[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 73 (Thursday, June 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5207-S5213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Cleland):
S. 2593. A bill to protect diverse and structurally complex areas of
the seabed in the United States exclusive economic zone by establishing
a maximum diameter size limit on rockhopper, roller, and all other
ground gear used on bottom trawls; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, our oceans are one of America's most
precious and valuable resources. For hundreds of millions of people,
our coastal waters are a place of relaxation, recreation, and
rejuvenation. The oceans are also a tremendous supply of fish and other
seafood, many caught by commercial fishers and others by recreational
sportsmen and hobbyists.
There is a growing concern, however, about protecting ocean habitat
from the damaging effects of some types of commercial fishing gear. The
manner in which these concerns are presently being handled by the
National Marine Fishery Service has led to a great deal of confusion
and litigation. Therefore, in an effort to protect important ocean
substrates that are recognized as critical areas of marine habitat, I,
with my colleague, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, am introducing a
bill today that takes a much more direct approach.
I have received many letters from constituents in my home State of
New Jersey who are concerned about the use of ``rock hopper'' nets in
the New York Bight area and elsewhere. They have chronicled the
negative effects of this gear and the damage they see occurring as a
result of its use. In response to their concerns I feel compelled to
introduce in the Senate companion legislation to Congressman Joel
Hefley's Sea Bed Protection Act of 2002, which he introduced recently
in the House. This bill will amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation Act by reining in the use of this damaging fishing gear.
Rock hopper nets are used in hard-bottom areas where naturally
occurring vertical structures prevents the use of more conventional
trawl gear. The rock hopper incorporates a series of rollers that act
like the drum on the front of a steamroller. While operating, the
rollers prevent the net from becoming entangled by guiding it up and
over obstructions. While it is effective at catching fish, it is
equally effective at damaging the sea floor where it is used.
It has been clearly documented that rock hopper nets kill clinging
organisms and living corals, the very things that attracted the fish
they were designed to catch in the first place. The heavy rollers and
sweeps that guide the nets crush marine life and can even flatten
bottom topography.
When a specific piece of equipment is demonstrated to be harmful to
marine life or the marine environment, it is common sense to stop using
it and find a more ecosystem-friendly method of harvesting fish for the
market. It is folly to allow the continued use of fishing gear that has
an uncontrollable level of bycatch of that is damaging to the very
habitat necessary for the fish it catches to grow and reproduce. Rock
hopper nets are clearly a threat to fragile habitats that are
particularly important to a healthy marine ecosystem. The Sea Bed
Protection Act
[[Page S5208]]
will limit their use and protect critical habitat, while highlighting
our concern for the broader issues of sustainable fisheries and habitat
protection.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Allard, and Mr. Craig):
S. 2594. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to
purchase silver on the open market when the silver stockpile is
depleted, to be used to mint coins; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support of
American Eagle Silver Bullion Program Act. The American Eagle Silver
Bullion Program was originally created in 1985 to provide a vehicle for
investors who wish to invest in silver, and to deplete the Defense
Logistics Agency's Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile. As many
investors in silver bullion know, since its inception, the American
Eagle Silver Bullion Coin Program has grown to become the largest and
most successful coin program in the United States, generating millions
of dollars in revenue each year. In fact, between 1995 and 2001, the
American Eagle Silver Coin program has generated revenues of over $264
million, much of which has been used to pay down the national debt.
Ironically, the success of this program threatens its future, because
it has also fulfilled its secondary purpose, depleting the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stockpile. The authorizing language for the
American Eagle Silver Bullion Program mandates that silver to mint the
coins may only be drawn from the stockpile. Legislation is needed to
allow the program, which is so beneficial to both investors and the
government, to continue.
The Support of American Eagle Silver Bullion Program Act will allow
the U.S. Mint to continue the American Eagle Silver Bullion Program by
authorizing them to purchase silver on the open market. Given the dual
purposes of the program's birth, it is only fitting that its rebirth
will also have two results. Not only will the program be able to
continue to serve the needs of investors and the government, it will
also provide a needed boost to the nation's silver mining industry. It
is estimated that the Mint will purchase approximately 9 million ounces
of silver per year for the American Eagle Silver Bullion Program. As
the largest silver producing state in the nation, representing
approximately 34 percent of the United States' silver production,
Nevada will lead the other 12 silver producing states in supplying this
successful program.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2595. A bill to authorize the expenditure of funds on private
lands and facilities at Mesa Verde National Park, in the State of
Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a very simple
and important bill that will aid in our Nation's understanding of an
ancient time.
The 52,000 acre Mesa Verde National Park in southwestern Colorado
holds one of the most unique archaeological sites in the world. The
culture represented at Mesa Verde reflects more than 700 years of
history. People lived and flourished in communities in the area from
around 400 A.D. through 1300 A.D.
Eventually, the people there built elaborate stone villages in the
sheltered alcoves of the canyon walls that are today regarded as
``cliff dwellings.'' The villagers lived in the cliff dwellings during
the last 100 to 125 years of occupation at Mesa Verde. Within the span
of two generations, in the late 1200s, the people left their homes and
moved away. However, they left behind a literal treasure trove of
artifacts in the ruins, artifacts that are still being collected and
studied to this day.
Our Nation's first conservationist and fellow Republican, President
Theodore Roosevelt established the Mesa Verde National Park in 1906.
Since that time, countless artifacts have been carefully excavated and
catalogued.
Unfortunately, those priceless treasures have not had a suitable
home, and instead have been housed in what effectively is a tin shed
built in the 1950s, which has since become infested with mice. The tin
shed lacks proper temperature and humidity controls in an area where
the humidity can swing from seventeen to eighty percent in a short
time. A tin shed is no place to store 800 year old corn and yucca
leaves or clay pot artifacts, especially considering such drastic and
damaging climate changes.
My bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to
collect and expend donated funds for the design and construction and
associated costs to build a visitors center. The legislation provides
no Federal money for this much needed project, but allows for Interior
to partner with devoted non-profit historical and cultural
organizations, especially the Mesa Verde Foundation.
The visitors center will be located on land owned by the Foundation
adjacent to the entrance of the park. The proximity of the cultural and
visitors center to the cliff dwellings will allow archeologists,
students, and visitors an open and accessible window to the lives of
indigenous and prehistoric people.
I am proud to follow in the footsteps of fellow conservationist,
Teddy Roosevelt, and ask the Senate for quick passage of this important
bill. Thank you, 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. 2595
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to collect and
expend donated funds and expend appropriated funds for the
design, construction, maintenance, and operation of a
cultural center and related facilities to be constructed to
accommodate visitors, to protect artifacts and archival
materials, and for the administration of Mesa Verde National
Park on privately owned lands located outside and adjacent to
the boundary of the park.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2596. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the financing of the Superfund; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill
that addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the
clean-up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up
Polluter Pays Renewal Act restores the fees on oil, chemical and other
industries to ensure that the Superfund trust fund is solvent, and that
polluters, not the American Taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up
sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities.
I am also pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member
of the Superfund Subcommittee, Senator Chafee as well as the chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords. As
Chair of the Superfund Subcommittee, I thank them for joining me in
this effort.
Senators Torricelli, Corizine, and Biden are also cosponsers.
The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every
corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four
miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans, including 10
million children, who are at risk of cancer and other health problems.
My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund
sites in the country after New Jersey. And more than 40 percent of
Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site.
Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the
terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents
worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess
down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major
challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to
their responsibility.
Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund
law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law
has worked. Great progress was made. Since the creation of this program
over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the
Clinton Administration, there was an average of 87 final cleanups a
year.
[[Page S5209]]
Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start
of the Bush Administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl.
Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of
that are now being cleaned-up. The number is projected to drop further,
to just 40 sites, this year.
At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the
principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue
that my bill addresses.
The Superfund trust fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees
previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone.
It will be depleted by 2004. Why? Because these fees expired in 1995.
The result is that a greater and greater share of the cost of
Superfund cleanups is being borne by taxpayers instead of polluters. In
fact, in 1995, taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund
trust fund. But by next year, American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of
the Superfund budget.
This trend must be reversed. We must return to the principle of
``polluter pays.''
That is what the Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act would do.
It would reinstate the two Superfund fees, the excise tax on oil and
chemical companies as well as the corporate environmental income tax,
as they existed from 1986 to 1995.
These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of
oil, the excise tax is only 9.7 cents. Chemical manufacturers pay $4.45
for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. This fee varies based
on the frequency and toxicity of the chemical.
With regard to the corporate environmental income tax, corporations
that have over $2 million in taxable income pay only 0.12 percent on
taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that
has $2,010,000 in taxable income would pay only $12.
These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small
price to pay for a healthy, safe environment.
And, while the fees themselves are relatively small, the preliminary
estimates indicate that they would generate $15 billion to $16 billion
over the next 10 years for the Superfund Trust Fund. And that is $16
billion that the American taxpayer would not have to pay.
After the Superfund fees expired in 1995, President Clinton
repeatedly tried to have them reinstated. Unfortunately, the Bush
Administration is not supporting returning to the important principle
of polluters pays.
Polluters pays is fair. Polluters pays works. And polluter pays must
continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will
fight this Administration's attempt to turn its back on the health of
the American people.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Boxer to
introduce a bill to fund the Superfund program for the 10 years. With
the Superfund Trust Fund on the verge of insolvency and with a large
number of Superfund sites still requiring cleanup, it is incumbent upon
us to provide a stable source of funding for this important program. I
am pleased that the bill we introduce today will ensure Superfund
cleanups will continue without jeopardizing funding for other key
programs.
The need for the Superfund program dates back to the late 1970 and
the discovery of thousands of barrels of toxic waste buried illegally
in a New York community outside of Buffalo. Congress responded to Love
Canal and other sites by enacting Superfund. This law was intended to
address the Nation's worst sites and ensure that parties are held
responsible for the contamination they created. Litigation ensued
throughout the 1980's, which slowed down the pace of cleanups. By the
1990s, the pace of Superfund cleanups increased. Administrative and
legislative reforms in the last 10 years have significantly improved
the effectiveness and pace of the Superfund program.
Collection of excise and income taxes to supply the Superfund ceased
at the end of 1995 and have never been reinstated. While spending for
the Superfund program has remained steady, the dependence on general
revenue dollars have grown. By fiscal year 2004, the Superfund program
will be funded virtually entirely by general revenues. Unfortunately,
we are currently living in an atmosphere of budget deficits. We find
ourselves unable to pay for key programs due to insufficient resources
and I believe it is a mistake to make the Superfund program compete for
those limited general revenue dollars because we did not replenish the
Superfund Trust Fund.
The legislation which we have introduced today will reinstate the
Superfund taxes for 10 years. It is true that these taxes will generate
less revenue than those that expired in 1995. This is a deliberate
effort maintain balance between the amount of money paid into the trust
fund and the amount of money appropriated by Congress. We do not want
to create a situation in which we are putting more money into the trust
fund than will be spent. At the same time, we must ensure that
Superfund cleanups progress as quickly as possible. Despite some claims
that Superfund cleanups will soon be complete, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency testified recently before the Environment and Public
Works Committee that the remaining Superfund sites are complex and
costly. All evidence points to the fact that the Superfund program is
not in jeopardy of winding down any time soon and that adequate funding
will be needed.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I believe this to be a
reasonable proposal. It is not perfect, because a perfect solution
would ensure that the people responsible for the contamination pay to
clean it up. In the future we may wish to look for more equitable ways
to fund the Superfund program. However, with the Superfund Trust Fund
on the verge of insolvency, a return to the previous funding mechanism
is a prudent step.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Burns, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Murkowski, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 2597. A bill to authorize a 3-year demonstration program to
recruit and train physicians to serve in a rural setting; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health
Training Incentive Act. I am pleased that Senators Patty Murray, Conrad
Burns, Mike Crapo and Frank Murkowski are joining with me in this
effort today.
We are all aware there is a nationwide shortage of health
practitioners in rural America and that this shortage is affecting the
availability of health care in those communities. This trend is
aggravated by the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby-boomers and
the overall aging of the rural populations. Unfortunately, there is no
quick fix for the problem, and the solution will require a long-term
investment in human resources. The bill that I am introducing today
would begin work on this long-term investment through the regional
Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho, WWAMI, program.
The WWAMI program has an excellent track record in its 30 year
history of designing programs that work. It has a regionally focused
medical school with a mission to train physicians for the communities
in Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho. With 27 percent of
the land mass of the Nation and only 3.3 percent of its population it
is truly a ready made laboratory for exploring the best ways to recruit
and train rural health care professionals.
This legislation seeks to expand upon the existing WWAMI programs for
the recruitment and training of all health care professionals in the
five state rural settings and to develop and evaluate similar programs
that could be used in other regions of the country. This legislation
would be a step in preparing our young people to go into the medical
professions and, importantly, would encourage them to practice in rural
communities.
I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation as part of an
overall strategy to stabilize health care in rural communities. This
session, I have introduced legislation that would provide rural health
care facilities with much needed capital to build new or repair
existing infrastructure and to purchase medical equipment to help them
keep pace with changing technologies. I am also pleased to have worked
with my colleague Senator Harkin on two
[[Page S5210]]
separate pieces of legislation that would provide Medicare equity to
both providers and seniors in rural States. The bill that I am
introducing today adds an integral element of this strategy by making
sure that health professionals are available to serve in rural areas.
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. 2597
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Health Training
Incentive Act''.
SEC. 2. WWAMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Grant Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') is
authorized to award a grant to the Washington, Wyoming,
Alaska, Montana, and Idaho joint medical school (in this
section referred to as ``WWAMI'') to strengthen and expand
programs to encourage more health professionals to practice
in rural areas.
(2) Duration.--The Secretary shall award the grant in
paragraph (1) for a period of 3 years.
(b) Use of Funds.--The grant awarded pursuant to subsection
(a) may be used for activities including--
(1) developing new mechanisms for recruiting and mentoring
rural youth with respect to all health professions;
(2) strengthening and stabilizing the system of training
for the family physicians needed in rural areas; and
(3) expanding the network of rural training tracks
throughout WWAMI.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the end of the
grant period described in subsection (a)(2), WWAMI shall
submit to the Secretary a report evaluating the results of
programs funded with the grant authorized under subsection
(a)(1) and any recommendations regarding the effectiveness of
such programs.
SEC. 3. PROJECT EXPANSION.
(a) In General.--After submission of the report required in
section 2(c), the Secretary is authorized to award grants to
eligible entities to expand the programs under section 2, and
to implement the recommendations made in such report, in
other geographic areas.
(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--As used in this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means a partnership between a
regional university or college and the medical school
associated with such university or college where such medical
school has a rural area training track of at least 2 months.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act, except section 2(c) and section 3,
$3,400,000 for fiscal year 2003, $4,100,000 for fiscal year
2004, and $4,800,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(b) Evaluation.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out the report described in section 2(c), $500,000 for
fiscal year 2005.
(c) Project Expansion.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 3, such sums as may be
necessary beginning in fiscal year 2006.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Bingaman, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2598. A bill to enhance the criminal penalties for illegal
trafficking of archaeological resources, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced
Protection of Our Cultural Heritage, EPOCH, Act of 2002. This
legislation will increase the maximum penalties for violations of three
existing statutes that protect the cultural and archaeological history
of the American people, particularly Native Americans. The United
States Sentencing Commission recommended the statutory changes
contained in this bill, which would complement the Commission's
strengthening of Federal sentencing guidelines to ensure more stringent
penalties for criminals who steal from our public lands. I welcome the
Commission's suggestion and am pleased that Senators Inouye, Clinton,
Bingaman, and Boxer have joined me as cosponsors.
This bill will increase the maximum penalties for the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, ARPA, 16 USC Sec. 470ee, the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, 18 USC Sec. 1170, and
for 18 USC Sec. 1163, which prohibits theft from Indian Tribal
Organizations. All three statutes currently impose a 5-year maximum
sentence, and each includes a lower maximum for a first offense of the
statute and/or a violation of the statute involving property of less
than a specified value. This bill would create a 10-year maximum
sentence for each statute, while eliminating the lower maximums under
ARPA and NAGPRA for first offenses.
Such maximum sentences would be consistent with similar Federal
statutes. For example, the 1994 law proscribing museum theft carries a
10-year maximum sentence, as do the general statutes punishing theft
and the destruction of government property. Moreover, increasing the
maximum sentences will give judges and the Sentencing Commission
greater discretion to impose punishments appropriate to the amount of
destruction a defendant has done.
Making these changes will also enable the Sentencing Commission's
recent sentencing guidelines to be fully implemented. The Commission
has increased sentencing guidelines for cultural heritage crimes, but
the statutory maximum penalties contained in current law will prevent
judges from issuing sentences in the upper range of the new guidelines.
Those new guidelines have the enthusiastic support of the Justice and
Interior Departments, the Society for American Archeology, the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, numerous Native American nations, and
many others. Congress should take the steps necessary to see the
guidelines take full effect.
Two of the three laws we amend with this legislation protect Native
American lands and property. The third, ARPA, protects both public and
Indian lands, and provides significant protection to my State of
Vermont. For example, ARPA can be used to prosecute those who would
steal artifacts from the wrecked military vessels at the bottom of Lake
Champlain that date to the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. U.S.
Attorneys can also use ARPA to prosecute criminals who take items that
are at least 100 years old from a protected site on Vermont State
property without a permit, and then transport those goods into another
State. In addition, ARPA protects artifacts found on the approximately
5 percent of Vermont land that is Federal property, land that includes
many ``ghost towns'' that have long been abandoned but are an important
part of our history.
Those who would pillage the rich cultural heritage of this Nation and
its people are committing serious crimes. These artifacts are the
legacy of all Americans and should not be degraded as garage sale
commodities or as fodder for private enrichment.
I would like to thank a number of people for their help and advice
about this legislation. Charlie Tetzlaff, as well as the rest of the
staff at the Sentencing Commission, helped us understand the importance
of this issue, and made protecting our cultural heritage a priority
when he served as United States Attorney for Vermont. Art Cohn, the
director of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, and Giovanna Peebles,
Vermont's State Archeologist, were very helpful in explaining how our
laws protect the cultural heritage of Vermont and the rest of the
Nation, and I am grateful for their support for this bill.
Passage of this legislation would demonstrate Congress' commitment to
preserving our Nation's history and our cultural heritage. I urge my
colleagues to support this common-sense initiative.
I would ask that the text of this legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2598
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 ``Enhanced Protection of Our
Cultural Heritage Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE CRIMES.
(a) Enhanced Penalty for Illegal Trafficking in
Archaeological Resources.--Section 6(d) of the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470ee(d)) is
amended by striking ``not more than $10,000'' and all that
follows through the end of the subsection, and inserting
``not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years,
or both.''.
(b) Enhanced Penalty for Embezzlement and Theft From Indian
Tribal Organizations.--Section 1163 of title 18, United
States
[[Page S5211]]
Code, is amended by striking ``five years'' and inserting
``10 years''.
(c) Enhanced Penalty for Illegal Trafficking in Native
American Human Remains and Cultural Items.--Section 1170 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``or imprisoned not more
than 12 months, or both, and in the case of a second or
subsequent violation, be fined in accordance with this title,
or imprisoned not more than 5 years'' and inserting
``imprisoned not more than 10 years''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``imprisoned not more
than one year, or both, and in the case of a second or
subsequent violation, be fined in accordance with this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years'' and inserting ``imprisoned
not more than 10 years''.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 2599. A bill to establish the Water Supply Technologies Program
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and renewable Energy of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Kyl, and
Senator Crapo, I am introducing a bill with reference to water, water
supply, and research. We have no American policy, no place that you can
go where the basic water issues of our land can be metered and modeled,
and where we can find out what the real situation is with reference to
water for our growing needs in our cities and the surrounding areas.
If you are interested in that, I think you will find the bill I am
sending to the desk to be an intriguing one. It has been put together
by very bright, technical people from laboratories and similar
entities, where they clearly set forth the way we ought to go about
establishing a water supply research center for a country as important
as ours, and how we can provide research on an annual basis in these
areas for very few dollars.
Water is the lifeblood of our Southwest. We don't have an abundant
supply and what we do have is becoming increasingly threatened. Between
providing water for people and various endangered species, there just
isn't enough water to go around.
I'm sure many of my colleagues are seeing daily headlines like:
Winds Parch Remaining Moisture Out of New Mexico Land,
Navajos Urged To Sell Parched Livestock,
New Mexico Going to Drought Emergency,
Drought Watch--Skies Without Hope, and
Trees Need Big Help To Survive Drought.
There is no larger problem facing our Southwest.
This bill is part of my broad strategy for dealing with water quality
and quantity issues. In earlier bills, I have sought to provide grants
to communities struggling to meet the new EPA arsenic mandates. I
recently introduced the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002 to
help communities develop drought preparedness plans in an effort to
mitigate the effects of future droughts.
This bill will help with short term challenges like meeting arsenic
mandates and longer term issues like cost-effective desalination
technologies and better modeling to enable optimum utilization of the
water in our major river basins.
There are good reasons for designating the Department of Energy to
create these technologies. Energy is the second largest user of water,
second only to agriculture. Furthermore, energy costs are a major
component in purifying and pumping drinking water and in treating
wastewater.
As scarcity of water intensifies, more and more energy will be needed
to obtain and treat it. Water will be pumped from greater depths and
over greater distances. More treatment will be needed as we use less
pure resources. As just one example, up to half the costs of
desalination involve energy.
Removal of arsenic will be one focus for this new program. In New
Mexico, as in much of the West, arsenic occurs naturally in significant
concentrations. This, coupled with the fact that New Mexico is not a
wealthy State, has made the recent unfunded mandate imposed by the EPA
insurmountable.
This new standard is going to cost New Mexico around $400 million.
More than 100 community water systems in the State will probably have
to upgrade their water treatment facilities. Ratepayers are likely to
see monthly rate increases averaging between $40 and $90, that's simply
unacceptable. Other States have similar problems.
Even worse, these costs may force people to shift from expensive
treated water to cheaper domestic wells. Since these wells often
contain even greater amounts of arsenic and pollutants, there may be
unintended public health consequences created by this new mandate.
I introduced S. 1299 to provide grants to States to help them comply
with these new standards. That will help, but grant dollars alone
aren't the answer to this issue. We also need to reduce the costs of
arsenic removal.
This bill authorizes $8 million for research and development of cost
effective strategies. The program will focus on reducing overall costs,
including those for energy and will include demonstration projects in
the arid southwest.
The bill also provides for a 4 year extension in the time by which
municipalities must comply with the new EPA mandate, in addition to the
extension that EPA has already committed to. This extension is open to
any public water system that is in the process of utilizing technology
authorized under this bill. Our national laboratories, especially
Sandia, will be strong contributors to this program.
Another part of the bill deals with the challenges of providing
adequate supplies of fresh water for the growing populations of our
southwest. These States face severe water shortages, which impact both
our urban communities and our rural agricultural ones. Our fresh water
supply will not increase, unless we take steps today and invest in new
approaches to water supply and management.
To achieve this, my bill provides authority for the program director,
in cooperation with the Commissioner of Reclamation, to coordinate
desalination research for improved technologies. This program is
authorized at $6 million.
The program will focus on development and demonstration of
technologies appropriate for desalinating brackish water and encourages
the use of renewable energy. Part of these funds will enable completion
of a national desalination research center in the Tularosa Basin of New
Mexico.
The bill also provides $7 million to implement programs to examine
the relationships between water supplies and energy needs. It will
focus on the availability of water and on opportunities for increasing
our supplies. Hopefully, with this research we can turn our water
future into something other than a ``zero sum'' game.
The program will develop comprehensive models to assess and manage
competing demands for water by energy, agriculture and other sectors.
To accomplish this, models will include a range of physical phenomena
and a complete set of the major water uses. The bill provides for the
development of these models for up to 3 domestic river basins, one of
which addresses an international border.
Many Americans are under the illusion that water will always flow out
of their tap each time it is turned on. And they continue to believe
that there will always be an adequate supply of good quality water to
meet all needs, energy, agriculture and domestic. I fear this may not
always be the case. Unless we develop a long-term strategy for dealing
with impending water shortages it could be too late.
I hope this bill starts us down the path of conquering water
challenges in the 21st Century.
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. 2599
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 ``Water Supply Technologies
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the understanding, use, and protection of water
resources are matters of national and global security;
(2) increasing demand for water supply may dramatically
alter population patterns and strain international relations;
(3) the remediation of many sites of the Department of
Energy and the treatment of domestic water supplies require
cost-effective, efficient removal of contaminants from water
supplies;
[[Page S5212]]
(4) such remediation frequently involves knowledge and
modeling of water transport at the surface and subsurface
levels;
(5)(A) energy costs--
(i) are a major factor in the extraction, storage,
treatment, and delivery of water; and
(ii) are particularly high in the case of desalination
processes; and
(B) increased efficiencies in energy use, or use of
renewable energy sources in treatment processes, can result
in large cost savings;
(6)(A) most energy production technologies are highly water
intensive;
(B) the energy industry is the second largest water user
after agriculture;
(C) energy production requires a reliable, predictable
water supply; and
(D) the limited availability of water is beginning to
constrain construction of new powerplants;
(7) having strong expertise in geosciences, hydrology,
chemistry, energy options, system modeling, and security
technologies, the Department of Energy is well positioned to
contribute to national efforts relating to water issues;
(8) modeling and simulation of water cycles on at least the
scale of river basins can guide strategies affecting--
(A) site cleanup;
(B) agricultural use of land;
(C) industrial use of land;
(D) protection of the environment; and
(E) population expansion;
(9) municipal water systems are facing unfunded Federal
mandates to remove heavy metals and other contaminants from
water supplies;
(10) in the future, as water supplies are further stressed,
municipal water systems may be forced to use water supplies
that cannot, using existing technologies, be cost-effectively
purified to meet clean water standards;
(11) many components of technologies used in the
remediation of heavy metals and other contaminants at sites
of the Department would aid municipal water systems in water
purification;
(12) for municipal water systems, 2 of the most
economically and technically challenging treatment processes
are--
(A) reduction of arsenic levels; and
(B) desalination;
(13)(A) the security of water supplies is a growing
concern; and
(B) there is an emerging need for real-time sensing, and
reporting systems for early warnings to the public, of
potentially hazardous contaminants in the drinking water
supply;
(14) major water shortages along the United States-Mexico
border--
(A) are projected to occur in the future; and
(B) could contribute to many issues affecting the border
region; and
(15) research and development of the Department must be
coordinated with research and development of other Federal
agencies, each of which has responsibilities, interests, and
capabilities to contribute to solving the important problems
described in this section.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Arsenic removal program.--The term ``arsenic removal
program'' means the program carried out under section 4(d).
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Energy.
(3) Deputy assistant secretary.--The term ``Deputy
Assistant Secretary'' means the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water Supply Technologies in the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the Department appointed
under section 4(a)(2).
(4) Desalination program.--The term ``desalination
program'' means the program carried out under section 4(e).
(5) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation.
(6) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(7) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Water Supply
Technologies Program established by section 4(a)(1).
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(9) Water and energy sustainability program.--The term
``water and energy sustainability program'' means the program
carried out under section 4(f).
(10) Water supply security program.--The term ``water
supply security program'' means the program carried out under
section 4(g).
SEC. 4. WATER SUPPLY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the Department a
program to be known as the ``Water Supply Technologies
Program''.
(2) Deputy assistant secretary.--The Secretary shall
establish, and appoint an individual to fill, the position of
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Supply Technologies.
(b) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Deputy Assistant Secretary shall carry
out the Program, consisting of--
(A) the arsenic removal program under subsection (d);
(B) the desalination program under subsection (e);
(C) the water and energy sustainability program under
subsection (f); and
(D) the water supply security program under subsection (g).
(2) Contractual authority.--In carrying out the duties of
the Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary may enter into contracts with--
(A) private industries;
(B) colleges and universities;
(C) national laboratories; and
(D) nonprofit organizations.
(c) Oversight.--The Secretary shall ensure that the results
of research and development conducted by the Department that
are relevant to the Program are communicated to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary.
(d) Arsenic Removal Program.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Deputy Assistant Secretary shall
offer to enter into a contract with the Foundation under
which the Foundation shall carry out a research program to
develop and demonstrate innovative arsenic removal
technologies.
(2) Types of research.--In carrying out the arsenic removal
program, the Foundation shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, conduct research on means of--
(A) reducing energy costs incurred in using arsenic removal
technologies;
(B) minimizing materials costs, operating costs, and
maintenance costs incurred in using arsenic removal
technologies; and
(C) minimizing any quantities of waste (especially
hazardous waste) that result from use of arsenic removal
technologies.
(3) Water purification technologies.--In carrying out the
arsenic removal program, the Foundation shall carry out peer-
reviewed projects (including research projects and cost-
shared demonstration projects in conjunction with municipal
water systems) to develop and demonstrate water purification
technologies.
(4) Demonstration projects.--
(A) Arid southwestern united states.--In carrying out the
arsenic removal program, the Foundation shall carry out at
least 3 demonstration projects to demonstrate the
applicability of innovative arsenic removal technologies to
the arid southwestern United States.
(B) Rural communities and indian tribes.--Not less than 40
percent of the funds of the Department used for demonstration
projects under the arsenic removal program shall be expended
in partnership with rural communities or Indian tribes.
(5) Evaluation of cost effectiveness.--In carrying out the
arsenic removal program, the Foundation shall use WERC, A
Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology
Development, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of arsenic
removal technologies used in the program.
(6) Education and training.--In carrying out the arsenic
removal program, the Deputy Assistant Secretary shall provide
a mechanism for education, training, and technology transfer
to be developed and implemented by WERC, A Consortium for
Environmental Education and Technology Development.
(7) Coordination with other programs.--The Deputy Assistant
Secretary, in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall ensure that activities
under the arsenic removal program are coordinated with
appropriate programs of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(8) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
commencement of the arsenic removal program, and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
on the results of the arsenic removal program.
(e) Desalination Program.--
(1) In general.--The Deputy Assistant Secretary, in
cooperation with the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall carry
out a desalination program in accordance with the
desalination technology progress plan developed under the
matter under the heading ``water and related resources''
under the heading ``Bureau of Reclamation'' in title II of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002
(115 Stat. 498), and described in Senate Report 107-39.
(2) Desalination research.--
(A) In general.--Under the desalination program, Sandia
National Laboratories and the Bureau of Reclamation shall
coordinate desalination research for next-generation
desalination technology.
(B) Required research elements.--In conducting research
under the desalination program, Sandia National Laboratories
and the Bureau of Reclamation shall--
(i) focus on research relating to, and development and
demonstration of, technologies that are appropriate for use
in desalinating brackish groundwater and other saline water
supplies; and
(ii) consider the use of renewable energy.
(3) Construction projects.--Under the desalination program,
funds made available to carry out activities in the Tularosa
Basin, New Mexico, may be used for construction projects,
including completion of the National Desalination Research
Center.
(4) Steering committee.--
(A) In general.--The Deputy Assistant Secretary and the
Commissioner of Reclamation shall jointly establish a
steering committee for the desalination program.
(B) Chairpersons.--The steering committee shall be jointly
chaired by 1 representative from the Program and 1
representative from the Bureau of Reclamation.
[[Page S5213]]
(f) Water and Energy Sustainability Program.--
(1) In general.--The Deputy Assistant Secretary shall carry
out a program to ensure that sufficient quantities of water
are available for the energy sector through development of
modeling and analysis tools to assess and manage--
(A) competing demands for water by the energy sector and
other categories of water users, including the agriculture
sector, the energy sector, industry, domestic users, and the
environment; and
(B) the impacts of energy production on the availability of
water.
(2) Required elements.--Under the water and energy
sustainability program, the Deputy Assistant Secretary
shall--
(A) in accordance with paragraph (3), develop a coordinated
strategy to identify technology development and improved
modeling capabilities needed to achieve the goal of continued
water and energy sustainability;
(B) in accordance with paragraph (4), develop such advanced
modeling and decision analysis tools as are necessary to
assess and manage competing demands for water by various
categories of water users specified in paragraph (1)(A); and
(C) in accordance with paragraph (5), carry out
demonstration projects to test the models and tools developed
under subparagraph (B).
(3) Water and energy sustainability strategy.--In
developing the strategy under paragraph (2)(A), the Deputy
Assistant Secretary shall--
(A) collaborate with water management agencies,
universities, industry, and stakeholder groups to define
issues and needs; and
(B) develop a coordinated science and technology strategy
to support future water use decisions that include issues of
energy sustainability.
(4) Advanced modeling and decision analysis tools.--
(A) Applicable scales.--Modeling and decision analysis
tools developed under paragraph (2)(B) shall address water
and energy availability issues--
(i) physically, on the scale of river basins; and
(ii) temporally, on scales ranging from seasons to decades.
(B) Coordination.--Modeling and decision analysis tools
developed under paragraph (2)(B) shall be coordinated with
global climate change predictive capabilities supported by
the Federal Government.
(C) Modeling tools.--Modeling tools developed under
paragraph (2)(B) shall include tools for modeling the effects
of--
(i) atmospheric, surface, and subsurface phenomena;
(ii) rural and urban populations and land use changes;
(iii) energy, agriculture, and other industrial demands;
(iv) energy impacts on water quality and quantity; and
(v) changing marketplace behaviors and other economic
forces.
(D) Decision analysis tools.--Decision analysis tools
developed under paragraph (2)(B) shall include tools to
support water and energy resources planning through--
(i) provision of direct support for policy and planning
decisions;
(ii) optimization of water use for the energy sector and
other categories of water users specified in paragraph
(1)(A); and
(iii) assessment of the potential benefits of new
technologies to improve water and energy sustainability.
(5) Demonstration projects.--Demonstration projects carried
out under paragraph (2)(C) shall--
(A) test water and energy modeling and decision analysis
tools for 3 river basins, at least 1 of which includes an
international border;
(B) focus on assessing water resources and managing
competing demands for, and impacts on, water by the energy
sector and other categories of water users specified in
paragraph (1)(A); and
(C) be conducted in collaboration with water resources
management organizations in the basins described in
subparagraph (A).
(6) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Deputy Assistant Secretary shall
submit to the Secretary and Congress a report on the water
and energy sustainability program that--
(A) describes the elements required under paragraph (2);
and
(B) makes recommendations for a management structure and
research and development plan for the water and energy
sustainability program that optimizes use of Federal
resources and programs.
(g) Water Supply Security Program.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Deputy Assistant Secretary shall
offer to enter into a contract with the Foundation under
which the Foundation shall carry out a research program, in
coordination with the Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security, with the goal of developing low-cost, mass-
produced, micro-analytical systems to provide early warning
of potentially hazardous contaminants in municipal water
systems.
(2) Required elements.--In carrying out the water supply
security program, the Foundation shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, develop--
(A) means of reducing monitoring costs, including
technologies to replace expensive sampling and analysis used,
as of the date of enactment of this Act, for routine
regulatory compliance;
(B) innovative, cost-effective monitoring technologies for
detection of--
(i) chemical and biological threats; and
(ii) chemicals and pharmaceuticals subject to current or
potential future regulation; and
(C) rapid and effective methodologies to transform
monitoring data into information for decisionmaking and
automated response.
(3) Monitoring technologies.--In carrying out the water
supply security program, the Foundation, in conjunction with
municipal water systems, shall carry out peer-reviewed
projects to develop and demonstrate monitoring technologies.
(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
implementation of the water supply security program, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on the results of the water supply security program.
(h) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
demonstration project carried out under the Program shall be
carried out on a cost-shared basis, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) In-kind contributions; waivers.--With respect to a
demonstration project, the Secretary may--
(A) accept in-kind contributions; and
(B) waive the cost-sharing requirement in appropriate
circumstances.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, of which--
(A) $8,000,000 shall be used to carry out subsection (d);
(B) $6,000,000 shall be used to carry out subsection (e);
(C) $7,000,000 shall be used to carry out subsection (f);
and
(D) $4,000,000 shall be used to carry out subsection (g);
and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year
thereafter.
SEC. 5. EXTENSIONS OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR SMALL PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEMS.
Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(10)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A national primary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
national primary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Extensions.--
``(A) Small public water systems.--
``(i) In general.--In accordance with the report submitted
to Congress by the Administrator entitled `Small System
Arsenic Implementation Issues', in addition to any 2-year
extension described in paragraph (1), the Administrator (or a
State, in the case of an individual system) may provide to a
public water system that serves a population of not more than
10,000 an extension of 3 years in which to comply with a
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique described in
that paragraph.
``(ii) Renewal of extensions.--The Administrator (or a
State, in the case of an individual system) may renew an
extension granted to a small public water system under clause
(i) if--
``(I) the small public water system serves a population of
not more than 3,300; and
``(II) the small public water system demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the Administrator (or the State), that the
small public water system is taking all practicable steps to
meet the requirements of this title.
``(B) All public water systems.--In addition to any 2-year
extension received under paragraph (1), the Administrator (or
a State, in the case of an individual system) may provide to
any public water system an extension of 4 years in which to
comply with a maximum contaminant level or treatment
technique described in that paragraph if the public water
system is in the process of implementing arsenic removal
technology developed under section 4(d) of the Water Supply
Technologies Act of 2002.''.
____________________