas without participating in the
partnership and council.
This legislation provides that states may participate in the
partnership by entering into a memorandum of understanding with USDA to
establish an SRDC. SRDCs are required to operate in a nonpartisan and
nondiscriminatory manner and to reflect the diversity of the States
within which they are organized. The duties of the SRDCs are to
facilitate collaboration among government agencies at all levels and
the private and non-profit sectors; to enhance the effectiveness,
responsiveness, and delivery of Federal and State Government programs;
to gather information about rural areas in its State and share it with
the NRDCC and other entities; to monitor and report on policies and
programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of rural areas; to
facilitate the formulation of needs assessments for rural areas and
participate in the development of the criteria for the distribution of
Federal funds to rural areas; to provide comments to the NRDCC and
others on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; assist the
NRDCC in developing strategies for reducing or eliminating impediments;
to hire an executive director and support staff; and to fundraise.
As I have stated before, this legislation authorizes the partnership
to receive appropriations as well as authorizing and encouraging
federal agencies to make grants and provide other forms of assistance
to the partnership and authorizing the partnership to accept private
contributions. The SRDCs are required to provide at least a 33-percent
match for funds it receives as a result of its cooperative agreement
with the Federal Government.
As you know, too many parts of rural America have not shared in the
boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do
more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to
those enjoyed by urban areas. To do so, we do not necessarily need new
government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating
the many programs available from USDA and other Federal agencies that
can benefit rural communities. With the passage of this legislation,
the NRDP and SRDCs will be better situated to provide that much needed
coordination.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Larry Craig
and 31 of our colleagues today in the introduction of the National
Rural Development Partnership Act of 2001. This bill is similar to S.
3175 which Senator Craig and I sponsored last year during the 106th
Congress. I am pleased that so many members from both sides of the
aisle have recognized the importance of this measure by agreeing to
join as original cosponsors.
The National Rural Development Partnership had its origin in
Executive Order 12720, issued by President George H. Bush in 1990.
Through the issuance of this order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
was assigned the responsibilities of creating the partnership and
providing assistance to States that wish to form rural development
partnerships. The intent of the legislation is the same. At least 40
States have now formed partnership councils to coordinate rural
development activities of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments
with private and non-profit organizations, to address community and
economic development needs, and to coordinate community and job
building activities in rural areas. The funding for these activities
has been voluntary from various Federal agencies, including the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation,
Veterans, and state
[[Page S6998]]
agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has historically provided
the largest single amount.
The needs of rural America are great. The demands on the Federal
budget are also great. If we are to make optimum use of hard-to-find
Federal, State, local, and private resources in rural areas, it is
imperative that we find ways to coordinate development activities. This
legislation does that. It formally authorizes National Rural
Development Councils and also authorizes appropriations for this
program.
The existing partnerships are doing an outstanding job in
coordinating activities to enhance the quality of life and to build
jobs in areas that have historically lacked high paying opportunities.
While we recognize the continuing importance of the agriculture
industry in many States, especially a State like North Dakota, we
recognize that, unless we diversify our economy, we will continue to
see out migration from the rural areas into the already crowded
metropolitan areas of our country.
Again, I am pleased to join this bipartisan effort.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself,Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, and
Mr. Inouye):
S. 1112. A bill to provide Federal Perkins Loan cancellation for
public defenders; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Chafee to
reintroduce legislation to include full-time public defense attorneys
in the Federal Perkins Loan Cancellation Forgiveness Program for law
enforcement officers. This bill would provide parity to public defense
attorneys and uphold the goals set forth by the Supreme Court to
equalize access to legal resources. Senators Feinstein, Bingaman,
Akaka, Kerry, Sarbanes, Johnson, and Inouye are original cosponsors of
this bipartisan bill. Representative Tom Campbell of California
introduced a companion bill in the House in the 106th Congress.
Under section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a
borrower with a loan made under the Federal Perkins Loan Program is
eligible to have the loan canceled for serving full-time as a law
enforcement officer or correction officer in a local, State, or Federal
law enforcement or corrections agency. While the rules governing
borrower eligibility for law enforcement cancellation have been
interpreted by the Department of Education to include prosecuting
attorneys, public defenders have been excluded from the loan
forgiveness program. This policy must be amended.
Like prosecutors, public defense attorneys play an integral role in
our adversarial process. This judicial process is the most effective
means of getting at truth and rendering justice. The United States
Supreme Court in a series of cases has recognized the importance of the
right to counsel in implementing the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a
fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requiring
counsel to be appointed for all person accused of offenses in which
there is a possibility of a jail term being imposed.
Absent adequate counsel for all parties, there is a danger that the
outcome maybe determined not by who has the most convincing case but by
who has the most resources. The Court rightly addressed this possible
miscarriage of justice by requiring counsel to be appointed for the
accused. Public defenders fill this Court mandated role by representing
the interests of criminally accused indigent person. they give indigent
defendants sufficient resources to present an adequate defense, so that
the public goal of truth and justice will govern the outcome.
The Department of Education's interpretation of the statute to
include public defenders from the loan forgiveness program undermines
the goals set forth by the Supreme Court to equalize access to legal
resources. It creates an obvious disparity of resources between public
defenders and prosecutors by encouraging talented individuals to pursue
public service as prosecutors but not as defenders. The criminal
justice system works best when both sides are adequately represented.
The public interest is served when indigent defendants have access to
talented defenders. One of the ways to facilitate this goal is by
granting loan cancellation benefits to defense attorneys.
Moreover, public defense attorneys meet all the eligibility
requirements of the loan forgiveness program as set forth in current
Federal regulations. They belong to publicly funded public defender
agencies and they are sworn officers of the court whose principal
responsibilities are unique to the criminal justice system and are
essential in the performance of the agencies' primary mission. In
addition, like prosecuting attorneys, public defenders are law
enforcement officers dedicated to upholding, protecting, and enforcing
our laws. Without public defense attorneys, the adversarial process of
our criminal justice system could not operate.
I urge my colleague to join me, Senator Chafee, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Bingaman, Senator Akaka, Senator Kerry, Senator Sarbanes,
Senator Johnson, and Senator Inouye in supporting the goal of equalized
access to legal resources, as set forth in the Constitution and
elucidated by the Supreme Court, by providing parity to public
defenders and allowing them to join prosecutors in receiving loan
cancellation benefits.
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. 1112
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN CANCELLATION FOR PUBLIC
DEFENDERS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Education has issued clarifications
that prosecuting attorneys are among the class of law
enforcement officers eligible for benefits under the Federal
Perkins Loan cancellation program.
(2) Like prosecutors, public defenders also meet all the
eligibility requirements of the Federal Perkins Loan
cancellation program as set forth in Federal regulations.
(3) Public defenders are law enforcement officers who play
an integral role in our Nation's adversarial legal process.
Public defenders fill the Supreme Court mandated role
requiring that counsel be appointed for the accused, by
representing the interests of criminally accused indigent
persons.
(4) In order to encourage highly qualified attorneys to
serve as public defenders, public defenders should be
included with prosecutors among the class of law enforcement
officers eligible to receive benefits under the Federal
Perkins Loan cancellation program.
(b) Amendment.--Section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)(F)) is amended
by inserting ``, or as a full-time public defender for
service to a local or State government, or to the Federal
Government (directly or by a contract with a private,
nonprofit organization)'' after ``agencies''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to--
(1) loans made under part E of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, whether made before, on, or after the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) service as a public defender that is provided on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the amendment
made by this section shall be construed to authorize the
refunding of any repayment of a loan.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1113. A bill to amend section 1562 of title 38, United States
Code, to increase the amount of Medal of Honor Roll special pension, to
provide for an annual adjustment in the amount of that special pension,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to
comment on legislation that I have introduced today to increase the
special pension that is available to Medal of Honor recipients, and to
provide for automatic adjustments in that special pension to reflect
annual increases in the cost of living. When the Congress enacted the
Medal of Honor pension, it stated, in the 1916 Senate Report, Report
No. 240, 64th Congress, accompanying enactment, that the special
pension was then necessary to serve as a ``recognition of superior
claims on the gratitude of the country,'' and to ``reward . . . in a
modest way startling deeds of individual daring and audacious heroism
in the face of mortal danger when war is on.'' The legislation that I
have introduced today has the same two purposes: to recognize, and to
reward, the ``startling deeds of
[[Page S6999]]
individual daring and audacious heroism'' to which every Medal of Honor
recipient can lay claim.
No one can question that Medal of Honor recipients deserve the
Nation's respect and gratitude. And no one could question a limited
government pension is a proper sign of that respect and gratitude. I am
concerned that some of the 149 surviving Medal of Honor recipients,
there are only 149 such people among us, may struggle to make financial
ends meet, notwithstanding the availability of the pension. The current
$600 monthly amount is simply too small, in my estimation, to afford a
minimum standard of living for our Nation's heroes given their
expenses.
In 1997, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society suggested that the
Medal of Honor pension level be set at $1,000 per month and that the
level of the pension be adjusted thereafter on an annual basis to
reflect increases in the annual cost of living. At that time, the
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I then had the privilege
of chairing, succeeded in securing an increase in the pension from $400
to $600 per month, but we were not successful in persuading the House
to approve an ``indexation'' feature. I believe a compelling argument
could be made then, and still can be made now, to grant the entire
increase suggested by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and to
approve the indexing of the benefit. I am pleased to offer legislation
to that effect today.
Many Medal of Honor recipients, out of a sense of duty and
patriotism, make frequent trips to provide accounts of their act of
valor and, more importantly, to speak of the lessons learned in battle
and the vigilance that freedom requires to this day. Countless young
Americans have benefitted by the example of these most distinguished
role models. Often, the expenses associated with these excursions are
borne by the medal of Honor recipients themselves, men who, we must
remember, emerged from, and, in most cases, returned to, the ordinary
citizenry from whom America has always drawn her warriors. Testimony
offered by AMVETS at a Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on July 25,
1997, confirmed that the majority of Medal of Honor recipients live
only on their social security benefits, supplemented by the Medal of
Honor pension, giving them an average monthly income of only $1,600. It
is unconscionable to think that we, as a country, can allow them to
live so close to the poverty line.
I ask my colleagues to join with me, once again, to show our
gratitude to the recipients of our Nation's highest honor. Let us show
them--in this minor way--how grateful America truly is for their
wonderful example.
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. 1113
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASE AND ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF MEDAL OF HONOR
ROLL SPECIAL PENSION.
(a) Increase in Amount.--Subsection (a) of section 1562 of
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$600''
and inserting ``$1,000, as adjusted from time to time under
subsection (e),''.
(b) Annual Adjustment.--That section is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Effective as of December 1 each year, the Secretary
shall increase the amount of monthly special pension payable
under subsection (a) as of November 30 of such year by the
same percentage that benefit amounts payable under title II
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are
increased effective December 1 of such year as a result of a
determination under section 215(i) of that Act (42 U.S.C.
415(i)).''.
(c) Effective Date.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with
respect to months that begin on or after that date.
(2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall not make any
adjustment under subsection (e) of section 1562 of title 38,
United States Code, as added by subsection (b) of this
section, in 2001.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1114. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase
the amount of educational benefits for veterans under the Montgomery GI
Bill; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to
comment briefly on legislation that I am introducing today to increase
educational benefits paid to veterans under the Montgomery GI bill,
MGIB. This bill is the same as a bill, H.R. 1291, that was passed by
the House, under the leadership of the chairman of the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, Representative Chris Smith, on June 19, 2001, by
a vote of 416-0. I introduce the same legislation here in the Senate,
and I urge my colleagues to join with me to complete the task of
increasing veterans' Montgomery GI bill benefits.
This legislation, once it is fully phased in over a three year
period, would increase the basic monthly benefit paid to veterans with
at least three years of service who have returned to school from $650
to $1,100. With this 85 percent increase in MGIB benefits, the largest
percentage increase in the history of the Montgomery GI bill, a veteran
with three years of service would be able to afford the average cost of
tuition, fees, books, and room and board at a four-year public college
or university, and still have money left over for transportation
expenses or other personal expenses. The legislation would provide
greater educational freedom for veterans who are constrained by the
current benefit amount; it would open up the possibility of attendance
at more expensive universities. And it would promote the national
security interests of the United States by providing a substantial
inducement for young men and women to serve in the military.
When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
at the start of the 105th Congress in 1997, I committed to increasing
MGIB benefits which, due to budget constraints, had been woefully
inadequate. I am pleased to report that that picture has changed; the
basic MGIB benefit has increased by 52 percent from $427 to 650 per
month, and in addition, service members now have the opportunity to
``buy-up'' an additional $150 in monthly benefits, bringing the total
level of available benefits to $800 per month, an increase of 87
percent since 1997. Despite this significant progress, however, I
remain concerned that the benefit usage rate among young veterans is
too low, and that it may not yet be a sufficient inducement to assist
the Department of Defense in recruiting high quality young men and
women to serve in the military.
Of the young veterans eligible for MGIB benefits, only 57 percent
choose to avail themselves of this extraordinary opportunity. According
to a recent report by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, a
significant reason for this relatively low usage rate is the inadequacy
of the benefit amount. MGIB benefits have simply not kept pace with
rising education costs. As a consequence, veterans who use the benefit
must compromise on the educational programs they select; a low
percentage of MGIB users, only 12 percent, attend private institutions,
and a relatively high percentage of MGIB users, 27 percent, enroll in
two-year college programs. Now I do not undervalue the role,
contributions, or quality of our two-year colleges. The fact is,
however, that many veterans who would choose to attend four-year
institutions, even public institutions, cannot afford to do so with the
current level of benefits. My legislation would move us closer to the
day when the only limitation on veterans' educational choice would be
their own interests and aspirations.
One of the primary purposes of the MGIB is to assist the Department
of Defense, DOD with service member recruitment. When DOD asked new
recruits in 1997 to list the reasons they joined the military, money
for college ranked second only to ``a chance to better myself in life''
among the answers given. Even so, tight labor market and the
availability of other Federal education aid have resulted in DOD
difficulty in meeting recruiting goals. The Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Force Management Policy reports that a benefit level ``of
approximately $1,000 per month . . . would increase high-quality
accessions without having a negative impact on reenlistments. . . .''
Thus, my proposed legislation, which would, in phases, increase
[[Page S7000]]
the monthly benefit to $1,100, is consistent with DOD's position that
increased MGIB benefits are necessary for it to attract high-quality
recruits.
Attracting high-quality young men and women into the military is not
only in the interest of the Department of Defense, it is in the
national interest of all of our citizens. The United States Commission
on National Security/21st Century, chaired by our former colleagues,
Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently called on Congress to
enhance national security by ``significantly enhanc[ing] the Montgomery
GI Bill'' by providing a benefit that would pay for the average
education costs of four-year U.S. colleges. The Commission emphasized
that the ``GI bill is both a strong recruitment tool and, more
importantly, a valuable institutional reward for service to the nation
in uniform.'' I thank the Commission for recognizing the important role
the GI bill has played, and will continue to play, in ensuring the
security of our country.
I commend the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Representative Chris Smith, who has taken the lead on this issue in the
House during this first year of his chairmanship. Under Mr. Smith's
leadership, the House did its part on June 19, 2001, by passing H.R.
1291 by a resounding vote of 416-0. I urge my Senate colleagues to join
with me to complete the task here in the Senate.
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. 1114
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 3015(a)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) for an approved program of education pursued on a
full-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2002, $800,
``(B) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $950,
``(C) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $1,100,
and
``(D) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
the amount for months occurring during the previous fiscal
year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(2) Section 3015(b)(1) of such title is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) for an approved program of education pursued on a
full-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2002, $650,
``(B) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $772,
``(C) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $894,
and
``(D) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
the amount for months occurring during the previous fiscal
year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(b) CPI Adjustment.--No adjustment in rates of educational
assistance shall be made under section 3015(h) of title 38,
United States Code, for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mrs.
Hutchison, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 1115. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect
to making progress toward the goal of eliminating tuberculosis, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues
Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Corzine
in introducing the Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act. This
bipartisan legislation will provide enhanced authority and greater
resources to State, local and Federal health officials to do all they
can to combat this deadly infectious disease in our country.
Tuberculosis is the world's leading infectious killer. Its growth has
been propelled by the global HIV epidemic, and multi-drug resistant
strains have become increasingly prevalent around the world. The World
Health Organization estimates that more than one-third of the world's
population is infected with tuberculosis. Every year, there are 8
million new cases of active tuberculosis and 2 million deaths from
tuberculosis. This disease causes more deaths among women worldwide
than all other causes of maternal death combined.
These harrowing statistics illustrate the truth behind the saying
that diseases know no borders. Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Hutchison
and I have already introduced the Stop TB Now Act, which focuses on
international tuberculosis control. The bill we are introducing today
will deal with tuberculosis in our own country. Only through enactment
of both of these measures can we be sure of defeating this readily
treatable and preventable disease.
Today's bill is intended to fulfill the recommendations of the
landmark report issued by the Institute of Medicine last year, entitled
``Ending Neglect: The Elimination of Tuberculosis in the United
States.'' Our measure will create a national plan for the eradication
of tuberculosis. It will enhance tuberculosis-related research,
education and training through the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. It will also expand support for vaccine research and for
international tuberculosis research through the National Institutes of
Health.
In the United States, tuberculosis has been going through what the
Institute of Medicine calls ``recurrent cycles of neglect'' by public
health authorities, ``followed by resurgence'' of the disease. In the
late nineteenth century, tuberculosis was one of the leading causes of
death in America. As cities swelled with waves of European immigration,
millions of individuals and families were forced into overcrowded
tenements and unhealthy workplaces. Many fell victim to outbreaks of
deadly infectious diseases. In 1886, the leading cause of death among
infants was tuberculosis, followed by infant diarrhea.
Although medical science and public health were in their infancy in
those days, the need to combat tuberculosis was clear even then. In
1882, Robert Kock first isolated the organism that causes this disease,
providing physicians and scientists with a microbial foundation for
science-based public health action. In the early twentieth century,
health advocates and physicians formed an association dedicated to
fighting tuberculosis, which today is the American Lung Association.
Their work helped to bring about more sanitary living conditions and
workplaces for the poor, stronger public health laws, and the use of
sanatoriums to treat people with tuberculosis.
In this century, the possibility of actually eradicating tuberculosis
arose following the development of effective antibiotics in the 1950s.
But the country failed to capitalize on scientific opportunities or
undertake the kind of broad public health campaign that we undertook so
successfully against polio. As a result, scientific interest and public
health funding for tuberculosis control waned in the following decades.
After years of decline, specific Federal funding for tuberculosis
control was actually eliminated in 1972.
Our country paid the price for this complacency in the 1980s. A
resurgence of cases and an alarming growth in the prevalence of drug-
resistant tuberculosis strains challenged public health and shook the
confidence of experts. Through great effort and difficulty, we renewed
our national commitment to fighting tuberculosis. But the effort took
longer than necessary, and the Nation suffered needless deaths and
illness as we worked to bring the number of new tuberculosis cases to
its current, all-time low.
Today, we have a historic opportunity to eradicate tuberculosis in
the United States. We have a generation of public health officials who
have lived through and successfully combated the recent resurgence of
the disease. And we have expert recommendations from both the Federal
Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis and the Institute
of Medicine to guide our efforts.
This legislation is supported by leading public health organizations,
including the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society,
the National Coalition to Eliminate Tuberculosis and RESULTS
International. Its enactment can be an essential in achieving to
fulfilling this important and long overdue public health goal, and I
urge the Senate to approve it.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs.
Hutchison, and Mr. Corzine):
[[Page S7001]]
S. 1116. A bill amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide
increased foreign assistance for tuberculosis prevention, treatment,
and control; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues,
Senator Stevens, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hutchison, and Senator
Corzine, to introduce the Stop Tuberculosis Now Act of 2001, a bill
that responds to the dire need of the United States and the rest of the
world to stop the terrible infection that is threatening citizens in
every country of the world.
Tuberculosis is the biggest killer of young women and people with
AIDS in the world today, and two million people will die of
tuberculosis this year alone. Although tuberculosis is preventable and
treatable, last year there were more than 17,000 new cases of
tuberculosis in the U.S. Among these cases were new strains of
tuberculosis that are resistant to many traditional antibiotics that
were very successful in the past. Due to its infectious and resistant
nature, tuberculosis cannot be stopped at national borders, and
virtually every international airport in the U.S. therefore is a port
of entry for carriers of tuberculosis. Thus, it will be impossible to
control tuberculosis in the U.S. until we control it worldwide.
Because of this dire situation, we are introducing the ``Stop
Tuberculosis Now Act,'' which calls for a U.S. investment in
international tuberculosis control of $200 million in 2002, with a
focus on expanding the proven, low cost direct observation therapy
system, DOTS, tuberculosis treatment for countries with high rates of
tuberculosis infection. DOTS tuberculosis treatment involves a health
worker observing and ensuring tuberculosis patients take their
prescribed medication that is needed to stop a tuberculosis infection
successfully. The current projection for implementing an international
tuberculosis treatment program is $1 billion. The U.S. share of this
program would be $200 million. This is a small price to pay in order to
stop this terrible infectious disease which brings such misery and
death, to the U.S. and the rest of the world.
This bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and declare
that a major objective of the U.S. foreign assistance program is to
control tuberculosis. Congress would designate the World Health
Organization and other health organizations to develop and implement a
comprehensive tuberculosis control program, including expanding the use
of the strategy of DOTS tuberculosis treatment method and strategies to
address multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The particular focus of this
program would be in countries with the highest rates of tuberculosis
infection. The program would set as goals the cure of at least 95
percent of tuberculosis cases detected and the reduction of
tuberculosis related deaths by 50 percent, by December 31, 2010.
I ask unanimous consent that the test the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1116
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 ``Stop Tuberculosis (TB) Now
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1)(A) Tuberculosis is one of the greatest infectious
causes of death of adults worldwide, killing 2,000,000 people
per year--one person every 15 seconds.
(B) Globally, tuberculosis is the leading cause of death of
young women and the leading cause of death of people with
HIV/AIDS.
(2) An estimated 8,000,000 individuals develop active
tuberculosis each year.
(3) Tuberculosis is spreading as a result of inadequate
treatment and it is a disease that knows no national borders.
(4) With over 40 percent of tuberculosis cases in the
United States attributable to foreign-born individuals and
with the increase in international travel, commerce, and
migration, elimination of tuberculosis in the United States
depends on efforts to control the disease in developing
countries.
(5) The threat that tuberculosis poses for Americans
derives from the global spread of tuberculosis and the
emergence and spread of strains of multi-drug resistant
tuberculosis (MDR-TB).
(6) Up to 50,000,000 individuals may be infected with
multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.
(7) In the United States, tuberculosis treatment, normally
about $2,000 per patient, skyrockets to as much as $250,000
per patient to treat multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and
treatment may not even be successful.
(8) Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis kills more than one-
half of those individuals infected in the United States and
other industrialized nations and without access to treatment
it is a virtual death sentence in the developing world.
(9) There is a highly effective and inexpensive treatment
for tuberculosis. Recommended by the World Health
Organization as the best curative method for tuberculosis,
this strategy, known as directly observed treatment, short
course (DOTS), includes low-cost effective diagnosis,
treatment, monitoring, and recordkeeping, as well as a
reliable drug supply. A centerpiece of DOTS is observing
patients to ensure that they take their medication and
complete treatment.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION, TREATMENT,
AND CONTROL.
(a) Additional Prevention, Treatment, and Control.--Section
104(c)(7)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151b(c)(7)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by adding at the end before the
semicolon the following: ``, by expanding the use of the
strategy known as directly observed treatment, short course
(DOTS) and strategies to address multi-drug resistant
tuberculosis (MDR-TB) where appropriate at the local level,
particularly in countries with the highest rate of
tuberculosis''; and
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by inserting after ``the cure of at least 95 percent of
the cases detected'' the following: ``by focusing efforts on
the use of the directly observed treatment, short course
(DOTS) strategy or other internationally accepted primary
tuberculosis control strategies''; and
(B) by striking ``and the cure'' and inserting ``the
cure''.
(b) Funding Requirement.--Section 104(c)(7) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(7)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) In carrying out this paragraph, not less than 75
percent of the amount appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (D) shall
be used for the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis for
at-risk and affected populations utilizing directly observed
treatment, short course (DOTS) strategy or other
internationally accepted primary tuberculosis control
strategies developed in consultation with the World Health
Organization (WHO), including funding for the Global
Tuberculosis Drug Facility of WHO's Stop TB Partnership.''.
(c) Annual Report.--Section 104(c)(7) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(7)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by
this Act) as subparagraph (D); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) In conjunction with the transmission of the annual
request for enactment of authorizations and appropriations
for foreign assistance programs for each fiscal year, the
President shall transmit to Congress a report that contains a
summary of all programs, projects, and activities carried out
under this paragraph for the preceding fiscal year, including
a description of the extent to which such programs, projects,
and activities have made progress to achieve the goals
described in subparagraph (A)(ii).''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subparagraph (D) of
section 104(c)(7) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151b(c)(7)), as redesignated by this Act, is amended
by striking ``$60,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001
and 2002'' and inserting ``$60,000,000 for fiscal year 2001
and $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002''.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 1117. A bill to establish the policy of the United States for
reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and
Russian arsenals, for reducing the number of nuclear weapons of those
two nations that are on high alert, and for expanding and accelerating
programs to prevent diversion and proliferation of Russian nuclear
weapons, fissile materials, and nuclear expertise; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, when Winston Churchill addressed the
student body at Westminister College in 1946, he declared to the United
States that ``with primacy of power is also joined an awe-inspiring
accountability to the future . . . you must not only feel the sense of
duty done, but also the anxiety lest you fall below that level of
achievement.'' Over the course of the cold war, we did not fail in our
duty, nor should we in the new century.
In the same speech he laid before the whole world the rhetoric that
would define the cold war. In describing the Sphere of Soviet dominance
in Eastern Europe, Mr. Churchill described an Iron Curtain which the
ancient capitals of Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest were
[[Page S7002]]
held. With the fall of communism in the early part of the last decade,
the United States has had to re-shape its review of Eastern Europe. No
longer do we view the countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, or
Hungary as isolated adversaries, but as partners in the very alliance
that carried us through the cold war. In the same way that we have
looked to reforming our relationship with the countries of the old
Warsaw Pact we must find new ways to view Russia. It is difficult to
fathom that in the 21st century we view Russia as a declared ally on
the world stage while maintaining a nuclear posture at home which
treats her as an enemy. It is time that we transform our nuclear
doctrine from one that reflects the thinking of the cold war to one
that fits in the context of the 21st century and addresses what is
perhaps the greatest threat to our security.
When President Bush met with Mr. Putin a few weeks ago, he expressed
that the United States and Russia can find a ``common position'' on a
``new strategic framework''. President Bush declared that the two
countries are friends and that it is time for the U.S. and Russia to
act that way. In context of this historic meeting, it is time that we
``work together to address the world as it is, not as it used to be, it
is important that we not only talk differently, we must also act
differently.''
I rise today to introduce legislation that would direct the President
to seek in his own words: `` . . . a broad strategy of active non-
proliferation . . . to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to
acquire them . . . and to work with allies and friends who wish to join
us to defend against the harm they, WMD can inflict''
The Nuclear threat Reduction Act of 2001, NTRA, would make it the
policy of the United States to reduce the number of nuclear warheads
and delivery systems held by the U.S. and Russia through bilateral
agreements. These reductions should fall to the lowest possible number
consistent with national security. It would enable the President to
reduce our nuclear stockpile while negotiating such reductions with the
Russians that are transparent, predictable and verifiable. To do such a
thing would be a mark of principled leadership. It would acknowledge
that it is no longer necessary to maintain large stockpiles of nuclear
arms by the United States and Russia and that to continue to do so
would be unacceptable.
On May 23,2000 President Bush stated ``The premises of cold war
targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.'' I could
not agree with the President more. The current level of nuclear weapons
maintained by the United States comes at a great cost to ourselves
financially and poses a significant threat to our security. The level
of nuclear protection that we maintain forces the Russians to keep a
similarly robust force which they cannot afford. The crumbling
infrastructure of the Russian Military continually raises the risk of
accidental launch or greater proliferation. Indeed, the legislation
being considered today would ensure that once parts of the Russian
arsenal are dismantled, they will be kept safe, they will be accounted
for, and they will eventually be destroyed.
The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal are substantial. A
recent CBO report estimated that $1.67 billion could be saved by
retiring 50 MX Peacekeeper missiles by 2003. We could use this money to
address shortfalls in our conventional capabilities. Additionally, we
can devote more funds to meeting the asymmetrical threats that will
face us in the future. To invest in deterrents to cyberwarfare and to
augment spending on homeland defense would be the best way to transform
our thinking and spending from the Cold War to the twenty-first
century.
In addition to this, the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would encourage
the U.S. and Russia to take their systems off of high-alert status. In
the context of the cold war, such a strategy was necessary to ensure
our security, but it no longer applies to present conditions.
The Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would also embolden existing
Department of State, Energy, and Defense programs that seek to contain
existing nuclear weapons material and expertise in Russia. The economic
situation in Russia makes it more and more likely that a rouge state
will acquire the means to manufacture nuclear weapons. This could come
through the distribution of nuclear material or the exodus of Russian
scientists. Our former colleague Sen Nunn put it best when he said ``We
dare not risk a world where a Russian scientist can take care of his
children by endangering ours.'' The cost to the United States is
minuscule compared to the threat of nuclear proliferation. Work on this
serious issue has already been addressed by the Nunn-Lugar bill, but it
is time that we further our efforts.
In January of this year, a task force headed by Howard Baker and
Lloyd Cutler issued a report calling the proliferation of the Russian
nuclear stockpile ``The most serious threat to national security we
face today''. The Baker-Cutler Task Force strongly endorsed existing
non-proliferation programs and suggested that their goals could be
achieved in 8-10 years if they are fully funded. Increased support for
these programs will certainly bring them more in line with the
immediacy and scope of the dangers that they address.
The NTRA requires the President to formulate and submit to Congress a
strategic plan to secure and neutralize Russia's nuclear weapons and
weapons-usable materials over the next eight years. The plan would have
to include the administrative and organizational reforms necessary to
provide effective coordination of these programs and to reflect the
priority that the President attaches to them. The President himself has
advocated such a strategy and I call on him to implement it.
Finally, the NTRA requires the President to submit a report to
Congress on the feasibility of establishing a ``debt for security''
program with Russia. Under this concept, a portion of Russia's debts to
various major powers would be forgiven in exchange for a Russian
commitment to devoting those funds to non-proliferation activities. If
successful, such a program could significantly help Russia's secure,
account for, and neutralize its weapons materials.
In closing, The Nuclear Reduction Act of 2001 would help us fulfill
the duty that comes with being the world's last remaining super power.
By preventing the spread of nuclear materials and technology, reducing
the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia, and by taking
our missiles off of high-alert status, we can fulfill that duty. I ask
the other Members of the Senate to join me in support of this measure.
____________________