[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9902-S9912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 3036. A bill to establish a commission to assess the performance
of the civil works functions of the Secretary of the Army; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with my
colleagues Senator Johnson, legislation to investigate and hopefully
change the culture of disregard for environmental values that infects
the Corps of Engineers' management of America's great rivers. My own
experiences in South Dakota and my discussions with many of my
[[Page S9903]]
constituents and others around the Nation have led me to conclude that
protecting the future health of our Nation's waterways demands that
Congress consider relieving the Corps of its current river management
responsibilities.
For the last decade, I have watched as the Corps has steadfastly
refused to change its management of the Missouri River to reflect the
environmental and economic needs of the 21st century. The agency's
refusal to change the management of the river will further jeopardize
endangered species, drive river-dependent businesses into bankruptcy,
and lead to further erosion of Native American burial and cultural
sites along its banks. As a Senator from South Dakota and as a citizen
of that State who enjoys hunting and fishing along the Missouri, I
share the sense of betrayal that so many upstream residents feel
watching the Corps' management slowly degrade this once thriving river.
Last spring, just when sport fish were spawning and the State was
facing its worst drought in decades, the Corps began to drain the
reservoirs to provide water for navigation downstream. This prompted
lawsuits by South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana to force the Corps
to bring common-sense management to the river. Since then, boat ramps
have become unusable, while some river-based businesses have lost tens
of thousands of dollars.
There is no legitimate reason for further delay in reforming
management of the Missouri River. For more than a decade, the Corps has
spent millions of dollars revising its operating plan for water flows
on the Missouri River, the Master Manual. An overwhelming amount of
scientific and technical data all point to the same conclusions: the
management of the river should more closely mimic the natural flow
regime. Flows should be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer,
just as they nature. Yet in June, the Corps indefinitely delayed the
release of the new Master Manual due to pressure from the White House.
The mismanagement of the Missouri River is illustrative of a larger
problem. For example, a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock
expansion has to be retooled after the Corps whistle blower showed that
the study was rigged to provide an economic justification for that
billion-dollar project. A broad pattern of disregard by the Corps for
environmental priorities throughout the nation's waterways is now
evident. In addition, the corps has been shown time and again its
unwillingness to work effectively with members of the public, States,
tribes, or stakeholders to resolve ongoing challenges.
Indeed, more than ever, the Corps appears mired in the past,
incapable of assimilating new scienfic and economic information into
its management scheme, and, consequently, failing the people and
wildlife that depend on the sound stewardship of Ameria's rivers. The
time has come to ask tough questions about the institutional barriers
within the Corps, and the influence of special interests, that prevent
it from effectively meeting the Nation's river management needs. The
time has come to ask whether those responsibilities are better left to
others. This ongoing situation presents a compelling case for a
thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and management,
and for serious reform. Indeed, many of my Senate colleagues have
introduced legislation to accomplish certain reforms, and I, along with
others have made it clear that we will fight any effort to pass
additional authorizations unless they are accompanied by serious,
meaningful Corps reform.
Our Nation needs a river management program that is environmentally
and economically sound. History does not offer much room for confidence
that the Army Corps of Engineers can meet this standard under its
current management structure. The management of the Missouri River, the
Mississippi River, and other major waterways presents a compelling case
for a thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and
management, and for serious reform.
I am introducing legislation today to establish an independent Corps
of Engineers River Stewardship Investigation and Review Commission. The
commission will take a hard and systematic look at the agency's
stewardship of our Nation's rivers and make recommendations to Congress
on needed reforms. It will examine a number of issues, including Corps
compliance with environmental and Indian cultural resource protection
laws; the quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and
economic analysis, the Corps' cooperation with Federal agencies,
States, and tribes; whether congress needs to amend river planning laws
and regulations; and, ultimately, whether the Corps' river management
responsibilities should be transferred to a federal civilian agency.
I urge my colleagues to review this legislation.
It is my hope that all those who care about the mission of preserving
our Nation's waterways will support this effort to identify and
implement whatever reforms are necessary to fulfill that mission. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3036
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 ``Corps of Engineers River
Stewardship Independent Investigation and Review Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Corps of
Engineers River Stewardship Independent Investigation and
Review Commission established under section 3(a).
(2) 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).
(3) Session day.--The term ``session day'' means a day on
which both Houses of Congress are in session.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
commission to be known as the ``Corps of Engineers River
Stewardship Independent Investigation and Review
Commission''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of not to
exceed 22 members, and shall include--
(A) individuals appointed by the President to represent--
(i) the Department of the Army;
(ii) the Department of the Interior;
(iii) the Department of Justice;
(iv) environmental interests;
(v) hydropower interests;
(vi) flood control interests;
(vii) recreational interests;
(viii) navigation interests;
(ix) the Council on Environmental Quality; and
(x) such other affected interests as are determined by the
President to be appropriate;
(B) 6 governors from States representing different regions
of the United States, as determined by the President; and
(C) 6 representatives of Indian tribes representing
different regions of the United States, as determined by the
President.
(2) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Commission shall be made not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Term; Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
(A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the
Commission.
(e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--
(1) In general.--The President shall select a Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson from among the members of the
Commission.
(2) No corps representative.--The Chairperson and the Vice
Chairperson shall not be representatives of the Department of
the Army (including the Corps of Engineers).
SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall complete an investigation and
submit to Congress a report on the management of rivers in
the United States by the Corps of Engineers, with emphasis
on--
(1) compliance with environmental laws in the design and
operation of river management projects, including--
(A) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.); and
[[Page S9904]]
(C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) compliance with the cultural resource laws that protect
Native American graves, traditional cultural properties, and
Native American sacred sites in the design and operation of
river management projects, including--
(A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.);
(B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
(C) the Native American Graves Protection Act and
Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(D) Executive Order 13007 (61 Fed. Reg. 26771; relating to
Indian sacred sites);
(E) identification of opportunities for developing tribal
cooperative management agreements for erosion control,
habitat restoration, cultural resource protection, and
enforcement;
(F) review of policy and guidance regarding nondisclosure
of sensitive information on the character, nature, and
location of traditional cultural properties and sacred sites;
and
(G) review of the effectiveness of government-to-government
consultation by the Corps of Engineers with Indian tribes and
members of Indian tribes in cases in which the river
management functions and activities of the Corps affect
Indian land and Native American natural and cultural
resources;
(3) the quality and objectivity of scientific,
environmental, and economic analyses by the Corps of
Engineers, including the use of independent reviewers of
analyses performed by the Corps;
(4) the extent of coordination and cooperation by the Corps
of Engineers with Federal and State agencies (such as the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service) and Indian tribes in
designing and implementing river management projects;
(5) the extent to which river management studies conducted
by the Corps of Engineers fairly and effectively balance the
goals of public and private interests, such as wildlife,
recreation, navigation, and hydropower interests;
(6) whether river management studies conducted by the Corps
of Engineers should be subject to independent review;
(7) whether river planning laws (including regulations)
should be amended; and
(8) whether the river management functions of the Corps of
Engineers should be transferred from the Department of the
Army to a Federal civilian agency.
SEC. 5. POWERS.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal department or agency such information as the
Commission considers necessary to carry out this Act.
(2) Provision of information.--On request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the department or
agency shall provide the information to the Commission.
(c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or personal property.
SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--
(1) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Commission who
is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall
be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission.
(2) Federal employees.--A member of the Commission who is
an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve
without compensation in addition to the compensation received
for the services of the member as an officer or employee of
the Federal Government.
(b) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(3) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of
the executive director and other personnel without regard to
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
title 5, United States Code.
(d) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
(1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
(2) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate on the date on which the
Commission submits the report to Congress under section 4(a).
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 3037. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
improve protection of treatment works from terrorists and other harmful
intentional acts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Safety Act. This legislation provides for the
safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment works by
providing needed funds to conduct vulnerability assessments and
implement security improvements. In addition, this bill will ensure
long-term safety and security by providing funds for researching
innovative technologies and enhancing proven vulnerability assessment
tools already in use.
Since the terrible events of September 11, we have taken several
comprehensive steps to protect our water supplies and infrastructure.
Almost a year ago, I spoke on the many initiatives taking place in the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and at the Environmental
Protection Agency. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress.
EPA worked with State and local governments to expeditiously provide
guidance on the protection of drinking water facilities from terrorist
attacks. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision
Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental
Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, established a communications system, a
water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed
to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities
throughout the nation.
Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I worked to include the
authorization of $160 million for vulnerability assessments at drinking
water facilities as part of the Bioterrorism bill. Despite our advocacy
during the conference, we were unable to include a provision in that
bill for wastewater facilities due to jurisdictional issues in the
House.
While these initial efforts are essential, our task is by no means
finished. We cannot forget the vital importance of protecting our
Nation's wastewater facilities. Everyday we take for granted the
hundreds of thousands of miles of pipes buried under ground and the
thousands of wastewater treatment works that keep our water clean and
safe. But, like all our Nation's critical infrastructure, the
disruption or destruction of these structures could have a devastating
impact on public safety and health.
The legislation I am introducing today will take us one step further
by authorizing support of ongoing efforts to develop and implement
vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at wastewater
facilities.
Using existing tools such as the Sandi Laboratory's vulnerability
assessment tool or the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Association's Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool, treatment works will
be able to securely identify critical areas of need. With the funds
provided by this bill, EPA will also ensure that treatment
[[Page S9905]]
works remedy areas of concerns. Using the results of the vulnerability
assessment, treatment works will develop or revise emergency response
plans to minimize damage if an attack were to occur.
This bill authorizes $185 million for fiscal years 2003 through 2007
for grants to conduct the vulnerability assessments and implement basic
security enhancements. The bill also recognizes the need to address
immediate and urgent security needs with a special $20 million
authorization over 2003 and 2004.
In my home State of Vermont, we have only three towns of over 25,000
people. The small water facilities serving these communities have been
particularly challenged to meet today's new homeland security
challenges. Many times, water managers operate the town's water
facilities as a part-time job or even as a free service. We must ensure
that they are afforded the same consideration under this act as the
medium and large facilities. This bill authorizes $15 million for
grants to help small communities conduct vulnerability assessments,
develop emergency response plans, and address potential threats to the
treatment works. It also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to
provide guidance to these communities on how to effectively use these
security tools.
To ensure the continued development of wastewater security
technologies, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act
authorizes $15 million for research for 2003 and 2007. It also provides
$500,000 to refine vulnerability self-assessment tools already in
existence.
I am proud to say that the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies has endorsed the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act. AMSA
represents our nation's wastewater treatment works serving large
cities. They have been an invaluable partner in the drafting of this
bill, and I thank them sincerely for their support. I ask unanimous
consent that their letter of support be entered into the Record.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and
other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water
infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have
something to protect--clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies,
Washington, DC, October 1, 2002.
Hon. James Jeffords,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Jeffords: The Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) thanks you for the timely
introduction of the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and
Safety Act. This legislation marks a critical step toward
ensuring the safe, uninterrupted operation of the nation's
vital wastewater infrastructure. AMSA will be working
throughout the closing days of the 107th Congress to secure
the passage of this important legislation.
Of critical importance to AMSA member utilities is the $200
million this bill provides to assess vulnerabilities and
enhance security at the nation's more than 16,000 public
wastewater treatment works. AMSA also believes that the
bill's $2.5 million to develop and distribute vulnerability
assessment software upgrades will play a key role in ongoing
security improvements. AMSA, in coordination with EPA, has
developed a vulnerability self assessment tool
(VSATTM) for wastewater utilities in the wake of
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To this end, the
$2.5 million provides much-needed support to continue and
improve this important initiative.
The Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act
comes at a pivotal juncture for communities struggling to
secure their critical wastewater infrastructure while
tackling shrinking municipal budgets. AMSA applauds your
commitment to addressing municipal security needs for making
your staff accessible throughout the drafting of this
important legislation. AMSA looks forward to working with
you, your staff and other members of the Senate and House of
Representatives to ensure the passage of this legislation
before Congress adjourns this year.
Sincerely,
Ken Kirk,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
S. 3038. A bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further
the conservation of certain wildlife species; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I rise today with Senator Smith of New
Hampshire to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm
commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that
are increasingly being kept as pets.
Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in
captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in
captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats
throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most
of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's
house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous
animals. Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today
there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of
lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets.
Untrained owners are simply not capable of meeting the needs of these
animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments
are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper
care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared
for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral,
nutritional, and physical needs.
People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These
cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing
innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and
unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered
public safety. last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was
killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, this past
February, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound
Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet. Just last month in Quitman,
AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari.''
Parents living nearby sat in their own front yards with high-powered
rifles scared that the wild lions might hurt their children playing the
front yard.
The bill I introduce today would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of
1981 and bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild
cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The
legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited
species. It would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets.
This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those
entities already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the
Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities.
This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who
are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets.
This bill also preserves the importance of local regulations already
in existence. I sincerely hope that grass roots level organizing
continues to direct State and local governments to increase the number
of States and counties that ban private ownership of exotic cats. Full
bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been
enacted in 7 States.
No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these
animals. Those exotic cats who are in captivity should be able to live
humanely and healthfully.
The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on
the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals
can be kept as pets. The United States Department of agriculture
states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars,
and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals'
potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an
untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious
risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an
animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.''
The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes
the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes
that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be
prohibited.''
The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of
Zoos
[[Page S9906]]
and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for
Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to
working with our partners in the House who have expressed interest in
passing this bill into law by the end of this session.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 3039. A bill to designate certain conduct by sports agents
relating to the signing of contracts with student athletes as unfair
and deceptive acts or practices to be regulated by the Federal Trade
Commission; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a
bill I am introducing today, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust
Act. The purpose of the bill is simple: to set some basic, uniform
nationwide rules to prevent unscrupulous behavior by sports agents who
court student athletes.
Too often, unscrupulous sports agents prey upon young student
athletes who are inexperienced, naive, or simply don't know all of the
collegiate athletic eligibility rules. The agent sees the student
athlete as a potentially lucrative future client, and wants to get the
biggest headstart possible on other agents. So the agent tries to
contact and sign up the student athlete as early as possible, and does
whatever it takes to get the inside track.
In some cases, the agent may attempt to lure the student athlete with
grand promises. In some cases, the agent may offer flashy gifts. To
make the offer more enticing, the agent may withhold crucial
information about the impact on the student's eligibility to compete in
college sports.
A majority of States have enacted statutes to address unprincipled
behavior by sports agents, but the standards vary from State to State
and some States don't have any at all. The University of Oregon tells
me that this creates a significant loophole. Specifically, Oregon has a
State law, but it doesn't apply when a University of Oregon athlete
goes home to another State for the summer and is contacted by an agent
there. Every time that athlete crosses into another State, a different
set of rules apply. And if one State's laws on the subject are
particularly weak, that is where shady sports agents will try to
contact their targets.
That is why there ought to be a single, nationwide standard. The bill
I am introducing today would establish a uniform baseline, enforceable
by the Federal Trade Commission, that would supplement but not replace
existing State laws. Specifically, the bill would make it an unfair and
deceptive trade practice for a sports agent to entice a student athlete
with false or misleading information or promises or with gifts to the
student athlete or the athlete's friends or family. It would require a
sports agent to provide the student athlete with a clear, standardized
warning, in writing, that signing an agency contract could jeopardize
the athlete's eligibility to participate in college sports. It would
make it unlawful to pre-date or post-date agency contracts, and require
both the agent and student athlete to promptly inform the athlete's
university if they do enter into a contract.
Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee has spearheaded this
legislation in the House, where the House Commerce Committee has held
hearings and, most recently, unanimously approved the bill on September
25. I applaud Congressman Gordon for his leadership on this issue, and
I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in addressing this matter in the
Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3039
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 ``Sports Agent Responsibility
and Trust Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Agency contract.--The term ``agency contract'' means an
oral or written agreement in which a student athlete
authorizes a person to negotiate or solicit on behalf of the
student athlete a professional sports contract or an
endorsement contract.
(2) Athlete agent.--The term ``athlete agent'' means an
individual who enters into an agency contract with a student
athlete, or directly or indirectly recruits or solicits a
student athlete to enter into an agency contract, and does
not include a spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, or
guardian of such student athlete, or an individual acting
solely on behalf of a professional sports team or
professional sports organization.
(3) Athletic director.--The term ``athletic director''
means an individual responsible for administering the
athletic program of an educational institution or, in the
case that such program is administered separately, the
athletic program for male students or the athletic program
for female students, as appropriate.
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(5) Endorsement contract.--The term ``endorsement
contract'' means an agreement under which a student athlete
is employed or receives consideration for the use by the
other party of that individual's person, name, image, or
likeness in the promotion of any product, service, or event.
(6) Intercollegiate sport.--The term ``intercollegiate
sport'' means a sport played at the collegiate level for
which eligibility requirements for participation by a student
athlete are established by a national association for the
promotion or regulation of college athletics.
(7) Professional sports contract.--The term ``professional
sports contract'' means an agreement under which an
individual is employed, or agrees to render services, as a
player on a professional sports team, with a professional
sports organization, or as a professional athlete.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular
possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(9) Student athlete.--The term ``student athlete'' means an
individual who engages in, is eligible to engage in, or may
be eligible in the future to engage in, any intercollegiate
sport. An individual who is permanently ineligible to
participate in a particular intercollegiate sport is not a
student athlete for purposes of that sport.
SEC. 3. REGULATION OF UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES
IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTACT BETWEEN AN
ATHLETE AGENT AND A STUDENT ATHLETE.
(a) Conduct Prohibited.--It is unlawful for an athlete
agent to--
(1) directly or indirectly recruit or solicit a student
athlete to enter into an agency contract, by--
(A) giving any false or misleading information or making a
false promise or representation; or
(B) providing anything of value to a student athlete or
anyone associated with the student athlete before the student
athlete enters into an agency contract;
(2) enter into an agency contract with a student athlete
without providing the student athlete with the disclosure
document described in subsection (b); or
(3) predate or postdate an agency contract.
(b) Required Disclosure by Athlete Agents to Student
Athletes.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with the entering into of
an agency contract, an athlete agent shall provide to the
student athlete, or, if the student athlete is under the age
of 18 to such student athlete's parent or legal guardian, a
disclosure document that meets the requirements of this
subsection. Such disclosure document is separate from and in
addition to any disclosure which may be required under State
law.
(2) Signature of student athlete.--The disclosure document
must be signed by the student athlete, or, if the student
athlete is under the age of 18 by such student athlete's
parent or legal guardian, prior to entering into the agency
contract.
(3) Required language.--The disclosure document must
contain, in close proximity to the signature of the student
athlete, or, if the student athlete is under the age of 18,
the signature of such student athlete's parent or legal
guardian, a conspicuous notice in boldface type stating:
``Warning to Student Athlete: If you agree orally or in
writing to be represented by an agent now or in the future
you may lose your eligibility to compete as a student athlete
in your sport. Within 72 hours after entering into this
contract or before the next athletic event in which you are
eligible to participate, whichever occurs first, both you and
the agent by whom you are agreeing to be represented must
notify the athletic director of the educational institution
at which you are enrolled, or other individual responsible
for athletic programs at such educational institution, that
you have entered into an agency contract.''.
SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice.--A violation of
this Act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining
an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(b) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall
enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and
with the
[[Page S9907]]
same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into
and made a part of this Act.
SEC. 5. ACTIONS BY STATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of
the residents of that State has been or is threatened or
adversely affected by the engagement of any athlete agent in
a practice that violates section 3 of this Act, the State may
bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State
in a district court of the United States of appropriate
jurisdiction to--
(A) enjoin that practice;
(B) enforce compliance with this Act;
(C) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on
behalf of residents of the State; or
(D) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to
be appropriate.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide
to the Commission--
(i) written notice of that action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
(B) Exemption.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subsection, if the attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in that subparagraph before filing of the action.
In such case, the attorney general of a State shall provide
notice and a copy of the complaint to the Commission at the
same time as the attorney general files the action.
(b) Intervention.--
(1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection
(a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in
the action that is the subject of the notice.
(2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes
in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
(A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in
that action; and
(B) to file a petition for appeal.
(c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subsection (a), nothing in this title shall be
construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred the attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an
action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for a
violation of section 3, no State may, during the pendency of
that action, institute an action under subsection (a) against
any defendant named in the complaint in that action--
(e) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(f) Service of Process.--In an action brought under
subsection (a), process may be served in any district in
which the defendant--
(1) is an inhabitant; or
(2) may be found.
SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
(a) Notice Required.--Within 72 hours after entering into
an agency contract or before the next athletic event in which
the student athlete may participate, whichever occurs first,
the athlete agent and the student athlete shall each inform
the athletic director of the educational institution at which
the student athlete is enrolled, or other individual
responsible for athletic programs at such education
institution, that the student athlete had entered into an
agency contract, and the athlete agency shall provide the
athletic director with notice in writing of such a contract.
(b) Civil Remedy.--
(1) In general.--An educational institution has a right of
action against an athlete agent for damages caused by a
violation of this Act.
(2) Damages.--Damages of an educational institution may
include losses and expenses incurred because, as a result of
the conduct of the athlete agent, the educational institution
was injured by a violation of this Act or was penalized,
disqualified, or suspended from participation in athletics by
a national association for the promotion and regulation of
athletics, by an athletic conference, or by reasonable self-
imposed disciplinary action taken to mitigate actions likely
to be imposed by such an association or conference.
(3) Costs and attorneys fees.--In an action taken under
this section, the court may award to the prevailing party
costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
(4) Effect on others rights, remedies and defenses.--This
section does not restrict the rights, remedies, or defenses
of any person under law or equity.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that States should enact the
Uniform Athlete Agents Act of 2000 drafted by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, to protect
student athletes and the integrity of amateur sports from
unscrupulous sports agents. In particular, it is the sense of
the Congress that States should enact the provisions relating
to the registration of sports agents, the required form of
contract, the right of the student athletic to cancel an
agency contract, the disclosure requirements relating to
record maintenance, reporting, renewal, notice, warning, and
security, and the provisions for reciprocity among the
States.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 3041. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on new technology
payments under the Medicare prospective payment system for hospital
outpatient department services; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since Utah is the home of many medical
device and pharmaceutical companies, I have taken a special interest in
legislation affecting the development of cutting-edge technologies and
the ability of patients to have access to these innovative products.
Three years ago, I authored legislation to ensure that Medicare
patients have prompt and appropriate access to the abundant benefits of
medical breakthrough products. Prior to the enactment of that law,
these innovative technologies were not being properly reimbursed by the
Medicare program or, in some cases, were not even being reimbursed by
Medicare at all. As a result, patient care suffered.
And, while the 1999 law was a giant step in the right direction, many
problems continue to exist regarding the methodology that Medicare has
used in developing its hospital outpatient reimbursement payments for
these new devices and medicines.
I have been working throughout the year with all parties who have a
stake in improving the hospital outpatient prospective payment system
methodology for new medical devices, drugs, biologicals, and other
technologies. I have listened to the arguments from both the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the industry and recognize
that there are problems with this methodology from all perspectives.
And while, in my opinion, a legislative solution would be ideal, so
far, we have been unable to draft legislation that would be acceptable
to both CMS and industry representatives. Therefore, I now believe that
authorizing a comprehensive study through the Department of Health and
Human Services is the appropriate next step toward defining the flaws
within the current system and developing consensus on how to address
them. For this reason, I now advocate that CMS undertake such a study,
and also provide recommendations to Congress on how to improve Medicare
reimbursement for these products.
This matter is a serious one which needs to be reviewed and analyzed
by HHS so that a more equitable reimbursement system may be created. We
all agree that Medicare beneficiaries deserve access to most innovative
medical technologies. In my opinion, this HHS study will help us
accomplish two very important goals, fair and equitable Medicare
reimbursement for innovative technology and therapies and, most
important, beneficiary access to these cutting-edge products.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 3043. A bill to provide for an extension of the social health
maintenance organization (SHMO) demonstration project; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Social Health Maintenance Organization
Demonstration Project is due to expire in the next year. I have been a
strong supporter of extending the SHMO demonstration project, because
these plans help keep seniors independent and out of nursing homes.
SHMOs provide beneficiaries with expanded Medicare benefits, including
prescription drugs, care coordination and community-based services.
While many of us are working toward making this a permanent program, it
has now become clear that we will not be able to accomplish this goal
this year because of budget constraints. Therefore, I offer as the next
best solution extending the SHMO demonstration project for five more
years. This way, SHMOs will continue to operate, and, those
beneficiaries who receive their Medicare coverage through SHMOs will
continue to receive important services and benefits.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
[[Page S9908]]
S. 3044. A bill to authorize the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia to provide for the
interstate supervision of offenders on parole, probation, and
supervised release; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague from
Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, to introduce the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002, to
enhance the authority of the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia.
The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, was
established by Congress as part of the District of Columbia
Revitalization Act of 1997. CSOSA combines under one helm the
previously disparate local functions of pretrial services, parole,
adult probation, and post-conviction offender supervision. Following
three years of operation as a trusteeship, CSOSA was certified as an
independent Federal agency within the executive branch on August 4,
2000.
CSOSA, with 950 employees, an annual budget of $132 million, and
responsibility for monitoring 21,000 pretrial release defendants
annually, 8,000 at any one time, and 15,338 post-conviction offenders
on probation or parole, is directed by Paul A. Quander, Jr., who was
confirmed by the Senate on July 25, 2002.
The legislation we introduce today aims to clarify CSOSA's authority
to provide for supervision of offenders from other jurisdictions who
chose to live in the District of Columbia and to arrange with other
States for supervision of District of Columbia probationers who seek
residence in other jurisdictions, including authority to enter into a
new Interstate Compact.
Among the functions CSOSA absorbed after it was established were the
supervision of probationers and parolees from other jurisdictions once
their transfer to the District of Columbia was approved. Although not
explicitly stated in the law, CSOSA also performs the related function
of arranging for the supervision of District of Columbia Code offenders
on probation and parole who seek to move from the District of Columbia
to reside in other States. Our legislation would add that specific duty
to CSOSA's statutory responsibilities.
The movement of adult parolees and probationers across State lines is
currently controlled by an interstate compact dating back to 1937,
which has all 50 States and territories as signatories. A new
agreement, the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, has
been drafted to improve accountability, coordination, and enforcement
mechanisms among the participating states. As of June 19, 35 States had
signed on to the new compact. The District has not done so, primarily
because the City itself no longer performs the functions since Congress
created CSOSA to do so.
Our legislation would provide CSOSA with clear authority to enter
into this new compact or any other agreements for interstate
supervision with any States which may not become signatories to the new
compact. Because a new Compact Commission is now being formed and
scheduled to meet in November to begin developing the procedural rules
for the new Compact, our legislation will enable CSOSA to actively
participate in that process.
For this reason, we urge our colleagues to support this bill and vote
for enactment this year. 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. 3044
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 ``Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SUPERVISION.
Section 11233(b)(2) of the National Capital Revitalization
and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (sec. 24-
133(b)(2), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by amending subparagraph (G) to read as follows:
``(G) arrange for the supervision of District of Columbia
offenders on parole, probation, and supervised release who
seek to reside in jurisdictions outside the District of
Columbia;'';
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(I) arrange for the supervision of offenders on parole,
probation, and supervised release from jurisdictions outside
the District of Columbia who seek to reside in the District
of Columbia; and
``(J) have the authority to enter into agreements,
including the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
Supervision, with any State or group of States in accordance
with the Agency's responsibilities under subparagraphs (G)
and (I).''.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Illinois, Senator Richard Durbin, as a co-sponsor of the Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002. I
thank my colleague from Illinois for his initiative in advancing this
legislation.
As my colleague noted, Congress created the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, as part of the 1997 National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act to absorb
the responsibilities of three local D.C. agencies. In accordance with
that law the Federal Government assumed responsibility for many of the
city's judicial functions, including all pre-trial services and the
post-conviction supervision of parolees and probationers.
With the support of the District and CSOSA, our bipartisan
legislation seeks to clarify that CSOSA is the entity responsible for
all offenders, whether on parole, probation, or supervised release, who
reside in the District of Columbia or those convicted in District Court
and choose to relocate outside of the District of Columbia.
When CSOSA was established, it was expressly charged with the
responsibility to arrange for the supervision of District of Columbia
paroled offenders who wish to move outside the boundaries of
Washington, D.C. Today, however, a growing number of offenders are
placed on probation or supervised release, not parole. Our legislation
clarifies that CSOSA is the agency responsible for arranging for their
supervision.
The original legislation also did not address directly the issue of
supervision of offenders who relocate to the District of Columbia.
Since CSOSA absorbed the local agency that previously held this
responsibility, it has been acting in that capacity. Again, our
legislation clarifies that CSOSA is the entity with this
responsibility.
Finally, our legislation clearly grants CSOSA the authority to enter
into agreements with other states and territories to establish
guidelines for offender relocation. An interstate compact, signed by
all the states and territories, has established guidelines for the
movement of adult offenders. The compact was created originally in 1937
and the states are in the process of revising it to enhance
accountability for all offenders on parole, probation, or supervised
release. More than half of the states already have signed this revised
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. The District of
Columbia has not signed it, however, primarily because they do not have
responsibility for offenders. Our legislation expressly grants CSOSA
the authority to do so in their capacity of providing offender
supervision.
This legislation clarifies CSOSA's mission, a mission critical to the
public safety of our nation's capital. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 3046. A bill to provide for the conveyance of Federal land in
Sandpoint, Idaho, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sandpoint
Land and Facilities Act of 2002.'' This bill is a unique opportunity to
meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to
provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will
transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building
currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also
provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County,
Idaho to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange
for a new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This
transfer of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the
local Forest Service office to obtain a facility that best meets
[[Page S9909]]
their needs but also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County.
The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to
improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make
the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and
allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to
healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing
to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better
services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant
access to the county courtrooms.
Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only
partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities.
This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County,
GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the federal
government at the local level working with the county government to
create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations
and better service to the public.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 3047. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or
exchange all or part of certain parcels of National Forest System land
in the State of Idaho and use the proceeds derived from the sale or
exchange for National Forest System purposes; to the Committee on
Energy Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho
Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2002. This bill is an
opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the
facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho.
This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of
land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has
identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that
disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these
sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger
Station in Idaho's Silver Valley.
The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal
include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on
Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski
Bowl, south of St. Maries.
The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a
new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is
in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my
commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service
in the Silver Valley.
This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service,
the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels
of land to be disposed of.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson,
Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Roberts).
S. 3048. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to add
requirements regarding trauma care, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, each year, nearly 1 out of 4 Americans
sustain an injury requiring medical attention. In 1995, injuries were
responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million hospitalizations, and over
36 million emergency room visits.
The direct and indirect cost of injury is estimated to be about $260
billion a year, and the death rate from unintentional injury is more
than 50 percent higher in rural areas than in urban areas. It is
essential that every American have access to a trauma system that
provides definitive care as quickly as possible.
In recent years, Congress has worked to address this issue through
the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, which authorizes
Federal grants to States for the purpose of planning, implementing, and
developing statewide trauma care systems. However, this important
program expires this year. Therefore, I am introducing bipartisan
legislation today, along with Senators Kennedy and Enzi to reauthorize
this important program.
Among Americans younger than age 44, trauma is the killer. While
injury prevention programs have greatly reduced death and disability,
severe injuries will continue to occur. Given the events of September
11, 2001 and our Nation's renewed focus on enhancing disaster
preparedness, it is critical that the Federal Government increase its
commitment to strengthening programs governing trauma care system
planning and development.
Despite our past investments, one-half of the States in the country
are still without a statewide trauma care system. Clearly we can do
better. We must respond to the goals put forth by the Institute of
Medicine in 1999, that Congress ``support a greater national commitment
to, and support of, trauma care systems at the Federal, State, and
local levels.''
Today's bill, the ``Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act
of 2002'' reauthorizes this program and includes several key
improvements: first, it improves the collection and analysis of trauma
patient data; second, the bill responds to State budget difficulties by
decreasing the requirement for State matching funds to the Federal
grants; third, the legislation provides a self-evaluation mechanism to
assist States in assessing and improving their trauma care systems;
fourth, it authorizes an Institute of Medicine study on the state of
trauma care and trauma research; and finally, it doubles the funding
available for this program to allow additional States to participate.
I appreciate the assistance of Senators Kennedy and Enzi on this
important legislation, and look forward to working to see this bill
passed this year.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join Senator Frist,
Senator Johnson, and Senator Murray in introducing the Trauma Care
Systems Planning and Development Act. Our goal in this bipartisan
legislation is to enable all States to develop effective trauma care
systems.
Trauma is the number one killer of Americans under the age of 44.
Traumatic injury robs our Nation's youth, devastates families, and
costs the Nation more than $260 billion every year. In 1995 alone,
injuries were responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million
hospitalizations, and over 26 million emergency room visits.
Despite trauma's toll, we have done little in recent years to prevent
trauma or improve the chance of recovery following traumatic injury.
Part of the problem is the misunderstanding that trauma is an accident,
an unfortunate, but sometimes unavoidable chance event. But the facts
reveal that this is not the case.
Trauma is very similar to a disease. It has definable causes with
established methods of treatment and prevention. Frequent forms of
trauma include motor vehicle accidents, firearm accidents, and natural
or man-made disasters. Proven preventative measures could save up to
25,000 lives every year. Putting effective trauma care systems in place
would provide victims with the best chance of recovery, by delivering
quality care as quickly as possible.
A trauma system is an organized, coordinated effort to provide the
full range of care to all injured patients. Intervention begins in the
field, at the site of injury, and proceeds along the continuum of care
from prehospital to hospital to rehabilitative services. An effective
system ensures that resources, supporting equipment, and personnel are
ready and trained to go into action.
The skills and knowledge of health care experts alone are not enough.
Optimal care is the result of advance planning, preparation, and
coordination to produce smooth transitions and the proper sequence of
interventions. A comprehensive trauma system accomplishes all this and
has been proven to save lives and decrease costs.
Much of the progress in developing trauma systems has occurred as a
result of Federal funding and involvement. In 1973, Congress passed the
Emergency Medical Services Act, providing $300 million to States and
communities over an eight year period. Without that funding, patients
in 304 emergency medical service regions in the United States might not
have had ready access to emergency care. Even today, there are areas of
the United States without 9-1-1 access and prompt emergency
transportation.
In 1990, Congress passed the original Trauma Care Systems Planning
and
[[Page S9910]]
Development Act, authorizing Federal grants to States to develop
integrated statewide trauma care systems. Funding for this program has
been inadequate. From 1995 to 2000, States received no funding under
the Act. Last year, only $3.5 million was appropriated for the entire
country. As a result, only half of all States have fully functional
statewide trauma systems. Clearly, we must do better in providing
needed trauma care.
This legislation reauthorizes and enhances the trauma care program to
establish comprehensive trauma systems in all States. The bill also
addresses the urgent need for improved trauma data and research.
Surprisingly, given the burden of trauma on society, only 1 percent of
resources at the NIH are devoted to trauma research. The legislation
asks the Institute of Medicine to investigate the quality of trauma
care and identify areas for improvement.
This legislation is supported by the Coalition for American Trauma
Care, the American College of Surgeons, and the American Trauma
Society. Its enactment is vitally important to public safety, and I
urge the Senate to approve it.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3054. A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress
for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues
Senators Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Jim Jeffords, and
Charles Schumer in introducing legislation that would end a terrible
injustice suffered by 600,000 American citizens--that is, the denial of
full Congressional representation to the citizens of the District of
Columbia. This injustice is nothing less than a stain on the fabric of
our democracy. To right this wrong, we are introducing the No Taxation
Without Representation Act of 2002 today in order to extend full
Congressional representation to the citizens of our Capital City.
This is the second bill I have introduced to this Congress in order
to achieve this important goal. It is embarrassing that ours is the
only democracy in the world in which citizens of the Capital are not
represented in the national legislature. I can only wonder what
visitors from around the world must think when they come to see our
beautiful landmarks, our monuments, and our Capitol dome, proud symbols
of the world's greatest democracy, and then learn that the people who
live in this great city have no voice in Congress. What would we do if,
for some reason, the residents of Boston, Nashville, Denver, Seattle,
or El Paso had no voting rights? All those cities are roughly the same
size as Washington, D.C., and I know we as a Nation wouldn't let their
citizens go voiceless in Congress.
Citizens of Washington, D.C. pay income taxes, and yet they have no
say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be
spent. Citizens of Washington, D.C. serve their fellow Americans both
here at home and in wars abroad, and yet inhabitants of the District of
Columbia cannot choose representatives to the legislature that governs
them. This city's people and institutions have been the direct target
of terrorists, and yet citizens of the District have no one who can
cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security.
The vote is a civic entitlement of every tax-paying citizen of the
United States. It is democracy's most elemental and essential right,
its most useful tool. The citizens who live in our Nation's capital
deserve more than a non-voting delegate in the House. Notwithstanding
the strong service of the Honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
and her ability to vote in committee, a representative without the
power to vote on the floor of the House simply isn't good enough.
The name of this bill is intended as a reminder of the inextricable
link in this Nation's history between the power to tax and the right to
vote. Our forebearers went to war rather than pay taxes without
representation. The principles for which our Nation's revolutionary
heroes fought so hard more than 200 years ago apply just as forcefully
to the citizens of the District of Columbia today as they did for the
men and women who founded this great Nation.
Despite its title, ``No Taxation Without Representation,'' this bill
does not relieve the District residents of their tax obligations, given
their non-voting status. The people of D.C. are not looking to avoid
paying their fair share of taxes. Instead, the bill grants the citizens
of the District of the Columbia their much-belated birthright: the
right to vote for and be represented by two Senators and a full Member
of the House of Representatives. Further the bill increases the
permanent membership of the House of Representatives by one, a symbolic
acknowledgment that all along a member was missing: the Representative
casting her vote for the people of Washington, D.C.
This legislation is no less than our broadly-held American values
demand for our fellow citizens. In fact, a recent national poll shows
that a majority of Americans believe D.C. residents already have
Congressional voting rights. When informed that they do not, 80 percent
say that D.C. residents should have full representation.
In righting this wrong, we won't just be following the will of the
American people. We will be following the will of history. When the
framers of the Constitution placed our Capital, which had not yet been
established, under the jurisdiction of the Congress, they placed with
Congress the responsibility of ensuring that D.C. citizens' rights
would be protected in the future, just as Congress protects the rights
of all citizens throughout the land. For more than 200 years, Congress
has failed to meet this obligation. And I, for one, am not prepared to
make D.C. citizens wait another 200 years.
In the words of this city's namesake, our first President, George
Washington, ``Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of
government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every
violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective, let it
amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an
existence.''
The people of the District of Columbia have suffered this
Constitutional defect far too long. Let's reprehend it and amend it
together.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the No Taxation Without
Representation Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3054
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 ``No Taxation Without
Representation Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The residents of the District of Columbia are the only
Americans who pay Federal income taxes but are denied voting
representation in the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(2) The residents of the District of Columbia suffer the
very injustice against which our Founding Fathers fought,
because they do not have voting representation as other
taxpaying Americans do and are nevertheless required to pay
Federal income taxes unlike the Americans who live in the
territories.
(3) The principle of one person, one vote requires that
residents of the District of Columbia are afforded full
voting representation in the House and the Senate.
(4) Despite the denial of voting representation, Americans
in the Nation's Capital are second among residents of all
States in per capita income taxes paid to the Federal
Government.
(5) Unequal voting representation in our representative
democracy is inconsistent with the founding principles of the
Nation and the strongly held principles of the American
people today.
SEC. 3. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
For the purposes of congressional representation, the
District of Columbia, constituting the seat of government of
the United States, shall be treated as a State, such that its
residents shall be entitled to elect and be represented by 2
Senators in the United States Senate, and as many
Representatives in the House of Representatives as a
similarly populous State would be entitled to under the law.
SEC. 4. ELECTIONS.
(a) First Elections.--
(1) Proclamation.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of Columbia
shall issue a proclamation for elections to be held to fill
the 2 Senate seats and the seat in the House
[[Page S9911]]
of Representatives to represent the District of Columbia in
Congress.
(2) Manner of elections.--The proclamation of the Mayor of
the District of Columbia required by paragraph (1) shall
provide for the holding of a primary election and a general
election and at such elections the officers to be elected
shall be chosen by a popular vote of the residents of the
District of Columbia. The manner in which such elections
shall be held and the qualification of voters shall be the
same as those for local elections, as prescribed by the
District of Columbia.
(3) Classification of senators.--In the first election of
Senators from the District of Columbia, the 2 senatorial
offices shall be separately identified and designated, and no
person may be a candidate for both offices. No such
identification or designation of either of the 2 senatorial
offices shall refer to or be taken to refer to the terms of
such offices, or in any way impair the privilege of the
Senate to determine the class to which each of the Senators
elected shall be assigned.
(b) Certification of Election.--The results of an election
for the Senators and Representative from the District of
Columbia shall be certified by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia in the manner required by law and the Senators and
Representative shall be entitled to be admitted to seats in
Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and
Representatives of the States in the Congress of the United
States.
SEC. 5. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERSHIP.
(a) In General.--Upon the date of enactment of this Act,
the District of Columbia shall be entitled to 1
Representative until the taking effect of the next
reapportionment. Such Representative shall be in addition to
the membership of the House of Representatives as now
prescribed by law.
(b) Increase in Membership of House of Representatives.--
Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the permanent
membership of the House of Representatives shall increase by
1 seat for the purpose of future reapportionment of
Representatives.
(c) Reapportionment.--Upon reapportionment, the District of
Columbia shall be entitled to as many seats in the House of
Representatives as a similarly populous State would be
entitled to under the law.
(d) District of Columbia Delegate.--Until the first
Representative from the District of Columbia is seated in the
House of Representatives, the Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia shall continue to discharge the duties
of his or her office.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 3056. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase
penalties for individuals who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated
or under the influence of alcohol; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President today, along with Senator DeWine, I am
introducing legislation that addresses the serious national problem of
drunk driving. This bill, ``The Higher-Risk Impaired Driver Act,''
would help protect the public from those intoxicated drivers who pose
the greatest threat to our safety.
This bill would target a specific population of drivers who pose a
special danger on our roads. These are drivers who are convicted of
driving while intoxicated within 5 years of a prior conviction; drivers
who are convicted of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol
content of .15 or greater; drivers who are convicted of driving while
their license is suspended, when the suspension happened due to a
driving while intoxicated offense; and drivers who refuse a blood
alcohol concentration test while under arrest or investigation for
involvement in a fatal or serious injury crash.
The statistics documenting the threat posed by these drivers are
startling. Nationally in 2001, about 1,461 fatalities that occurred in
crashes involving alcohol-impaired or intoxicated drivers who had at
least one previous driving while intoxicated conviction, according to
the National Institute of Highway Safety, NHTSA. Further, the AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, in an analysis of NHTSA data from 1982
to 1999, found that over half the drivers who were arrested or
convicted of driving while intoxicated during that period and 64
percent of drunken drivers who were fatally injured had a blood alcohol
level of .15 or greater.
There are tragic stories behind these statistics: In my own State of
New Jersey, for example, Navy Ensign John Elliott was killed by a
driver who had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal
limit. In that case, the driver had been arrested and charged with
driving while intoxicated just three hours before the crash. After
being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody
of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind
the wheel.
The legislation I am introducing today would require states to enact
a law that penalizes these higher risk offenders, reduces the threat
that they pose, and gets offenders into appropriate substance abuse
programs. The penalty provisions in such a law would include the
suspension of an offender's drivers license for no less than one year
and the requirement that the offender pay both a $1000 minimum fine as
well as restitution to any victims of the offense. The reduction of the
threat occurs through the requirement that the offender's motor vehicle
be impounded for no less than 90 days and the requirement that the
offender be imprisoned for a period of time and then shall either wear
an electronic bracelet or be assigned to a DWI specialty facility. The
treatment provision requires the assessment of the offender for
placement into a substance abuse program.
This legislation follows the recommendations of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, MADD, in their Higher-Risk Driver Program. I look forward to
working with the members of MADD nationwide to see this legislation
enacted into law. 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. 3056
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 ``Higher-Risk Impaired Driver
Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--Chapter I of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 165. Increased penalties for higher risk drivers for
driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Blood Alcohol concentration.--The term `blood alcohol
concentration' means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of
blood or the equivalent grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath.
``(2) Driving while intoxicated; driving under the
influence.--The terms `driving while intoxicated' and
`driving under the influence' mean driving or being in actual
physical control of a motor vehicle while having a blood
alcohol concentration above the permitted limit as
established by each State.
``(3) License suspension.--The term `license suspension'
means the suspension of all driving privileges.
``(4) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a
vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured
primarily for use on public highways but does not include a
vehicle operated solely on a rail line or a commercial
vehicle.
``(5) Higher-risk impaired driver law.--
``(A) The term `higher-risk impaired driver law' means a
State law that provides, as a minimum penalty, that an
individual described in subparagraph (B) shall--
``(i) receive a driver's license suspension for not less
than 1 year, including a complete ban on driving for not less
than 90 days and for the remainder of the license suspension
period and prior to the issuance of a probational hardship or
work permit license, be required to install a certified
alcohol ignition interlock device;
``(ii) have the motor vehicle driven at the time of arrest
impounded or immobilized for not less than 90 days and for
the remainder of the license suspension period require the
installation of a certified alcohol ignition interlock device
on the vehicle;
``(iii) be subject to an assessment by a certified
substance abuse official of the State that assesses the
individual's degree of abuse of alcohol and assigned to a
treatment program or impaired driving education program as
determined by the assessment;
``(iv) be imprisoned for not less than 10 days, have an
electronic monitoring device for not less than 100 days, or
be assigned to a DUI/DWI specialty facility for not less than
30 days;
``(v) be fined a minimum of $1,000, with the proceeds of
such funds to be used by the State or local jurisdiction for
impaired driving related prevention, enforcement, and
prosecution programs, or for the development or maintenance
of a tracking system of offenders driving while impaired;
``(vi) if the arrest resulted from involvement in a crash,
the court shall require restitution to the victims of the
crash;
``(vii) be placed on probation by the court for a period of
not less than 2 years;
``(viii) if diagnosed with a substance abuse problem,
during the first year of the probation period referred to in
clause (vii), attend a treatment program for a period of 12
consecutive months sponsored by a State certified
substance abuse treatment agency and
[[Page S9912]]
meet with a case manager at least once each month; and
``(ix) be required by the court to attend a victim impact
panel, if such a panel is available.
``(B) An individual referred to in subparagraph (A) is an
individual who--
``(i) is convicted of a second or subsequent offense for
driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence
within a minimum of 5 consecutive years;
``(ii) is convicted of a driving while intoxicated or
driving under the influence with a blood alcohol
concentration of 0.15 percent or greater;
``(iii) is convicted of a driving-while-suspended offense
if the suspension was the result of a conviction for driving
under the influence; or
``(iv) refuses a blood alcohol concentration test while
under arrest or investigation for involvement in a fatal or
serious injury crash.
``(6) Special dui/dwi facility.--The term `special DUI/DWI
facility' means a facility that houses and treats offenders
arrested for driving while impaired and allows such offenders
to work and/or attend school.
``(7) Victim impact panel.--The term `victim impact panel'
means a group of impaired driving victims who speak to
offenders about impaired driving. The purpose of the panel is
to change attitudes and behaviors in order to deter impaired
driving recidivism.
``(b) Transfer of Funds.--
``(1) Fiscal year 2006.--Beginning on October 1, 2006, if a
State has not enacted or is not enforcing a higher risk
impaired driver law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount
equal to 2 percent of the funds apportioned to the State on
that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of
section 104(b) to the apportionment of the State under
section 402 solely for impaired driving programs.
``(2) Fiscal year 2007.--On October 1, 2007, if a State has
not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver
law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount equal to 4
percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date
under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b)
to the apportionment of the State under section 402 to be
used or directed as described in paragraph (1).
``(3) Fiscal year 2008.--On October 1, 2008, if a State has
not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver
law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount equal to 6
percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date
under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b)
to the apportionment of the State under section 402 to be
used or directed as described in paragraph (1).
``(4) Derivation of amount to be transferred.--The amount
to be transferred under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) may be
derived from 1 or more of the following:
``(A) The apportionment of the State under section
104(b)(1).
``(B) The apportionment of the State under section
104(b)(3).
``(C) The apportionment of the State under section
104(b)(4).
``(5) Transfer of obligation authority.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary transfers under this
subsection any funds to the apportionment of a State under
section 402 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer
an amount, determined under subparagraph (B), of obligation
authority distributed for the fiscal year to the State for
carrying out impaired driving programs authorized under
section 402.
``(B) Amount.--The amount of obligation authority referred
to in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by multiplying--
``(i) the amount of funds transferred under subparagraph
(A) to the apportionment of the State under section 402 for
the fiscal year; by
``(ii) the ratio that--
``(I) the amount of obligation authority distributed for
the fiscal year to the State for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs; bears to
``(II) the total of the sums apportioned to the State for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(excluding sums not subject to any obligation limitation) for
the fiscal year.
``(7) Limitation on applicability of obligation
limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
limitation on the total of obligations for highway safety
programs under section 402 shall apply to funds transferred
under this subsection to the apportionment of a State under
such section.
``(c) Withholding of Funds.--
``(1) Fiscal year 2009.--On October 1, 2008, if a State has
not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver
law, the Secretary shall withhold 2 percent of the amount
required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to the
State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4)
of section 104(b).
``(2) Fiscal year 2010.--On October 1, 2009, if a State has
not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver
law, the Secretary shall withhold 4 percent of the amount
required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to the
State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4)
of section 104(b).
``(3) Fiscal year 2011.--On October 1, 2010, if a State has
not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver
law, the Secretary shall withhold 6 percent of the amount
required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to the
State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4)
of section 104(b).
``(4) Compliance.--Not later than 4 years after the date
that the apportionment for any State is reduced in accordance
with this section the Secretary determines that such State
has enacted and is enforcing a provision described in section
163(a), the apportionment of such State shall be increased by
an amount equal to such reduction. If at the end of such 4-
year period, any State has not enacted and is not enforcing a
provision described in section 163(a) any amounts so withheld
shall be transferred to carry out impaired driving programs
authorized under section 402.
____________________