[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.''.

                          ____________________