[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5061-S5092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Biden):
S. 826. A bill to amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to
provide for transitional housing assistance grants for child victims of
domestic violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will provide much-needed grants for transitional housing services to
victims of domestic violence who are brave enough to leave an abusive
situation and seek a new life of safety and freedom. I am pleased that
Senators Kennedy and Biden join me as original cosponsors of this
important legislation.
I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence early in my
career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County. Today,
more than 50 percent of homeless individuals are women and children
fleeing domestic violence. More than half the cities surveyed by the
U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2000 cited domestic violence as a primary
cause of homelessness. The women and children who leave their abusers
tend to have few, if any, funds with which they can support themselves.
Shelters offer short-term assistance, but are overcrowded and unable to
provide the support needed. Transitional housing allows women to bridge
the gap between leaving a domestic violence situation and becoming
fully self-sufficient, but such assistance is limited because there is
currently no Federal funding for transitional housing specifically for
those victims.
If we truly seek an end to domestic violence, then transitional
housing must be available to all those fleeing domestic abuse. The
stable, sustainable home base for women and their children found in
transitional housing allows women the opportunities to learn new job
skills, participate in educational programs, work full-time jobs, and
search for adequate child care in order to gain self-sufficiency.
Without such resources, many women eventually return to situations
where they are abused and even killed. This cycle of domestic abuse
must end, and transitional housing assistance is one of the tools we
can use to end it.
A transitional housing grant program was last authorized for only one
year as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act
in 2000. This program would have been administered through the
Department of Health and Human Services and provided $25 million in
fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, funds were never appropriated for the
program, and the authorization has now expired.
The grant program established in the bill I introduce today with
Senators Kennedy and Biden would establish a new Department of Justice
grant program that authorizes the Attorney General, acting in
consultation with the Director of the Violence Against Women Office of
the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. This program would have the benefit of a wide range of
expertise in the three departments, and has enormous potential to
improve people's lives. It would authorize $30 million in DOJ
transitional housing grants for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008.
This new grant program administered through DOJ will make a big
impact in many areas of the country where availability of affordable
housing is at an all-time low. There are many dedicated people working
to provide victims of domestic violence with resources, such as Rose
Pulliam of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, but they can not work alone. We should all be concerned with
providing victims of domestic violence a safe place to gain the skills
and stability needed to make the transition to independence. This is an
important component of reducing and preventing crimes that take place
in domestic situations, ranging from assault and child abuse to
homicide, and helping the victims of these crimes.
I am please that our bill will be included in the conference report
on the PROTECT Act, S. 151. I thank the conferees for including in the
conference agreement this language for a grant program that will supply
to victims fleeing domestic violence situations tangible means by which
they may move on with their lives.
I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of this
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional materials were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
A Bill To Amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 To Provide for
Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Child Victims of Domestic
Violence--Section-by-Section Analysis
section 1. transitional housing assistance grants for child victims of
domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault.
This section amends Subtitle B of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13701 note; 108 Stat. 1925) to
include a new Chapter 11--Transitional Housing Assistance
Grants for Child Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking, or
Sexual Assault.
Subsection (a) of this section authorizes the Attorney
General, acting in consultation with the Director of Violence
Against Women Office of the Department of Justice, in
consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
to award grants to organizations, States, units of local
government, and Indian tribes to carry out programs to
provide assistance to minors, adults, and their dependents
who are homeless or in need of transitional housing or
related assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of
domestic violence, and for whom emergency shelter services or
other crisis intervention services are unavailable or
insufficient.
Subsection (b) provides that the grants awarded may be used
for programs that provide short-term housing assistance,
which includes rental or utilities payments assistance and
assistance with related expenses such as payment of security
deposits and other costs incidental to relocation to
transitional housing for minors, adults and their dependents.
Grants will also be available for support services designed
to help those fleeing a situation of domestic violence to
locate and secure permanent housing, as well as integrate
into a community by providing with services, such as
transportation, counseling, child care services, case
management, employment counseling, and other assistance.
Subsection (c) states that a minor, an adult, or a
dependent who receives assistance under this section may
receive that assistance for not more than 18 months. The
recipient of a grant under this section may waive the time
restriction for not more than an additional 6 month period
with respect to any minor, adult, or dependent, so long as he
or she has made a good-faith effort to acquire permanent
housing; and has been unable to acquire permanent housing.
Subsection (d) specifies the application process for
transitional housing grants. Each
[[Page S5062]]
eligible entity desiring such grants shall submit an
application to the Attorney General at such time, in such
manner, and accompanied by such information as the Attorney
General may reasonably require. Each application shall
describe the activities for which assistance under this
section is sought; and provide such additional assurances as
the Attorney General determines to be essential to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the grant program.
Subsection (e) states that a recipient of a Justice
Department transitional housing grant must annually prepare
and submit to the Attorney General a report describing the
number of minors, adults, and dependents assisted, and the
types of housing assistance and support services provided.
Subsection (f) provides that the Attorney General, with the
Director of the Violence Against Women Office, must also
annually prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate a report that contains a compilation
of the information contained in the report submitted by grant
recipients. Copies of this report will also be transmitted to
the Office of Community Planning and Development at the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Office of Women's Health at the United States Department
of Health and Human Services.
Subsection (g) authorizes that there be appropriated to
carry out the Department of Justice transitional housing
grant program $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008. Of the amount made available to carry out this
section in any fiscal year, not more than 3 percent may be
used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative
expenses. States, together with the grantees within the State
(other than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal
year, not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount
appropriated in the fiscal year for grants for transitional
housing. The United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be
allocated not less than 0.25 percent of the total amount
appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to this
section.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Allen, and Mr. Specter):
S. 827. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide assistance for nutrient removal technologies to States in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 828. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to establish a pilot program to make grants to eligible
institutions to develop, demonstrate, or disseminate information on
practices, methods, or techniques relating to environmental education
and training in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, Ms.
Mikulski, and Mr. Specter):
S. 829. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Restoration and Protection Program; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 830. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a
program to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and
protect forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 831. A bill to establish programs to enhance protection of the
Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five
measures to sustain and, indeed, renew the Federal commitment to
restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are
my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators
Warner, Allen, Mikulski and Specter.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
the historic Federal-State compact that launched the Chesapeake Bay
restoration effort. Over the past two decades, we have made important
progress both in putting in place the comprehensive, coordinated
Federal-State-local and private sector management structure to guide
the program and in specific initiatives to address key problems in the
watershed. Three subsequent agreements were signed in 1987, in 1992 and
in 2000, respectively, setting specific goals and action plans to
restore the Chesapeake watershed. There are today over 700 groups and
some 40 committees involved in the Bay Program. More than twenty-five
Federal agencies are partnering with EPA and the Bay area States and
there are numerous State agencies, local governmental organizations and
citizen groups actively engaged in the restoration efforts. The level
of public support and the degree of cooperation and coordination among
all parties is unparalleled.
Despite these efforts, the job of restoring the Chesapeake to levels
of quality and productivity that existed earlier in this century is far
from complete. In its latest report card issued in November, 2002, the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the Chesapeake Bay a score of 27 out of
100--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be
declared ``saved.'' The index underscores the continuing serious
challenges facing the Bay. Nitrogen pollution from farms and city
streets, sewage treatment plants, and air deposition, among other so-
called non-point sources, continue to overload the Bay. Many of the
living resources--oysters, shad, white perch, crabs--which are
indicators of the Bay's health, are still in decline. Toxic chemicals
are still present in the Bay's surface and bottom waters, having untold
impacts on water quality and wildlife. A recent analysis undertaken by
the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that the costs to clean the Bay
and achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement over the course
of the next seven years will exceed projected income by nearly $13
billion. Pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced,
thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant
efforts must be made to restore living resources, buffer zones to
protect rivers and streams need to be created, education and
stewardship efforts must be dramatically expanded.
While $13 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that
the health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15
million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one
of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering
64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that
still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch
in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources,
including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a
major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the
Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a
one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major
commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United
States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the
Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the
highest levels of protection and restoration.
The five measures that we are introducing today are intended to help
address some of the highest priority needs in the watershed and provide
a Federal blueprint for restoring the Bay in the years ahead. I want to
address each of these measures briefly.
The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal
Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental
Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction
technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th
Congress and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S.
1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no
further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water
quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient
[[Page S5063]]
over-enrichment remains the most serious pollution problem facing the
Bay. The overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous
continues to rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of
EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be
reduced by more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the
Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen
discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current
levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by
at least 110 million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less
than 190 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in
particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75
percent.
There are 304 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed: Pennsylvania, 123, Maryland, 65, Virginia, 86, New York, 18,
Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 1, and West Virginia, 8. These plants
contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year--one-fifth--of
the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with
nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/
liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year
or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal
technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant
sayings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than
50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent.
They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients
discharged to the Bay.
My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital
cost of upgrading the plants with nutrient removal technologies capable
of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned
wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to
treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be
eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states
with financing these water infrastructure needs.
The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot
Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in
the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school
students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a
growing consensus that a major commitment to education--to promoting an
ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16
million people who live in the watershed--is necessary if all of the
other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. Expanding
environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only
to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but a more educated and
informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for
the environment, their community and their role in society as
responsible citizens.
One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, is
to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every
school student in the watershed before graduation from high school''
beginning with the class of 2005. Despite important efforts by Bay area
states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage
of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed have had
the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive
classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the
Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and
implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone
exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is
not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake
more comprehensive environmental education programs.
This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next
three years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and
training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal
match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be
used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula
and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and
support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor
educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other
things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education
and Training Program that we established last year.
The third measure would reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which
was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and
local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3
million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration
and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in
Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at
Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients
delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted
the current $10 million authorization.
This legislation increases the authorization for this program from
$10 million to $30 million. Consistent with all other environmental
restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States
and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent
non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also
establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and
nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and
protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would
be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has
extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants
for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each
year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of
the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area
states, this legislation is clearly unwarranted.
The forth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would
continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration
of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are
occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most
important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According
to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost
350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day.
More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments
resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading
to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion,
less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its
capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits,
such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all
critical to the Bay clean-up effort.
Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area,
State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with
Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay
region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and
stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration
goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of
technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a
year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address
watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship.
With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the
USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other
provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve
existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion
and connection of
[[Page S5064]]
contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; and provide
technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or
revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the
conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.
To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service must have additional
resources and authority, and that is what this measure seeks to
provide.
This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA
Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing
coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and
planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local
agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on-
the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional
applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban,
suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5
million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase
in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed.
The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education,
Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office's authorities to address the
living resource restoration and education and training goals and
commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. It builds upon provisions
contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of
2003, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To
help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it
codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training or, B-WET, Program--
the first federally funded environmental education program focused
solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal
2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and establishes an
aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab
hatchery production.
To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of data
collected and complied by Federal, State and local government agencies
and academic institutions--data such as information on weather, tides,
currents circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality,
aquatic living resources and habitat conditions--and make this
information more useful to resource managers, scientists and the
public, it establishes an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for
the Chesapeake Bay. It also authorizes a shallow water monitoring
program to address critical gaps in information on near shore and river
area water quality conditions needed for restoration of living
resources. And to help meet Chesapeake 2000 living resource restoration
goals, it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program an authorizes
a new submerged aquatic vegetation restoration program.
Mr. President, these measures would provide an important boost to our
efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay and a blueprint for the course
ahead. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the
watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and
supporting letters to printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to
join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum
contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most
valuable and treasured natural resource.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 827
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Nutrient Removal Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) nutrient pollution from point sources and nonpoint
sources continues to be the most significant water quality
problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(2) a key commitment of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, an
interstate agreement among the Administrator, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, the District of Columbia, and the States of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, is to achieve the goal
of correcting the nutrient-related problems in the Chesapeake
Bay by 2010;
(3) by correcting those problems, the Chesapeake Bay and
its tidal tributaries may be removed from the list of
impaired bodies of water designated by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency under section 303(d) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d));
(4) nearly 300 major sewage treatment plants located in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed annually discharge approximately
60,000,000 pounds of nitrogen, or the equivalent of 20
percent of the total nitrogen load, into the Chesapeake Bay;
and
(5) nutrient removal technology is 1 of the most reliable,
cost-effective, and direct methods for reducing the flow of
nitrogen from point sources into the Chesapeake Bay.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to provide financial assistance to States
and municipalities for use in upgrading publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
with nutrient removal technologies; and
(2) to further the goal of restoring the water quality of
the Chesapeake Bay to conditions that are protective of human
health and aquatic living resources.
SEC. 3. SEWAGE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GRANT PROGRAM.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS
``SEC. 701. SEWAGE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Definition of Eligible Facility.--In this section,
the term `eligible facility' means a municipal wastewater
treatment plant that--
``(1) as of the date of enactment of this title, has a
permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of at
least 500,000 gallons of wastewater per day; and
``(2) is located within the Chesapeake Bay watershed in any
of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, or West Virginia or in the District of Columbia.
``(b) Grant Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall establish
a program within the Environmental Protection Agency to
provide grants to States and municipalities to upgrade
eligible facilities with nutrient removal technologies.
``(2) Priority.--In providing a grant under paragraph (1),
the Administrator shall--
``(A) consult with the Chesapeake Bay Program Office;
``(B) give priority to eligible facilities at which
nutrient removal upgrades would--
``(i) produce the greatest nutrient load reductions at
points of discharge; or
``(ii) result in the greatest environmental benefits to
local bodies of water surrounding, and the main stem of, the
Chesapeake Bay; and
``(iii) take into consideration the geographic distribution
of the grants.
``(3) Application.--
``(A) In general.--On receipt of an application from a
State or municipality for a grant under this section, if the
Administrator approves the request, the Administrator shall
transfer to the State or municipality the amount of
assistance requested.
``(B) Form.--An application submitted by a State or
municipality under subparagraph (A) shall be in such form and
shall include such information as the Administrator may
prescribe.
``(4) Use of funds.--A State or municipality that receives
a grant under this section shall use the grant to upgrade
eligible facilities with nutrient removal technologies that
are designed to reduce total nitrogen in discharged
wastewater to an average annual concentration of 3 milligrams
per liter.
``(5) Cost sharing.--
``(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
upgrading any eligible facility as described in paragraph (1)
using funds provided under this section shall not exceed 55
percent.
``(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of upgrading any eligible facility as described in
paragraph (1) using funds provided under this section may be
provided in the form of funds made available to a State or
municipality under--
``(i) any provision of this Act other than this section
(including funds made available from a State revolving fund
established under title VI); or
``(ii) any other Federal or State law.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $132,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2008, to remain available until expended.
``(2) Administrative costs.--The Administrator may use not
to exceed 4 percent of any amount made available under
paragraph (1) to pay administrative costs incurred in
carrying out this section.''.
S. 828
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Education Pilot Program Act''.
[[Page S5065]]
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) increasing public environmental awareness and
understanding through formal environmental education and
meaningful bay or stream field experiences are vital parts of
the effort to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem;
(2) using the Chesapeake Bay watershed as an integrating
context for learning can help--
(A) advance student learning skills;
(B) improve academic achievement in core academic subjects;
and
(C)(i) encourage positive behavior of students in school;
and
(ii) encourage environmental stewardship in school and in
the community; and
(3) the Federal Government, acting through the Secretary of
Education, should work with the Under Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere, the Chesapeake Executive Council, State
educational agencies, elementary schools and secondary
schools, and nonprofit educational and environmental
organizations to support development of curricula, teacher
training, special projects, and other activities, to increase
understanding of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and to improve
awareness of environmental problems.
SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.
Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``PART D--CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING GRANT
PILOT PROGRAM
``SEC. 4401. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Bay watershed state.--The term `Bay Watershed State'
means each of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, and the District
of Columbia.
``(2) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' has the meaning given the term in section
307(e) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 1511d(e)).
``(3) Eligible institution.--The term `eligible
institution' means--
``(A) a public elementary school or secondary school
located in a Bay Watershed State; and
``(B) a nonprofit environmental or educational organization
located in a Bay Watershed State.
``(4) Program.--The term `Program' means the Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Education and Training Grant Pilot Program
established under section 4402.
``SEC. 4402. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a grant
program, to be known as the `Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Education and Training Grant Pilot Program', to make grants
to eligible institutions to pay the Federal share of the cost
of developing, demonstrating, or disseminating information on
practices, methods, or techniques relating to environmental
education and training in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
``(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share referred to in
subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
``(c) Administration.--The Secretary may offer to enter
into a cooperative agreement or contract with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation established by the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3701 et
seq.), the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, a State
educational agency, or a nonprofit organization that carries
out environmental education and training programs, for
administration of the Program.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible institution that receives
a grant under the Program shall use the funds made available
through the grant to carry out a project consisting of--
``(1) design, demonstration, or dissemination of
environmental curricula, including development of educational
tools or materials;
``(2) design or demonstration of field practices, methods,
or techniques, including--
``(A) assessments of environmental or ecological
conditions; and
``(B) analyses of environmental pollution or other natural
resource problems;
``(3) understanding and assessment of a specific
environmental issue or a specific environmental problem;
``(4) provision of training or related education for
teachers or other educational personnel, including provision
of programs or curricula to meet the needs of students in
various age groups or at various grade levels;
``(5) provision of an environmental education seminar,
teleconference, or workshop for environmental education
professionals or environmental education students, or
provision of a computer network for such professionals and
students;
``(6) provision of on-the-ground activities involving
students and teachers, such as--
``(A) riparian forest buffer restoration; and
``(B) volunteer water quality monitoring at schools;
``(7) provision of a Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor
educational experience; or
``(8) development of distance learning or other courses or
workshops that are acceptable in all Bay Watershed States and
apply throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
``(e) Required Elements of Program.--In carrying out the
Program, the Secretary shall--
``(1) solicit applications for projects;
``(2) select suitable projects from among the projects
proposed;
``(3) supervise projects;
``(4) evaluate the results of projects; and
``(5) disseminate information on the effectiveness and
feasibility of the practices, methods, and techniques
addressed by the projects.
``(f) Solicitation of Applications.--Not later than 90 days
after the date on which amounts are first made available to
carry out this part, and each year thereafter, the Secretary
shall publish a notice of solicitation for applications for
grants under the Program that specifies the information to be
included in each application.
``(g) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under the Program, an eligible institution shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
``(h) Priority in Selection of Projects.--In making grants
under the Program, the Secretary shall give priority to an
applicant that proposes a project that will develop--
``(1) a new or significantly improved environmental
education practice, method, or technique, in multiple
disciplines, or a program that assists appropriate entities
and individuals in meeting Federal or State academic
standards relating to environmental education;
``(2) an environmental education practice, method, or
technique that may have wide application; and
``(3) an environmental education practice, method, or
technique that addresses a skill or scientific field
identified as a priority by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(i) Maximum Amount of Grants.--Under the Program, the
maximum amount of a grant shall be $50,000.
``(j) Notification.--Not later than 3 days before making a
grant under this part, the Secretary shall provide
notification of the grant to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
``(k) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot
Program Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations
concerning implementation of the Program.
``SEC. 4403. EVALUATION AND REPORT.
``(a) Evaluation.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the
Secretary shall enter into a contract with an entity that is
not the recipient of a grant under this part to conduct a
detailed evaluation of the Program. In conducting the
evaluation, the Secretary shall determine whether the quality
of content, delivery, and outcome of the Program warrant
continued support of the Program.
``(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate committees
of Congress containing the results of the evaluation.
``SEC. 4404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this part $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2007.
``(b) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amounts made
available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not more
than 10 percent may be used for administrative expenses.''.
S. 829
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND
PROTECTION PROGRAM.
Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3759) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``The assistance'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The assistance''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Agreements.--In providing assistance under this
subsection, the Secretary may enter into 1 or more
cooperative agreements, to provide for public involvement and
education and other project needs, with--
``(i) federally designated coastal ecosystem learning
centers; and
``(ii) such nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.'';
(2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal interest for any project carried out under this
section may include, with the consent of the affected local
government, a nonprofit entity.'';
(3) in subsection (d)(2)(A)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``and relocations'' and
inserting ``relocations, and in-kind contributions''; and
(B) by striking ``and relocations'' and inserting
``relocations, and in-kind contributions'';
(4) by striking subsection (i);
(5) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i);
(6) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Small Watershed Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program,
to be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, to
[[Page S5066]]
provide small watershed grants for technical and financial
assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay region.
``(2) Use of funds.--A local government or nonprofit
organization that receives a grant under paragraph (1) shall
use funds from the grant only for implementation of
cooperative tributary basin strategies that address the
establishment, restoration, protection, or enhancement of
habitat associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.''; and
(7) by inserting after subsection (i) (as redesignated by
paragraph (5)) the following:
``(j) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.
``(2) Annual grant expenditure.--Of the amount made
available under paragraph (1) to carry out this section for a
fiscal year, not more than 10 percent may be used to carry
out subsection (h) for the fiscal year.''.
____
S. 830
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Forestry Program Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) trees and forests are critical to the long-term health
and proper functioning of the Chesapeake Bay and the
Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(2) the Chesapeake Bay States are losing forest land to
urban growth at a rate of nearly 100 acres per day; and
(3) the Forest Service has a vital role to play in
assisting States, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations in carrying out forest conservation,
restoration, and stewardship projects and activities.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to
protect, restore, and manage forests in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed; and
(2) to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
Agreement'' means the formal, voluntary agreements--
(A) executed to achieve the goal of restoring and
protecting the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
(B) signed by the Council.
(2) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
State'' means each of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New
York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the
District of Columbia.
(3) Coordinator.--The term ``Coordinator'' means the
Coordinator of the program designated under section
4(b)(1)(B).
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Chesapeake Bay
Executive Council.
(5) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Chesapeake Bay
watershed forestry program carried out under section 4(a).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service and the Coordinator.
SEC. 4. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED FORESTRY PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a Chesapeake
Bay watershed forestry program under which the Secretary
shall make grants and provide technical assistance to
eligible entities to restore and conserve forests in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, including grants and assistance--
(1) to promote forest conservation and stewardship efforts
in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed;
(2) to manage National Forest System land in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed in a manner that protects water quality and
sustains watershed health;
(3) to assist in developing and carrying out projects and
partnerships in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(4) to conduct research, assessment, and planning
activities to restore and protect forest land in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(5) to develop communication and education resources to
enhance public understanding of the value of forests in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed; and
(6) to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
(b) Office; Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) maintain an office within the Forest Service to carry
out the program; and
(B) designate an employee of the Forest Service as
Coordinator of the program.
(2) Duties.--As part of the program, the Coordinator, in
cooperation with the Secretary and the Chesapeake Bay
Program, shall--
(A) provide grants and technical assistance to restore and
protect forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(B) enter into partnerships to carry out forest restoration
and conservation activities at a watershed scale using the
resources and programs of the Forest Service;
(C) carry out activities, in collaboration with other units
of the Forest Service, that contribute to the goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
(D) represent the Forest Service in deliberations of the
Chesapeake Bay Program; and
(E) support and collaborate with the Forestry Work Group in
planning and implementing program activities.
(c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under the program, an entity shall be--
(1) a Chesapeake Bay State;
(2) a political subdivision of a Chesapeake Bay State;
(3) an organization operating in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed that is described in section 501(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation under
section 501(a) of that Code; or
(4) any other person in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that
the Secretary determines to be eligible.
(d) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to
eligible entities under the program to carry out projects to
protect, restore, and manage forests in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant made under
the program shall not exceed 75 percent, as determined by the
Secretary.
(3) Types of projects.--The Secretary may make a grant to
an eligible entity for any project in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed that--
(A) improves habitat and water quality through the
establishment, protection, or stewardship of riparian or
wetland forests or stream corridors;
(B) builds the capacity of State and local organizations to
implement forest conservation, restoration, and stewardship
actions;
(C) develops and implements watershed management plans
that--
(i) address forest conservation needs; and
(ii) reduce urban runoff;
(D) provides outreach and assistance to private landowners
and communities to restore or conserve forests in the
watershed;
(E) implements communication, education, or technology
transfer programs that broaden public understanding of the
value of trees and forests in sustaining and restoring the
Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(F) coordinates and implements community-based watershed
partnerships and initiatives that--
(i) focus on the restoration or protection of urban and
rural forests; or
(ii) focus programs of the Forest Service on restoring or
protecting watersheds;
(G) provides enhanced forest resource data to support
watershed management;
(H) enhances upland forest health to reduce risks to
watershed function and water quality; or
(I) conducts inventory assessment or monitoring activities
to measure environmental change associated with projects
carried out under the program.
(4) State watershed foresters.--Funds made available under
section 6 may be used by a Chesapeake Bay State to employ a
State watershed forester to carry out activities and
coordinate watershed-level projects relating to the program.
(e) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Council, shall conduct a study of urban and rural forests in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including--
(A) an assessment of forest loss and fragmentation in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(B) an identification of forest land within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed that should be restored or protected; and
(C) recommendations for expanded and targeted actions and
programs that are needed to achieve the goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after amounts are first
made available under section 6, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate a report that describes the results of the study.
SEC. 5. WATERSHED FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Council, shall establish a watershed forestry research
program for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
(b) Administration.--In carrying out the watershed forestry
research program established under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) use a combination of applied research, modeling,
demonstration projects, implementation standards, strategies
for adaptive management, training, and education to meet the
needs of the residents of the Chesapeake Bay States for
managing forests in urban, developing, and rural areas;
(2) solicit input from local managers and Federal, State,
and private researchers, with respect to air and water
quality, social and economic implications, environmental
change, and other Chesapeake Bay watershed forestry issues in
urban and rural areas; and
(3) collaborate with the Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee and universities in the
Chesapeake Bay States to--
(A) address issues in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
(B) support modeling and informational needs of the
Chesapeake Bay program.
(c) Watershed Forestry Research Strategy.--Not later than 1
year after the date of
[[Page S5067]]
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in collaboration with
the Northeast Forest Research Station and the Southern Forest
Research Station, shall submit to Congress a strategy for
research to address Chesapeake Bay watershed goals.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
program $3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2010, of which--
(1) not more than $500,000 shall be used to conduct the
study required under section 4(e); and
(2) not more than $1,000,000 for any fiscal year shall be
used to carry out the watershed forestry research program
under section 5.
SEC. 7. REPORT.
Not later than December 1, 2005, and annually thereafter,
the Coordinator shall submit to the Secretary a comprehensive
report on activities carried out under the program.
____
S. 831
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 ``NOAA Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Education, Training, and Restoration Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the Coastal
Prediction Center for the Chesapeake Bay established under
paragraph (1) of section 3(a).
(2) Chesapeake 2000 agreement.--The term ``Chesapeake 2000
agreement'' means the agreement between the United States,
the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the
District of Columbia entered into on June 28, 2000.
(3) Chesapeake executive council.--The term ``Chesapeake
Executive Council'' has the meaning given that term in
subsection (d) of section 307 of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (15
U.S.C. 1511d).
(4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Chesapeake Bay Office appointed under paragraph (2) of
section 307(a) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 1511d).
(5) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
State government, an institution of higher education,
including a community college, a not-for-profit organization,
or an appropriate private entity.
(6) Chesapeake bay office.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
Office'' means the Chesapeake Bay Office within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established under
paragraph (1) of section 307(a) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (15
U.S.C. 1511d).
SEC. 3. COASTAL PREDICTION CENTER.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director, in collaboration with
scientific institutions located in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, shall establish a Coastal Prediction Center for
the Chesapeake Bay.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Center established under
paragraph (1) are to serve as a knowledge bank for--
(A) assembling, integrating, and modeling coastal
information and data related to the Chesapeake Bay and the
tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay from appropriate government
agencies and scientific institutions;
(B) interpreting such information and data; and
(C) organizing such information and data into predictive
products that are useful to policy makers, resource managers,
scientists, and the public.
(b) Activities.--
(1) Information and prediction system.--The Center shall
develop an Internet-based information system for integrating,
interpreting, and disseminating coastal information and
predictions concerning the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries
of the Chesapeake Bay related to--
(A) climate;
(B) land use;
(C) coastal pollution;
(D) coastal environmental quality;
(E) ecosystem health and performance;
(F) aquatic living resources and habitat conditions; and
(G) weather, tides, currents, and circulation that affect
the distribution of sediments, nutrients, and organisms,
coastline erosion, and related physical and chemical events.
(2) Agreements to provide data, information, and support.--
The Director may enter into agreements with other entities of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other
appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies,
and academic institutions, to provide and interpret data and
information, and provide appropriate support, relating to the
activities of the Center.
(3) Agreements relating to information products.--The
Director may enter into grants, contracts, and interagency
agreements with eligible entities for the collection,
processing, analysis, interpretation, and electronic
publication of information products for the Center.
SEC. 4. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED EDUCATION AND TRAINING
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Director, in cooperation with the
Chesapeake Executive Council, shall establish a Chesapeake
Bay watershed education and training program.
(2) Purposes.--The program established under paragraph (1)
shall continue and expand the Chesapeake Bay watershed
education programs offered by the Chesapeake Bay Office for
the purposes of--
(A) improving the understanding of elementary and secondary
school students and teachers of the living resources of the
ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay; and
(B) meeting the educational goals of the Chesapeake 2000
agreement.
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) Authorization.--The Director is authorized to award
grants to pay the Federal share of the cost of a project
described in paragraph (3)--
(A) to a not-for-profit institution;
(B) to a consortia of not-for-profit institutions;
(C) to an elementary or secondary school located within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(D) to a teacher at a school described in subparagraph (C);
or
(E) a State Department of Education if any part of such
State is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
(2) Criteria.--The Director is authorized to award grants
under this section based on the experience of the applicant
in providing environmental education and training projects
regarding the Chesapeake Bay watershed to a range of
participants and in a range of settings.
(3) Functions and activities.--Grants awarded under this
section may be used to support education and training
projects that--
(A) provide classroom education, including the use of
distance learning technologies, on the issues, science, and
problems of the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed;
(B) provide meaningful outdoor experience on the Chesapeake
Bay, or on a stream or in a local watershed of the Chesapeake
Bay, in the design and implementation of field studies,
monitoring and assessments, or restoration techniques for
living resources;
(C) provide professional development for teachers related
to the science of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the
dissemination of pertinent education materials oriented to
varying grade levels;
(D) demonstrate or disseminate environmental educational
tools and materials related to the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(E) demonstrate field methods, practices, and techniques
including assessment of environmental and ecological
conditions and analysis of environmental problems; and
(F) develop or disseminate projects designed to--
(i) enhance understanding and assessment of a specific
environmental problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed or of a
goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program; or
(ii) protect or restore living resources of the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project authorized under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 75
percent of the total cost of that project.
(c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the
Director, in consultation with the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall submit to Congress a report through the
Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration regarding the program established under
subsection (a) and, on the appropriate role of Federal,
State, and local governments in continuing such program.
SEC. 5. STOCK ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director, in cooperation with the
Chesapeake Executive Council, shall establish a Chesapeake
Bay watershed stock enhancement and habitat restoration
program.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program established in
paragraph (1) are to support the restoration of oysters and
submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and
enhance education programs related to aquaculture.
(b) Activities.--To carry out the purpose of the program
established in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), the Director
is authorized to enter into grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements with an eligible entity to support--
(1) the establishment of oyster hatcheries;
(2) the establishment of submerged aquatic vegetation
propagation programs;
(3) the development of education programs related to
aquaculture; and
(4) other activities that the Director determines are
appropriate to carry out the purposes of such program.
SEC. 6. CHESAPEAKE BAY AQUACULTURE EDUCATION.
The Director is authorized to make grants and enter into
contracts with an institution of higher education, including
a community college, for the purpose of--
(1) supporting education in Chesapeake Bay aquaculture
sciences and technologies; and
(2) developing aquaculture processes and technologies to
improve production, efficiency, and sustainability of disease
free oyster spat and submerged aquatic vegetation.
SEC. 7. SHALLOW WATER MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
[[Page S5068]]
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director, in cooperation with the
Chesapeake Executive Council and scientific institutions
located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, shall establish a
program to monitor shallow water throughout the Chesapeake
Bay.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the program established in
paragraph (1) shall be to provide data on water quality
conditions necessary for restoration of living resources in
near-shore and tidal tributary areas of the Chesapeake Bay.
(b) Activities.--To carry out the purpose of the program
established in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), the Director
is authorized to carry out, or enter into grants, contracts,
and cooperative agreements with an eligible entity to carry
out activities--
(1) to collect, analyze, and disseminate scientific
information necessary for the management of living marine
resources and the marine habitat associated with such
resources;
(2) to interpret the information described in paragraph
(1);
(3) to organize the information described in paragraph (1)
into products that are useful to policy makers, resource
managers, scientists, and the public; or
(4) that will otherwise further the purpose of such
program.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Chesapeake Bay Office.--Subsection (e) of section 307
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 1511d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting
``$8,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2008''.
(b) Programs.--There is authorized to be appropriated the
following amounts to carry out the provisions of this Act:
(1) $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008
to carry out the provisions of section 3.
(2) $6,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008 to carry out the provisions of section 4.
(3) $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008 to carry out the provisions of section 5.
(4) $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008 to carry out the provisions of section 6.
(5) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008 to carry out the provisions of section 7.
____
Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
Annapolis, MD, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: We would like to express our deepest
appreciation for your continued leadership on behalf of the
Chesapeake Bay. Your proposed legislation for the 108th
Congress will provide essential new resources and policy
direction for top Chesapeake priorities, consistent with the
ambitious goals of the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. We
pledge our support for the legislation, and we stand ready to
help you in any way possible to secure enactment.
We are particularly pleased with your proposed Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, which will
significantly help reduce nitrogen pollution by providing
first-time federal assistance to local communities for
improving sewage treatment throughout the watershed. The bill
will provide $660 million over five years, and more than 300
major sewage treatment plants will be eligible to participate
in the new federal program. Importantly, the legislation will
limit assistance to only those treatment plants willing to
install state-of-the-art pollution controls, which is
precisely consistent with the scientific conclusions of the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
Your other Chesapeake initiatives will strengthen
environmental education, improve forestry management, and
enhance the work of the Army Corps of Engineers. Together,
these bills will authorize significant new federal financial
support for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the modern
Chesapeake Bay Program. While we have made significant
progress in the past two decades, Chesapeake scientists now
believe we must redouble our efforts if we are to succeed in
the goals that we all share. Your legislation will provide
new direction and federal resources to the Chesapeake at a
key time.
We thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Ferris,
Vice President,
Environmental Protection and Restoration.
____
Chesapeake Bay Commission,
Annapolis, MD, April 9, 2003.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: Federal funding has played a crucial
role in supporting the Chesapeake Bay restoration. Thanks in
large part to your efforts, federal funds have supported
nearly one-fifth of the projects currently underway.
However, in signing Chesapeake 2000, the signatories (both
state and federal) vowed to substantially enhance their
efforts to reduce nutrient pollution and restore the Bay's
fisheries. With science driving these decisions, the
expenditure of some $18.7 billion dollars will be required to
restore the Bay to its former health and abundance. A
commitment of this size will require the substantial
involvement of all partners, including the federal, state,
and local governments and the private sector.
With this financial need solidly in focus, we are writing
to convey our unanimous, tri-state support for your
Chesapeake Bay legislative package. Together, these five
bills promote the kinds of enhanced funding and technical
assistance called for in Cheasapeake 2000 (C2K). We hope that
the 108th Congress will join us in our support of:
1. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Act;
2. The reauthorization and improvement of The Chesapeake
Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program of WRDA.
3. The Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program
Act;
4. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act; and
5. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education, Training and
Restoration Act.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance
Act is of keen interest to this Commission. As a signatory to
C2K, we have committed to reducing the Bay's nitrogen loads
by 110 million pounds. Translated, this goal represents a
doubling of the load reductions achieved since 1983. If
accomplished, it will restore the Bay waters to conditions
that are clean, clear and productive.
The Act provides grants to upgrade the major wasterwater
treatment plants (WWTP) in our six-state watershed with
nutrient removal technologies. It will allow the region to
demonstrate that state-of-the-art nutrient removal is
possible on a large scale. It will single-handedly result in
the removal of 41 million pounds of nitrogen, or 40 percent
of the total nitrogen reduction needed. Only the federal
government is in the position to trigger such remarkable
reductions. It is an opportunity that should not and
cannot be ignored.
In addition to the removal of nitrogen loads from our
WWIPs, The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act will help to
control pollution running off the land. Forests and riparian
buffers play a critical role in filtering and absorbing
sediment and nutrient runoff, while providing valuable
habitat for animals and birds and food and shelter for fish.
Enhanced support for the Bay Program Forest Service will ramp
up its provision of interstate coordination, technical
assistance, and forest assessment and planning services that
are otherwise limited or unavailable in our region.
Finally, let us emphasize the important support for
education that this package provides. Sustaining hard won
progress in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will
ultimately rest in the hands of citizens and their
communities. Sustainability, then, rests in our ability to
provide ample education and opportunity for community
involvement. This effort to supply financial and technical
support is provided by the The Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Education Pilot Program Act and the NOAA Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Education, Training and Restoration Act. Education
and community engagement are two activities of C2K that are
woefully underfunded. The monies provided by these two acts
will substantially improve our ability to keep our
commitments on track and reach our stated goals.
Since the Bay Program's inception the federal government
has been a strong partner, providing approximately 18 percent
of the funds needed. For the federal government to maintain
its level of support in the face of rising costs to attain
our C2K objectives, it will need to triple its investment.
Your five-bill package puts the federal government soundly on
this track. As a Bay-region leader, you are to be commended.
Please instruct us as to how we can further support these
measures.
Sincerely,
Delegate Robert S. Bloxom,
Chairman.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 832. A bill to provide that bonuses and other extraordinary or
excessive compensation of corporate insiders and wrongdoers may be
included in the bankruptcy estate; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
``Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act.'' This bill would clarify
that the bonuses and other excessive compensation of corporate
directors and wrongdoers can be brought back into a bankruptcy estate
when a company goes bankrupt. It is only fair that corporate officers
and employees who have engaged in wrongdoing and violated the
securities and accounting laws should not be able to make money off of
a company which has gone bankrupt, while company employees,
shareholders and creditors are left carrying the burden of the
bankruptcy. Moreover, corporate officers and insiders should not be
allowed to keep their bonuses and loans when a company has done so
poorly to go bankrupt.
Currently, the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to recover assets
which a debtor has previously distributed to
[[Page S5069]]
creditors within a certain time period prior to the filing of a
bankruptcy petition. This allows a trustee to increase a debtor's
assets for the fair treatment and equitable distribution of assets
among all creditors, as well as to help shore up a debtor's assets
during a reorganization.
Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code currently allows a trustee to
recover assets from an insider made within a year of the filing of a
bankruptcy petition. Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a
trustee to recover transfers of assets, made within one year, where
there has been a fraudulent transaction or where a debtor has received
less than what is reasonably equivalent in value. However, the
Bankruptcy Code is not clear as to whether these sections would include
the bonuses and other extraordinary or excessive compensation of
officers, directors or other company employees. That needs to change.
The Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act clarifies section 547
of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a trustee may recover bonuses,
loans, nonqualified deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary
or excessive compensation as determined by the court, made to an
insider, officer or director and made within one year before the date
of the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
In addition, the bill amends section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to
provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, loans, nonqualified
deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary or excessive
compensation, as determined by the court, paid to an officer, director
or employee who has committed securities or accounting violations,
within 4 years of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The reason
that the bill extends the present one year reach-back period for
fraudulent transfers to four years is because a majority of States have
adopted a four year time period or the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,
(which allows for 4 years).
The plain fact is that corporate officers and employees who have
violated the law, as well as corporate officials who have not done a
good job in managing a company, should not be allowed to benefit where
their actions have contributed to the downfall of the company.
Corporate mismanagement and irresponsibility should not be rewarded,
and the bad guys need to be held accountable. The changes to the
Bankruptcy Code contained in this bill are tied to excessiveness and
wrongdoing and are fair. We need to do something about bringing more
accountability and fairness to the system, and the Corporate
Accountability in Bankruptcy Act does that.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 833. A bill to increase the penalties to be imposed for a
violation of fire regulations applicable to the public lands, National
Parks System lands, or National Forest System lands when the violation
results in damage to public or private property, to specify the purpose
for which collected fines may be used, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Public
Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003, a bill that I am
introducing, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 833
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 ``Public Lands Fire
Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC LAND FIRE
REGULATIONS RESULTING IN PROPERTY DAMAGE.
(a) Increased Penalties on Interior Lands.--Notwithstanding
section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)) or section 3 of the Act of August
25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 3), a violation of the rules regulating
the use of fire by visitors and other users of lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management or National
Park System lands shall be punished by a fine of not less
than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or
both, if the violation results in damage to public or private
property.
(b) Increased Penalties on National Forest System Lands.--
Notwithstanding the eleventh undesignated paragraph under the
heading ``SURVEYING THE PUBLIC LANDS'' of the Act of June 4,
1897 (16 U.S.C. 551), a violation of the rules regulating the
use of fire by visitors and other users of National Forest
System lands shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both,
if the violation results in damage to public or private
property.
(c) Relation to Other Sentence of Fine Authority.--The
maximum fine amount specified in subsections (a) and (b)
applies in lieu of the fine otherwise applicable under
section 3571 of title 18, United States Code.
(d) Use of Collected Fines.--Any moneys received by the
United States as a result of a fine imposed for a violation
of fire rules applicable to lands administered by the Bureau
of Land Management, National Park System lands, or National
Forest System lands shall be available to the Secretary of
the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may
be, without further appropriation and until expended, for the
following purposes:
(1) To cover the cost to the United States of any
improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work rendered
necessary by the action that resulted in the fine.
(2) To reimburse the affected agency for the cost of the
response to the action that resulted in the fine, including
investigations, damage assessments, and legal actions.
(3) To increase public awareness of rules, regulations, and
other requirements regarding the use of fire on public lands.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 834. A bill for the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a private bill on
behalf of Tanya Andrea Goudeau and her family to grant Tanya immediate
relative status. The Goudeaus adopted Tanya in 2001, but due to
misinformation and an undue delay in the adoption process, the adoption
was not completed until a week after Tanya's 16th birthday. As a
result, Tanya was no longer considered a child under the law and
therefore was not eligible to receive permanent resident status.
Currently, Tanya faces deportation to Sri Lanka where she no longer has
a family to care for her. What is more, she is now legally a part of
the Goudeau family. Tanya is the Goudeau's daughter and they are her
parents.
Tanya Goudeau was born to Mrs. Goudeau's sister in 1984 in Sri Lanka.
During a visit with the Goudeaus in 1999 at their home in Baker, LA,
Tanya's mother announced that she was moving and that she did not want
any further contact with her daughter. Tanya's father had walked out on
the family 11 years earlier and could not be located. The Goudeaus
realized that Tanya had no family to return to and they decided to
adopt her. They could not bear to send their niece back to her native
home where she would be on her own at age 14. Without any children of
their own, they lovingly took Tanya into their family and have lovingly
cared for her for the past 4 years.
Tanya has overcome her mother's and father's abandonment and after a
period of adjustment, she has grown to love her new home. She is
currently a senior in high school with aspirations to earn an advanced
medical degree. Without the passage of this private bill, Tanya could
face deportation to Sir Lanka at a time when she should be focused on
her college degree with the support of her parents. The Goudeaus'
situation is an unintended consequence of the requirement to complete
the adoption process before a child's sixteenth birthday. We need to
grant Tanya immediate relative status to allow the Goudeaus to remain a
family.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 835. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
student loan borrowers with a choice of lender for loan consolidation,
to provide notice regarding loan consolidation, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, throughout the next month, hundreds of
thousands of high school seniors across this Nation will open up their
mailboxes and receive acceptance letters for college. They will begin
planning where they will live and what they will study for the next 2
or 4 years. These students will dream big and have grand ideas about
what college will mean for them, but before they can officially enroll,
they will be slapped in the face with a very real question: how are
they going to pay for it?
[[Page S5070]]
Attending an institution of higher education can be expensive.
According to the National Center for Higher Education, the cost of
attending two or four year, public and private colleges has increased
faster than both inflation and family income. In 2000, families in the
lowest quartile of the income bracket spent as much as 25 percent of
their annual income to send their children to a public, four year
college, compared with only 13 percent in 1980. At the same time,
though, sources of federal assistance are diminishing. The Federal Pell
Grant program, which was designed to help alleviate the financial
burden on low income families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of
tuition at public, four year colleges in 1999, whereas Pell Grants
covered 98 percent of the costs in 1986.
As the cost of college increases and the impact of Federal grants
decreases, school loans have become a gateway to attending college for
the majority of students. However, because of a provision in the 1998
re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, entitled the ``Single
Lender Rule,'' students who have all of their student loans from a
single lender are barred from getting a lower rate by consolidating
their loans with a different lender. The financial benefits for the
consumer by using a different lender for loan consolidation are easily
seen in other areas of finance, such as homeowners refinancing their
mortgage. What appears to me to be an arbitrarily contrived limitation
that protects lenders more than students has prevented college
graduates from consolidating their multiple student loans into a
single, new loan, thus driving up the cost of attending college.
Having a college degree is fast becoming a necessary pre-requisite to
long-term success. That is why I rise today to introduce to my
colleagues the ``Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2003.''
This bill would repeal the Single Lender rule, and knock down this
arbitrarily contrived barrier that hinders students from gaining access
to higher education.
Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait to repeal
the Single Lender rule when we readdress the Higher Education Act? As
the close of this school year fast approaches, and high school
graduates begin making important decisions about their educational
future, we cannot put off the repeal of the Single Lender rule. The
effects of maintaining the Single Lender rule are devastating. In 2001,
143,504 students were forced to pay higher rates on their student loans
because the Single Lender rule denied them benefits of loan
consolidation. Over 3,300 of these students were from my home State of
Louisiana. We cannot force another class of college students to pay
more for college than necessary. Studies have shown that a major factor
influencing a student's choice of college and degree program is the
amount of debt connected with the type of institution of profession.
These choices greatly impact not only the lives of the students
themselves, but also society as a whole. At a time when our society is
in dire need of nurses, teachers, and many other professions, we must
not frighten students away from college for fear of substantial debt
burdens after their graduation.
The greatest investment we can make in our future is in the education
of our children. Today, with the changing world, educating our children
includes assisting those who desire to obtain a college degree. By not
repealing the Single Lender rule, we will be continuing to drive up the
cost of college, thus impeding access, especially for lower-income
students. According to the Census Bureau, the income gap between people
receiving a bachelor's degree and people receiving only a high school
diploma has increased from 57 percent in 1975, to 76 percent in 2002.
By financially hindering the entrance into college, we will be adding
to this income gap, which only further hurts our already recessed
economy.
The Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act is an important first
step to making college more affordable for all American families. I
hope and urge my colleagues to join me in making the dream of a college
education a reality for all.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 836. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend by
five years the period for the provision by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs of noninstitutional extended care services and required nursing
home care; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill
that is enormously important to veterans in my State of West Virginia
and to all veterans across this great Nation. The bill I am
reintroducing will extend VA's ability to provide long-term care under
two specific authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and
Benefits Act of 1999.
In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care
legislation that required VA for the first time to provide extended
care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117
directed VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need
of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or
more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided
non-institutional care, such as respite care, adult day care, home-
based primary care, homemaker/home health aide and skilled home health
care to all enrolled veterans. Without extension, both authorities will
expire in December, 2003.
Long-term care for veterans has been, and remains, a priority for me.
And the extension of these services is critically important to veterans
and their families in every State across this country.
Prior to the passage of the Millennium Health Care Bill, when
families in West Virginia were told by VA that the long-term care
services they needed were not available to them, they would turn to me
in despair. I still frequently hear from families of aging, sick
veterans who want desperately to keep their husbands, fathers or
brothers at home, but in order to do that they need help.
Many of our aging veterans are suffering from debilitating diseases,
such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A large number of
these veterans are WW II combat veterans, whose wives are lovingly
caring for them at home with very limited resources. The
noninstitutional long-term care services currently available within VA
provide an array of care that can be a lifesaver for the dedicated care
givers of critically ill veterans, and allow these veterans to remain
at home.
While the purpose of this bill is clear, let me explain the reason it
is so necessary. Within three years of the enactment of Public Law 106-
117, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees
on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both
the nursing home care and non-institutional care provisions, and to
make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions.
These programs were given an expiration date of four years.
But unfortunately, very little has happened with these long-term care
programs. It was not until October, 2001, that VA addressed the
requirements of the law by issuing a directive on such noninstitutional
long-term care services as respite and adult day care. And even now, we
find that how these services are being provided, if at all, varies
widely throughout the VA health care system. The delay in implementing
these programs will greatly impede our ability to adequately study
their effects.
Additionally, in September, 2001, two years after Congress passed the
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, I asked the General
Accounting Office to identify the long-term care services that are
available at each of VA's medical centers, and the standards and
criteria used by VA to determine which veterans may receive these
services.
GAO is expected to release their final report on VA long-term care by
May 1, but their preliminary report confirms that VA has not made much
progress in implementing noninstitutional long-term care services for
veterans.
Therefore, I believe it is critical that both long-term care
authorities, due to expire in December of this year, be extended for an
additional five years, until December 31, 2008, so that we can be
properly evaluate the services and, if need be, make appropriate
adjustments.
[[Page S5071]]
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Bunning):
S. 837. A bill to establish a commission to conduct a comprehensive
review of Federal agencies and programs and to recommend the
elimination or realignment of duplicative, wasteful, or outdated
functions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal
Agencies, CARFA, Act.
We need accountability in Federal spending. With our Nation at war
and with a recovering economy, the Congress needs to take concrete
steps to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being efficiently
used by the Federal Government.
Indeed, few things are more upsetting to my Kansas constituents than
to see wasteful Federal spending. Kansans often say to me: ``I do not
mind paying my taxes, but it is infuriating to see my hard-earned money
being poorly spent by the Federal Government. If I am going to work
hard to earn this money, I want it spent wisely.'' These are real
concerns that need to be addressed.
The bipartisan legislation that I introduce today with 13 original
cosponsors would help to provide accountability to Federal spending by
establishing a commission to review Federal domestic agencies and
programs within agencies.
The Senate is already on record strongly supporting this concept
through an amendment that I offered to the Senate Budget Resolution. On
March 21, the Senate passed S.A. 282 to the budget resolution by a
voice vote. S.A. 282 briefly describes the CARFA Act, expressing the
sense of the Senate that a commission should be established to review
Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, and that the
commission should submit to Congress: (1) recommendations to realign or
eliminate wasteful agencies and programs within agencies; and (2)
legislation to implement its recommendations.
The CARFA Act is modeled on successful commissions of the past. If
enacted, the 12-member presidentially appointed commission would
conduct a 2-year review of Federal domestic agencies and programs
within agencies, using a narrow set of criteria in its review.
Upon completion of its evaluation, the commission would submit to
Congress both its recommendations of agencies and programs that should
be realigned or eliminated, and proposed legislation to implement its
recommendations. As with successful commissions of the past, the
Congress would consider this legislation on an expedited basis with a
comment period from the committees of jurisdiction. Within the
expedited timeframe, the Congress would take an up-or-down vote on the
legislation as a whole without amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ensign, and Mr.
Hatch):
S. 840. A bill to establish the Great Basin National Heritage Route
in the States of Nevada and Utah; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Ensign,
Senator Hatch, and Senator Bennett to introduce this bill, which will
establish a National Heritage Route in eastern Nevada and western Utah.
National Heritage areas, corridors, and routes are regions in which
residents and businesses, as well as local and tribal governments join
together in partnership to conserve and celebrate cultural heritage and
special landscapes. The Great Basin National Heritage Route includes
historic mining camps and ghost towns, Mormon and other pioneer
settlements, as well as Native American communities. The Route passes
through classic Great Basin country along the trails of the Pony
Express and the Overland Stage. Cultural resources within the route
include Native American archaeological sites dating back to the Fremont
Culture.
Our bill will also help highlight some of the Great Basin's natural
wonders. Passing through Millard County, Utah, and parts of the
Duckwater Reservation and White Pine County in Nevada, the Route
contains items of great biological and geological interest. In Nevada,
it encompasses forests of bristlecone pine, the oldest living things on
the earth. In Utah, the Route includes native Bonneville cutthroat
trout as well as other distinctive species and ecological communities.
Designation of the corridor as a Heritage Route will ensure the
protection of key educational and recreational opportunities in
perpetuity without compromising traditional local use of the land. The
Great Basin National Heritage Route will provide a framework for
celebrating Nevada's and Utah's rich historic, archeological, cultural,
and natural resources for both visitors and residents.
The bill will establish a board of directors consisting of local
officials from both counties and tribes to manage the area designated
by the route. The board will develop a management plan within 3 years
of the bill's passage, and the Secretary of the Interior will enter
into a memorandum of understanding with the Board of Directors for the
management of the resources of the heritage route. Our legislation also
authorizes up to $10 million to carry out the Act but limits Federal
funding to no more then 50 percent of the project's cost. The bill
allows the Secretary to provide assistance for 15 years after the bill
is enacted.
Our bill benefits not just the people of Nevada and Utah, but
citizens of all States. It highlights an area of outstanding cultural
and natural value and brings people together to celebrate values that
they can be proud of. 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. 840
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 ``Great Basin National
Heritage Route Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the natural, cultural, and historic heritage of the
North American Great Basin is nationally significant;
(2) communities along the Great Basin Heritage Route
(including the towns of Delta, Utah, Ely, Nevada, and the
surrounding communities) are located in a classic western
landscape that contains long natural vistas, isolated high
desert valleys, mountain ranges, ranches, mines, historic
railroads, archaeological sites, and tribal communities;
(3) the Native American, pioneer, ranching, mining, timber,
and railroad heritages associated with the Great Basin
Heritage Route include the social history and living cultural
traditions of a rich diversity of nationalities;
(4) the pioneer, Mormon, and other religious settlements,
and ranching, timber, and mining activities of the region
played and continue to play a significant role in the
development of the United States, shaped by--
(A) the unique geography of the Great Basin;
(B) an influx of people of Greek, Chinese, Basque, Serb,
Croat, Italian, and Hispanic descent; and
(C) a Native American presence (Western Shoshone, Northern
and Southern Paiute, and Goshute) that continues in the Great
Basin today;
(5) the Great Basin housed internment camps for Japanese-
American citizens during World War II, 1 of which, Topaz, was
located along the Heritage Route;
(6) the pioneer heritage of the Heritage Route includes the
Pony Express route and stations, the Overland Stage, and many
examples of 19th century exploration of the western United
States;
(7) the Native American heritage of the Heritage Route
dates back thousands of years and includes--
(A) archaeological sites;
(B) petroglyphs and pictographs;
(C) the westernmost village of the Fremont culture; and
(D) communities of Western Shoshone, Paiute, and Goshute
tribes;
(8) the Heritage Route contains multiple biologically
diverse ecological communities that are home to exceptional
species such as--
(A) bristlecone pines, the oldest living trees in the
world;
(B) wildlife adapted to harsh desert conditions;
[[Page S5072]]
(C) unique plant communities, lakes, and streams; and
(D) native Bonneville cutthroat trout;
(9) the air and water quality of the Heritage Route is
among the best in the United States, and the clear air
permits outstanding viewing of the night skies;
(10) the Heritage Route includes unique and outstanding
geologic features such as numerous limestone caves, classic
basin and range topography with playa lakes, alluvial fans,
volcanics, cold and hot springs, and recognizable features of
ancient Lake Bonneville;
(11) the Heritage Route includes an unusual variety of open
space and recreational and educational opportunities because
of the great quantity of ranching activity and public land
(including city, county, and State parks, national forests,
Bureau of Land Management land, and a national park);
(12) there are significant archaeological, historical,
cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources in the
Great Basin to merit the involvement of the Federal
Government in the development, in cooperation with the Great
Basin Heritage Route Partnership and other local and
governmental entities, of programs and projects to--
(A) adequately conserve, protect, and interpret the
heritage of the Great Basin for present and future
generations; and
(B) provide opportunities in the Great Basin for education;
and
(13) the Great Basin Heritage Route Partnership shall serve
as the management entity for a Heritage Route established in
the Great Basin.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to foster a close working relationship with all levels
of government, the private sector, and the local communities
within White Pine County, Nevada, Millard County, Utah, and
the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation;
(2) to enable communities referred to in paragraph (1) to
conserve their heritage while continuing to develop economic
opportunities; and
(3) to conserve, interpret, and develop the archaeological,
historical, cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational
resources related to the unique ranching, industrial, and
cultural heritage of the Great Basin, in a manner that
promotes multiple uses permitted as of the date of enactment
of this Act, without managing or regulating land use.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Great basin.--The term ``Great Basin'' means the North
American Great Basin.
(2) Heritage route.--The term ``Heritage Route'' means the
Great Basin National Heritage Route established by section
4(a).
(3) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the Great Basin Heritage Route Partnership established
by section 4(c).
(4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the plan developed by the management entity under section
6(a).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
SEC. 4. GREAT BASIN NATIONAL HERITAGE ROUTE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Great Basin
National Heritage Route to provide the public with access to
certain historical, cultural, natural, scenic, and
recreational resources in White Pine County, Nevada, Millard
County, Utah, and the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation in the
State of Nevada, as designated by the management entity.
(b) Boundaries.--The management entity shall determine the
specific boundaries of the Heritage Route.
(c) Management Entity.--
(1) In general.--The Great Basin Heritage Route Partnership
shall serve as the management entity for the Heritage Route.
(2) Board of directors.--The Great Basin Heritage Route
Partnership shall be governed by a board of directors that
consists of--
(A) 4 members who are appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners for Millard County, Utah;
(B) 4 members who are appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners for White Pine County, Nevada; and
(C) a representative appointed by each Native American
Tribe participating in the Heritage Route.
SEC. 5. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
(a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Governors of the States of Nevada
and Utah and the tribal government of each Indian tribe
participating in the Heritage Route, shall enter into a
memorandum of understanding with the management entity.
(b) Inclusions.--The memorandum of understanding shall
include information relating to the objectives and management
of the Heritage Route, including--
(1) a description of the resources of the Heritage Route;
(2) a discussion of the goals and objectives of the
Heritage Route, including--
(A) an explanation of the proposed approach to
conservation, development, and interpretation; and
(B) a general outline of the anticipated protection and
development measures;
(3) a description of the management entity;
(4) a list and statement of the financial commitment of the
initial partners to be involved in developing and
implementing the management plan; and
(5) a description of the role of the States of Nevada and
Utah in the management of the Heritage Route.
(c) Additional Requirements.--In developing the terms of
the memorandum of understanding, the Secretary and the
management entity shall--
(1) provide opportunities for local participation; and
(2) include terms that ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, timely implementation of all aspects of the
memorandum of understanding.
(d) Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review any amendments
of the memorandum of understanding proposed by the management
entity or the Governor of the State of Nevada or Utah.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this Act
shall not be expended to implement a change made by a
proposed amendment described in paragraph (1) until the
Secretary approves the amendment.
SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the management entity shall develop
and submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan
for the Heritage Route that--
(1) specifies--
(A) any resources designated by the management entity under
section 4(a); and
(B) the specific boundaries of the Heritage Route, as
determined under section 4(b); and
(2) presents clear and comprehensive recommendations for
the conservation, funding, management, and development of the
Heritage Route.
(b) Considerations.--In developing the management plan, the
management entity shall--
(1) provide for the participation of local residents,
public agencies, and private organizations located within the
counties of Millard County, Utah, White Pine County, Nevada,
and the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation in the protection and
development of resources of the Heritage Route, taking into
consideration State, tribal, county, and local land use plans
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) identify sources of funding;
(3) include--
(A) a program for implementation of the management plan by
the management entity, including--
(i) plans for restoration, stabilization, rehabilitation,
and construction of public or tribal property; and
(ii) specific commitments by the identified partners
referred to in section 5(b)(4) for the first 5 years of
operation; and
(B) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Route; and
(4) develop a management plan that will not infringe on
private property rights without the consent of the owner of
the private property.
(c) Failure To Submit.--If the management entity fails to
submit a management plan to the Secretary in accordance with
subsection (a), the Heritage Route shall no longer qualify
for Federal funding.
(d) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receipt of a
management plan under subsection (a), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Governors of the States of Nevada and
Utah, shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
(2) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve a
management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether the
management plan--
(A) has strong local support from a diversity of
landowners, business interests, nonprofit organizations, and
governments associated with the Heritage Route;
(B) is consistent with and complements continued economic
activity along the Heritage Route;
(C) has a high potential for effective partnership
mechanisms;
(D) avoids infringing on private property rights; and
(E) provides methods to take appropriate action to ensure
that private property rights are observed.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a management plan under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(B) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(C) not later than 90 days after the receipt of any
proposed revision of the management plan from the management
entity, approve or disapprove the proposed revision.
(e) Implementation.--On approval of the management plan as
provided in subsection (d)(1), the management entity, in
conjunction with the Secretary, shall take appropriate steps
to implement the management plan.
(f) Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review each amendment
to the management plan that the Secretary determines may make
a substantial change to the management plan.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this Act
shall not be expended to implement an amendment described in
paragraph (1) until the Secretary approves the amendment.
[[Page S5073]]
SEC. 7. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.
(a) Authorities.--The management entity may, for purposes
of preparing and implementing the management plan, use funds
made available under this Act to--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, a State (including a political subdivision), an Indian
tribe, a private organization, or any person; and
(2) hire and compensate staff.
(b) Duties.--In addition to developing the management plan,
the management entity shall--
(1) give priority to implementing the memorandum of
understanding and the management plan, including taking steps
to--
(A) assist units of government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
(i) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits
along the Heritage Route;
(ii) developing recreational resources along the Heritage
Route;
(iii) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for
the archaeological, historical, cultural, natural, scenic,
and recreational resources and sites along the Heritage
Route; and
(iv) if requested by the owner, restoring, stabilizing, or
rehabilitating any private, public, or tribal historical
building relating to the themes of the Heritage Route;
(B) encourage economic viability and diversity along the
Heritage Route in accordance with the objectives of the
management plan; and
(C) encourage the installation of clear, consistent, and
environmentally appropriate signage identifying access points
and sites of interest along the Heritage Route;
(2) consider the interests of diverse governmental,
business, and nonprofit groups associated with the Heritage
Route;
(3) conduct public meetings in the region of the Heritage
Route at least semiannually regarding the implementation of
the management plan;
(4) submit substantial amendments (including any increase
of more than 20 percent in the cost estimates for
implementation) to the management plan to the Secretary for
approval by the Secretary; and
(5) for any year for which Federal funds are received under
this Act--
(A) submit to the Secretary a report that describes, for
the year--
(i) the accomplishments of the management entity;
(ii) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
(iii) each entity to which any loan or grant was made;
(B) make available for audit all records pertaining to the
expenditure of the funds and any matching funds; and
(C) require, for all agreements authorizing the expenditure
of Federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity
make available for audit all records pertaining to the
expenditure of the funds.
(c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The
management entity shall not use Federal funds made available
under this Act to acquire real property or any interest in
real property.
(d) Prohibition on the Regulation of Land Use.--The
management entity shall not regulate land use within the
Heritage Route.
SEC. 8. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may, on request of the
management entity, provide technical and financial assistance
to develop and implement the management plan and memorandum
of understanding.
(2) Priority for assistance.--In providing assistance under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, on request of the
management entity, give priority to actions that assist in--
(A) conserving the significant archaeological, historical,
cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Route; and
(B) providing education, interpretive, and recreational
opportunities, and other uses consistent with those
resources.
(b) Application of Federal Law.--The establishment of the
Heritage Route shall have no effect on the application of any
Federal law to any property within the Heritage Route.
SEC. 9. LAND USE REGULATION; APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW.
(a) Land Use Regulation.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal, State, tribal, or local government to regulate by
law (including by regulation) any use of land; or
(2) grants any power of zoning or land use to the
management entity.
(b) Applicability of Federal Law.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) imposes on the Heritage Route, as a result of the
designation of the Heritage Route, any regulation that is not
applicable to the area within the Heritage Route as of the
date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) authorizes any agency to promulgate a regulation that
applies to the Heritage Route solely as a result of the
designation of the Heritage Route under this Act.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 may be made available for any fiscal year.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activity assisted under this Act shall not exceed 50 percent.
(2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may
be in the form of in-kind contributions, donations, grants,
and loans from individuals and State or local governments or
agencies.
SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this Act terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 841. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex,
race, or national origin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Murray,
Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Akaka, Feingold and Boxer, I am
introducing the Fair Pay Act.
April 15, tax day, is also Equal Pay Day. If you add what women made
last year and so far this year, that would be the same amount men made
in all of last year. In other words, it takes women 16 months to make
what men make in 12.
There's been a lot of tax talk from Congress and the White House
lately. We've got more than 1 million people out of work. And we've got
millions of families struggling to make ends meet. The White House
believes a new $750 billion tax cut for the rich is the solution.
I disagree. One way we can put more money in the pockets of working
families--pay women what they're worth. Nearly 40 years after the Equal
Pay Act became law, women are still paid only 76 cents for every dollar
a man earns.
Working women at all income and education levels are affected by the
wage gap. Last year, the GAO found that the pay gap continues to effect
women in management and that, for these women, the pay gap has actually
widened since 1995.
Regardless of education, the impact is the same. These women work as
hard as men, but have less money to pay the bills, to put food on the
table, or to save for their retirement or their child's education. That
is simply wrong and it must end. We must close the wage gap once and
for all.
First, we need to do a better job by enforcing and strengthening the
penalties for the law that demands equal pay for equal work. That's why
I support the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Senator Daschle and
Congresswoman DeLauro.
Another part of discrimination against women in the work place is the
historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ``women's
jobs.''
Millions of women today working in female-dominated jobs--as social
workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are ``equivalent'' in
skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs
dominated by men. But these women aren't paid the same as men.
That's what the Fair Pay Act--that Congresswoman Norton and I are
reintroducing today--would address. Unfairly low pay in jobs dominated
by women is un-American, it is discriminatory and our bill would make
it illegal.
20 States have ``fair pay'' laws and policies in place for their
employees, including my State of Iowa. And Iowa had a Republican
legislature and Governor when this bill passed into law. So, ending
wage discrimination against women in a nonpartisan issue.
Some say we don't need any more laws; market forces will take care of
the wage gap. If we had relied on market forces we would have never
passed the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical
Leave Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I first introduced the Fair Pay Act in 1996 after the Iowa Business
and Professional Women alerted me to this problem. And as long as I'm
in the U.S. Senate I will continue to fight to pass this important
legislation so we can end wage discrimination against women once and
for all.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S5074]]
S. 841
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND REFERENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Pay
Act of 2003''.
(b) Reference.--Except as provided in section 8, whenever
in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of
an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision,
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Wage rate differentials exist between equivalent jobs
segregated by sex, race, and national origin in Government
employment and in industries engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce.
(2) The existence of such wage rate differentials--
(A) depresses wages and living standards for employees
necessary for their health and efficiency;
(B) prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor
resources;
(C) tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening,
affecting, and obstructing commerce;
(D) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in
commerce; and
(E) constitutes an unfair method of competition.
(3) Discrimination in hiring and promotion has played a
role in maintaining a segregated work force.
(4) Many women and people of color work in occupations
dominated by individuals of their same sex, race, and
national origin.
(5)(A) A General Accounting Office analysis of wage rates
in the civil service of the State of Washington found that in
1985 of the 44 jobs studied that paid less than the average
of all equivalent jobs, approximately 39 percent were female-
dominated and approximately 16 percent were male dominated.
(B) A study of wage rates in Minnesota using 1990 Decennial
Census data found that 75 percent of the wage rate
differential between white and non-white workers was
unexplained and may be a result of discrimination.
(6) Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
prohibits discrimination in compensation for ``equal work''
on the basis of sex.
(7) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination in compensation because of race, color,
religion, national origin, and sex. The Supreme Court, in its
decision in County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161
(1981), held that title VII's prohibition against
discrimination in compensation also applies to jobs that do
not constitute ``equal work'' as defined in section 6(d) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Decisions of lower
courts, however, have demonstrated that further clarification
of existing legislation is necessary in order effectively to
carry out the intent of Congress to implement the Supreme
Court's holding in its Gunther decision.
(8) Artificial barriers to the elimination of
discrimination in compensation based upon sex, race, and
national origin continue to exist more than 3 decades after
the passage of section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Elimination of such
barriers would have positive effects, including--
(A) providing a solution to problems in the economy created
by discrimination through wage rate differentials;
(B) substantially reducing the number of working women and
people of color earning low wages, thereby reducing the
dependence on public assistance; and
(C) promoting stable families by enabling working family
members to earn a fair rate of pay.
SEC. 3. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUIVALENT JOBS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no
employer having employees subject to any provision of this
section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which
such employees are employed, between employees on the basis
of sex, race, or national origin by paying wages to employees
in such establishment in a job that is dominated by employees
of a particular sex, race, or national origin at a rate less
than the rate at which the employer pays wages to employees
in such establishment in another job that is dominated by
employees of the opposite sex or of a different race or
national origin, respectively, for work on equivalent jobs.
``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall prohibit the
payment of different wage rates to employees where such
payment is made pursuant to--
``(i) a seniority system;
``(ii) a merit system;
``(iii) a system that measures earnings by quantity or
quality of production; or
``(iv) a differential based on a bona fide factor other
than sex, race, or national origin, such as education,
training, or experience, except that this clause shall apply
only if--
``(I) the employer demonstrates that--
``(aa) such factor--
``(AA) is job-related with respect to the position in
question; or
``(BB) furthers a legitimate business purpose, except that
this item shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that
an alternative employment practice exists that would serve
the same business purpose without producing such differential
and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative
practice; and
``(bb) such factor was actually applied and used reasonably
in light of the asserted justification; and
``(II) upon the employer succeeding under subclause (I),
the employee fails to demonstrate that the differential
produced by the reliance of the employer on such factor is
itself the result of discrimination on the basis of sex,
race, or national origin by the employer.
``(C) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall
issue guidelines specifying criteria for determining whether
a job is dominated by employees of a particular sex, race, or
national origin. Such guidelines shall not include a list of
such jobs.
``(D) An employer who is paying a wage rate differential in
violation of subparagraph (A) shall not, in order to comply
with the provisions of such subparagraph, reduce the wage
rate of any employee.
``(2) No labor organization or its agents representing
employees of an employer having employees subject to any
provision of this section shall cause or attempt to cause
such an employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of paragraph (1)(A).
``(3) For purposes of administration and enforcement of
this subsection, any amounts owing to any employee that have
been withheld in violation of paragraph (1)(A) shall be
deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime
compensation under this section or section 7.
``(4) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `labor organization' means any organization
of any kind, or any agency or employee representation
committee or plan, in which employees participate and that
exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with
employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
``(B) The term `equivalent jobs' means jobs that may be
dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when
viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and
working conditions.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 13(a) (29 U.S.C. 213(a))
is amended in the matter before paragraph (1) by striking
``section 6(d)'' and inserting ``sections 6(d) and 6(h)''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITED ACTS.
Section 15(a) (29 U.S.C. 215(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(2) by adding after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraphs:
``(6) to discriminate against any individual because such
individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by
section 6(h) or because such individual made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce section
6(h); or
``(7) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate
against, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any
employee or any other person because the employee inquired
about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the
employee's wages or the wages of any other employee, or
because the employee exercised, enjoyed, aided, or encouraged
any other person to exercise or enjoy any right granted or
protected by section 6(h).''.
SEC. 5. REMEDIES.
(a) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Any employer who violates subsection (d) or (h) of section
6 shall additionally be liable for such compensatory or
punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the
United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.'';
(2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking
``either of the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection'';
(3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees'', by striking
``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect to class
actions brought under subsection (f), no employee'';
(4) in the sentence beginning ``The court in'', by striking
``in such action'' and inserting ``in any action brought to
recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding
sentences of this subsection''; and
(5) by striking ``section 15(a)(3)'' each place it occurs
and inserting ``paragraphs (3), (6), and (7) of section
15(a)''.
(b) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of
subsection (d) or (h) of section 6, additional compensatory
or punitive damages,'' before ``and the agreement''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of
subsection (d) or (h) of section 6, additional compensatory
or punitive damages''; and
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first
sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence''.
(c) Fees.--Section 16 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
[[Page S5075]]
``(f) In any action brought under this section for
violation of section 6(h), the court shall, in addition to
any other remedies awarded to the prevailing plaintiff or
plaintiffs, allow expert fees as part of the costs. Any such
action may be maintained as a class action as provided by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.
SEC. 6. RECORDS.
(a) Technical Amendment.--Section 11(c) (29 U.S.C. 211(c))
is amended by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''.
(b) Records.--Section 11(c) (as amended by subsection (a))
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Every employer subject to section 6(h) shall
preserve records that document and support the method,
system, calculations, and other bases used by the employer in
establishing, adjusting, and determining the wage rates paid
to the employees of the employer. Every employer subject to
section 6(h) shall preserve such records for such periods of
time, and shall make such reports from the records to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as shall be
prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by
regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the
enforcement of the provisions of section 6(h) or any
regulation promulgated pursuant to section 6(h).''.
(c) Small Business Exemptions.--Section 11(c) (as amended
by subsections (a) and (b)) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(B)(i) Every employer subject to section 6(h) that has 25
or more employees on any date during the first or second year
after the effective date of this paragraph, or 15 or more
employees on any date during any subsequent year after such
second year, shall, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
under subparagraph (F), prepare and submit to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission for the year involved a
report signed by the president, treasurer, or corresponding
principal officer, of the employer that includes information
that discloses the wage rates paid to employees of the
employer in each classification, position, or job title, or
to employees in other wage groups employed by the employer,
including information with respect to the sex, race, and
national origin of employees at each wage rate in each
classification, position, job title, or other wage group.''.
(d) Protection of Confidentiality.--Section 11(c) (as
amended by subsections (a) through (c)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(ii) The rules and regulations promulgated by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission under subparagraph (F),
relating to the form of such a report, shall include
requirements to protect the confidentiality of employees,
including a requirement that the report shall not contain the
name of any individual employee.''.
(e) Use; Inspections; Examinations; Regulations.--Section
11(c) (as amended by subsections (a) through (d)) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may
publish any information and data that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission obtains pursuant to the provisions of
subparagraph (B). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
may use the information and data for statistical and research
purposes, and compile and publish such studies, analyses,
reports, and surveys based on the information and data as the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may consider
appropriate.
``(D) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall by regulation
make reasonable provision for the inspection and examination
by any person of the information and data contained in any
report submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission pursuant to subparagraph (B).
``(E) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall by
regulation provide for the furnishing of copies of reports
submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
pursuant to subparagraph (B) to any person upon payment of a
charge based upon the cost of the service.
``(F) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall
issue rules and regulations prescribing the form and content
of reports required to be submitted under subparagraph (B)
and such other reasonable rules and regulations as the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission may find necessary to
prevent the circumvention or evasion of such reporting
requirements. In exercising the authority of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission under subparagraph (B), the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may prescribe by
general rule simplified reports for employers for whom the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds that because of
the size of the employers a detailed report would be unduly
burdensome.''.
SEC. 7. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM; REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Section 4(d) (29 U.S.C. 204(d)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(4) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall
conduct studies and provide information and technical
assistance to employers, labor organizations, and the general
public concerning effective means available to implement the
provisions of section 6(h) prohibiting wage rate
discrimination between employees performing work in
equivalent jobs on the basis of sex, race, or national
origin. Such studies, information, and technical assistance
shall be based on and include reference to the objectives of
such section to eliminate such discrimination. In order to
achieve the objectives of such section, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission shall carry on a continuing program of
research, education, and technical assistance including--
``(A) conducting and promoting research with the intent of
developing means to expeditiously correct the wage rate
differentials described in section 6(h);
``(B) publishing and otherwise making available to
employers, labor organizations, professional associations,
educational institutions, the various media of communication,
and the general public the findings of studies and other
materials for promoting compliance with section 6(h);
``(C) sponsoring and assisting State and community
informational and educational programs; and
``(D) providing technical assistance to employers, labor
organizations, professional associations and other interested
persons on means of achieving and maintaining compliance with
the provisions of section 6(h).
``(5) The report submitted biennially by the Secretary to
Congress under paragraph (1) shall include a separate
evaluation and appraisal regarding the implementation of
section 6(h).''.
SEC. 8. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Congressional Employees.--
(1) Application.--Section 203(a)(1) of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1313(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``subsections (a)(1) and (d) of section 6''
and inserting ``subsections (a)(1), (d), and (h) of section
6''; and
(B) by striking ``206 (a)(1) and (d)'' and inserting ``206
(a)(1), (d), and (h)''.
(2) Remedies.--Section 203(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
1313(b)) is amended by inserting before the period the
following: ``or, in an appropriate case, under section 16(f)
of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216(f))''.
(b) Executive Branch Employees.--
(1) Application.--Section 413(a)(1) of title 3, United
States Code, as added by section 2(a) of the Presidential and
Executive Office Accountability Act (Public Law 104-331; 110
Stat. 4053), is amended by striking ``subsections (a)(1) and
(d) of section 6'' and inserting ``subsections (a)(1), (d),
and (h) of section 6''.
(2) Remedies.--Section 413(b) of such title is amended by
inserting before the period the following: ``or, in an
appropriate case, under section 16(f) of such Act''.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 842. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of
targeted, affordable tax relief provisions designed to help the
Nation's small businesses during this time of economic stagnation.
After the Easter recess, I know that the Finance Committee will be
marking up a wide-ranging tax bill whose ultimate size is yet to be
determined. I also know, however, that few of the proposals offered by
the President will truly stimulate the economy or help the millions of
struggling small businesses. Instead, the Bush tax proposal will reward
the richest among us and pass the bill to our children. We can and must
do better.
As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I have drafted legislation that will truly help small
businesses and the Nation. It is a tax proposal with meaningful,
affordable reforms that will make a difference without sticking our
kids with a huge bill. I hope that all of part of this legislation can
be incorporated into a Senate economic stimulus package. I have titled
the bill that I am introducing today ``The Affordable Small Business
Stimulus and Simplification Act of 2003,'' and it builds upon a bill
that I introduced in the 107th Congress.
I call my bill an ``affordable'' stimulus package for small business
because it targets the policies that can make the biggest difference
and uses our limited resources as wisely and efficiently as possible.
It does not include everything that I would like to do for small
business, but it includes enough to help stimulate this essential
component of our economy. Moreover, the bill will help address the tax
complexity concerns of small businesses because it includes the Single
Point Tax Filing Act that has passed the Senate on two previous
occasions and a new standard deduction that will benefit millions of
small businesses.
[[Page S5076]]
Let me briefly explain the contents of my bill.
First, my bill increases the expensing limitation for small
businesses. It raises it to $35,000, rising to $40,000 in 2008, and it
increases the phase-out level, above which expensing is not allowed, to
$350,000, rising to $400,000 in 2008. I know that others have proposed
raising this limit as high as $75,000, but such an increase is simply
unaffordable while we face huge budget deficits. Raising it to $35,000
now, rising to $40,000 in 2008, is a more responsible approach and will
provide an immediate investment incentive to many small businesses.
Second, my bill creates a new standard deduction of $500 for sole
proprietorships. This provision provides tax relief and real tax
simplification to the smallest of small businesses because it would
relieve these businesses of the paperwork burden of having to itemize
the myriad of small expenses on IRS forms. Of course, businesses with
expenses greater than $500 would retain the option of full itemization.
But for the very smallest businesses, many of them home-based or part-
time, this new provision will be a significant step towards tax
simplification.
Third, the bill modifies and expands a provision that was signed into
law in 1993 regarding new equity investments in small businesses'
stock. Under my bill, new investments in companies with capitalization
of up to $100 million at the time of investment will have a 75 percent
capital gains exclusion if the investments are held at least four
years. The exclusion for such investments will be 100 percent if they
are made in a business involved in such critical technologies as
transportation or homeland security, defense-related technologies,
anti-terrorism, pollution control, energy efficiency, or waste
management. The 100-percent exclusion would also be allowed for
investments in specialized small business investment companies, or
SSBICs, whose investments are made solely in disadvantaged small
businesses. Both the 75 and 100 percent exclusion levels would be
available for investments made by both individuals and corporations. In
addition, the rollover period for such investments would be increased
from 60 days to 180 days. The provision passed in 1993 was crafted too
narrowly to stimulate substantial new investment. I hope that this new,
expanded capital gains treatment will prompt new investments in small
and entrepreneurial businesses.
Fourth, my bill recognizes that the current depreciation schedules
for high-tech equipment and software are out of date, given how quickly
such items become obsolete in our fast-changing economy. My bill would
reduce the recovery period for computers or peripheral equipment from
five years to three, and for software from three years to two. This
change would be permanent.
Fifth, my bill would fix a problem with the tax deductibility of
health insurance expenses for the self-employed. Under current law,
these expenses are fully deductible in 2003 for the first time--but the
Internal Revenue Code denies the deduction to taxpayers who are
eligible to participate in another plan, such as their spouse's
employer's plan. My bill would clarify that the deduction is denied
only if the taxpayer actually participates in the other plan.
Sixth, to simplify tax filing, my bill would include the Single Point
Tax Filing Act. This section would simplify the tax filing process for
employers that choose to participate by allowing the Internal Revenue
Service and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and
Federal employment tax returns. This provision has been passed by the
Senate twice before, but has not yet become law. There is currently a
demonstration project along these lines in Montana, which is working
very well. I believe such authority should extend to all States.
Seventh, my bill clarifies that married couples who co-own a business
can elect to be sole proprietors for purposes of filing their Federal
income taxes. This provision aligns the law with the way many married
couples actually do business. Under present law, married couples who
co-own a business technically own that business as a partnership for
Federal income tax purposes. This treatment carries with it all the
complications of the partnership provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code, including having to file partnership returns. But in reality,
many married couples in this situation consider themselves sole
proprietors and are incorrectly filing tax returns as such. While the
IRS may not be strictly enforcing the law against these taxpayers, this
technical non-compliance can cause trouble down the road. Upon divorce,
for example, it may not be clear that the business had been jointly
owned. This same ambiguity might complicate a spouse's ability to get
the full Social Security and Medicare benefits to which they are
entitled. My bill makes clear that for Federal income tax purposes,
married couples who co-own a business can be treated as sole
proprietors.
Eighth, my bill would extend the existing income averaging provisions
to cover fishing as well as farming. In other words, the choice to
average income from a farming trade or business under present law would
be extended to cover income from the trade or business of fishing as
well. Under my bill, a farmer or fisherman electing to average his or
her income would owe the alternative minimum tax, AMT, only to the
extent he or she would have owed AMT had averaging not been elected.
This is an important change that will benefit not only people in my
state, but also throughout New England, the Pacific Northwest, the Gulf
of Mexico region, Alaska, and in other areas of the country where
fishing is an important industry.
Finally, my bill would modify the tax treatment of investments in
debenture small business investment companies, or SBICs, so they are
less likely to create unrelated business taxable income, UBTI,
liability. The current tax treatment of money borrowed from the
government by a debenture SBIC creates taxable income for an otherwise
tax-exempt investor, which makes it almost impossible to raise capital
from these investors. Free to choose, tax-exempt investors opt to
invest in venture capital funds that do not create any UBTI liability.
Therefore, my bill would assure that money borrowed from the government
by an SBIC does not subject tax-exempt investors to UBTI. In so doing,
the bill would encourage greater investment in SBICs, which provide
critically needed venture capital to emerging small businesses. These
venture capital funds are sorely needed in today's stalled economy.
I believe that ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus and Stimulus
Act of 2003'' will provide a much-needed stimulus to small business in
a way that we can afford, particularly if we can find offsets to pay
for the bill. I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Finance Committee to have some or all of its provisions
enacted into law.
______
By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Gregg):
S. 843. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish a national
uniform multiple air pollutant regulatory program for the electric
generating sector; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today along with Senators Lincoln Chafee
and Judd Gregg, I am introducing comprehensive legislation to reduce
harmful emissions from our Nation's power plants. Developed after
extensive input from electric generators who would be affected by such
legislation, leaders in the environmental community, and State and
local regulators who will enforce any new requirements, the Clean Air
Planning Act is a balanced approach to a difficult challenge.
The Clean Air Planning Act takes a market-based approach that would
aggressively reduce electric power generators' emissions of sulfur
dioxide, SO2, by 80 percent, nitrogen oxides,
NOX, by 69 percent, mercury by 80 percent, and return carbon
dioxide, CO2, emissions to 2001 levels within a decade. It
provides planning and regulatory certainty to electric generators who
would be required to achieve these regulations.
The negative public health and environmental impacts of
SO2, NOX and mercury emissions have been well
documented. While there is bipartisan agreement that emissions of these
three pollutants from power plants need further control, there is
disagreement over how much and how fast. The bill includes a flexible
trading system that allows for attainment of the caps
[[Page S5077]]
in the most efficient manner and updates the new source review program
to help encourage emission reductions to occur.
There is also a growing consensus that greenhouse gases such as
CO2 emissions from power plants are contributing to climate
change. The time has come to set up mechanisms that will address these
emissions without impeding economic growth. The Clean Air Planning Act
establishes modest goal of capping CO2 emissions from
electrical generators at 2001 levels by 2013. Generators could meet
that goal with a flexible system that allows both trading between
generators and earning credits through off-system reductions of
greenhouse gases.
Today, America's power plants will emit over 6 million tons of
harmful emissions. They will also power the world's most productive
economy. Reducing emissions while retaining affordable electricity is
the goal of the Clean Air Planning Act, and I urge others to join in
this effort.
In the months ahead, this clean air bill and others will be compared
and debated. Opponents and supporters will be heard, but at the outset
I believe we should agree on a set of guiding principles.
Four is better than three: A comprehensive four-emission strategy
that includes carbon reductions provides regulatory certainty and
offers the greatest environmental and economic benefits.
Markets work: Cape and trade based emission standards provide the
maximum incentive to achieve cleaner power.
Stairs are better than cliffs: Prompt but gradual reductions through
multi-phase or declining caps are more desirable than single phased
cuts.
Eliminate redundancy: Existing regulatory programs will need some
modernization in light of tight emission caps.
Clean air is a basic right all Americans deserve. The responsibility
to ensure that right falls to Congress and the President. By putting
our differences aside and focusing on the challenge at hand the result
will be healthy citizens breathing clean air, a vibrant economy with
abundant affordable electricity, and a model for the rest of the world
to follow.
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. 843
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Air
Planning Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Integrated air quality planning for the electric generating
sector.
Sec. 4. New source review program.
Sec. 5. Revisions to sulfur dioxide allowance program.
Sec. 6. Air quality forecasts and warnings.
Sec. 7. Relationship to other law.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities,
consisting of facilities fueled by coal, fuel oil, and
natural gas, produce nearly \2/3\ of the electricity
generated in the United States;
(2) fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities
produce approximately \2/3\ of the total sulfur dioxide
emissions, \1/3\ of the total nitrogen oxides emissions, \1/
3\ of the total carbon dioxide emissions, and \1/3\ of the
total mercury emissions, in the United States;
(3)(A) many electric generating facilities have been exempt
from the emission limitations applicable to new units based
on the expectation that over time the units would be retired
or updated with new pollution control equipment; but
(B) many of the exempted units continue to operate and emit
pollutants at relatively high rates;
(4) pollution from existing electric generating facilities
can be reduced through adoption of modern technologies and
practices;
(5) the electric generating industry is being restructured
with the objective of providing lower electricity rates and
higher quality service to consumers;
(6) the full benefits of competition will not be realized
if the environmental impacts of generation of electricity are
not uniformly internalized; and
(7) the ability of owners of electric generating facilities
to effectively plan for the future is impeded by the
uncertainties surrounding future environmental regulatory
requirements that are imposed inefficiently on a piecemeal
basis.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect and preserve the environment and safeguard
public health by ensuring that substantial emission
reductions are achieved at fossil fuel-fired electric
generating facilities;
(2) to significantly reduce the quantities of mercury,
carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides that
enter the environment as a result of the combustion of fossil
fuels;
(3) to encourage the development and use of renewable
energy;
(4) to internalize the cost of protecting the values of
public health, air, land, and water quality in the context of
a competitive market in electricity;
(5) to ensure fair competition among participants in the
competitive market in electricity that will result from fully
restructuring the electric generating industry;
(6) to provide a period of environmental regulatory
stability for owners and operators of electric generating
facilities so as to promote improved management of existing
assets and new capital investments; and
(7) to achieve emission reductions from electric generating
facilities in a cost-effective manner.
SEC. 3. INTEGRATED AIR QUALITY PLANNING FOR THE ELECTRIC
GENERATING SECTOR.
The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``TITLE VII--INTEGRATED AIR QUALITY PLANNING FOR THE ELECTRIC
GENERATING SECTOR
``Sec. 701. Definitions.
``Sec. 702. National pollutant tonnage limitations.
``Sec. 703. Nitrogen oxide and mercury allowance trading programs.
``Sec. 704. Carbon dioxide allowance trading program.
``SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Affected unit.--
``(A) Mercury.--The term `affected unit', with respect to
mercury, means a coal-fired electric generating facility
(including a cogenerating facility) that--
``(i) has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts;
and
``(ii) generates electricity for sale.
``(B) Nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.--The term
`affected unit', with respect to nitrogen oxides and carbon
dioxide, means a fossil fuel-fired electric generating
facility (including a cogenerating facility) that--
``(i) has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts;
and
``(ii) generates electricity for sale.
``(C) Sulfur dioxide.--The term `affected unit', with
respect to sulfur dioxide, has the meaning given the term in
section 402.
``(2) Carbon dioxide allowance.--The term `carbon dioxide
allowance' means an authorization allocated by the
Administrator under this title to emit 1 ton of carbon
dioxide during or after a specified calendar year.
``(3) Covered unit.--The term `covered unit' means--
``(A) an affected unit;
``(B) a nuclear generating unit with respect to incremental
nuclear generation; and
``(C) a renewable energy unit.
``(4) Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means--
``(A) carbon dioxide;
``(B) methane;
``(C) nitrous oxide;
``(D) hydrofluorocarbons;
``(E) perfluorocarbons; and
``(F) sulfur hexafluoride.
``(5) Incremental nuclear generation.--The term
`incremental nuclear generation' means the difference
between--
``(A) the quantity of electricity generated by a nuclear
generating unit in a calendar year; and
``(B) the quantity of electricity generated by the nuclear
generating unit in calendar year 1990;
as determined by the Administrator and measured in megawatt
hours.
``(6) Mercury allowance.--The term `mercury allowance'
means an authorization allocated by the Administrator under
this title to emit 1 pound of mercury during or after a
specified calendar year.
``(7) New renewable energy unit.--The term `new renewable
energy unit' means a renewable energy unit that has operated
for a period of not more than 3 years.
``(8) New unit.--The term `new unit' means an affected unit
that has operated for not more than 3 years and is not
eligible to receive--
``(A) sulfur dioxide allowances under section 417(b);
``(B) nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury allowances under
section 703(c)(2); or
``(C) carbon dioxide allowances under section 704(c)(2).
``(9) Nitrogen oxide allowance.--The term `nitrogen oxide
allowance' means an authorization allocated by the
Administrator under this title to emit 1 ton of nitrogen
oxides during or after a specified calendar year.
``(10) Nuclear generating unit.--The term `nuclear
generating unit' means an electric generating facility that--
``(A) uses nuclear energy to supply electricity to the
electric power grid; and
``(B) commenced operation in calendar year 1990 or earlier.
[[Page S5078]]
``(11) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
electricity generated from--
``(A) wind;
``(B) organic waste (excluding incinerated municipal solid
waste);
``(C) biomass (including anaerobic digestion from farm
systems and landfill gas recovery);
``(D) fuel cells; or
``(E) a hydroelectric, geothermal, solar thermal,
photovoltaic, or other nonfossil fuel, nonnuclear source.
``(12) Renewable energy unit.--The term `renewable energy
unit' means an electric generating facility that uses
exclusively renewable energy to supply electricity to the
electric power grid.
``(13) Sequestration.--The term `sequestration' means the
action of sequestering carbon by--
``(A) enhancing a natural carbon sink (such as through
afforestation); or
``(B)(i) capturing the carbon dioxide emitted from a fossil
fuel-based energy system; and
``(ii)(I) storing the carbon in a geologic formation; or
``(II) converting the carbon to a benign solid material
through a biological or chemical process.
``(14) Sulfur dioxide allowance.--The term `sulfur dioxide
allowance' has the meaning given the term `allowance' in
section 402.
``SEC. 702. NATIONAL POLLUTANT TONNAGE LIMITATIONS.
``(a) Sulfur Dioxide.--The annual tonnage limitation for
emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected units in the United
States shall be equal to--
``(1) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012,
4,500,000 tons;
``(2) for each of calendar years 2013 through 2015,
3,500,000 tons; and
``(3) for calendar year 2016 and each calendar year
thereafter, 2,250,000 tons.
``(b) Nitrogen Oxides.--The annual tonnage limitation for
emissions of nitrogen oxides from affected units in the
United States shall be equal to--
``(1) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012,
1,870,000 tons; and
``(2) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year
thereafter, 1,700,000 tons.
``(c) Mercury.--
``(1) In general.--The annual tonnage limitation for
emissions of mercury from affected units in the United States
shall be equal to--
``(A) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012, 24
tons; and
``(B) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year
thereafter, 10 tons.
``(2) Maximum emissions of mercury from each affected
unit.--
``(A) Calendar years 2009 through 2012.--For each of
calendar years 2009 through 2012, the emissions of mercury
from each affected unit shall not exceed either, at the
option of the operator of the affected unit--
``(i) 50 percent of the total quantity of mercury present
in the coal delivered to the affected unit in the calendar
year; or
``(ii) an annual output-based emission rate for mercury
that shall be determined by the Administrator based on an
input-based rate of 4 pounds per trillion British thermal
units.
``(B) Calendar year 2013 and thereafter.--For calendar year
2013 and each calendar year thereafter, the emissions of
mercury from each affected unit shall not exceed--
``(i) 30 percent of the total quantity of mercury present
in the coal delivered to the affected unit in the calendar
year; or
``(ii) an annual output-based emission rate for mercury
that shall be determined by the Administrator.
``(d) Carbon Dioxide.--Subject to section 704(d), the
annual tonnage limitation for emissions of carbon dioxide
from covered units in the United States shall be equal to--
``(1) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012, the
quantity of emissions projected to be emitted from affected
units in calendar year 2006, as determined by the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy based
on the projections of the Administration the publication of
which most closely precedes the date of enactment of this
title; and
``(2) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year
thereafter, the quantity of emissions emitted from affected
units in calendar year 2001, as determined by the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy.
``(e) Review of Annual Tonnage Limitations.--
``(1) Period of effectiveness.--The annual tonnage
limitations established under subsections (a) through (d)
shall remain in effect until the date that is 20 years after
the date of enactment of this title.
``(2) Determination by administrator.--Not later than 15
years after the date of enactment of this title, the
Administrator, after considering impacts on human health, the
environment, the economy, and costs, shall determine whether
1 or more of the annual tonnage limitations should be
revised.
``(3) Determination not to revise.--If the Administrator
determines under paragraph (2) that none of the annual
tonnage limitations should be revised, the Administrator
shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the
determination and the reasons for the determination.
``(4) Determination to revise.--
``(A) In general.--If the Administrator determines under
paragraph (2) that 1 or more of the annual tonnage
limitations should be revised, the Administrator shall
publish in the Federal Register--
``(i) not later than 15 years and 180 days after the date
of enactment of this title, proposed regulations implementing
the revisions; and
``(ii) not later than 16 years and 180 days after the date
of enactment of this title, final regulations implementing
the revisions.
``(B) Effective date of revisions.--Any revisions to the
annual tonnage limitations under subparagraph (A) shall take
effect on the date that is 20 years after the date of
enactment of this title.
``(f) Reduction of Emissions From Specified Affected
Units.--Subject to the requirements of this Act concerning
national ambient air quality standards established under part
A of title I, notwithstanding the annual tonnage limitations
established under this section, the Federal Government or a
State government may require that emissions from a specified
affected unit be reduced to address a local air quality
problem.
``SEC. 703. NITROGEN OXIDE AND MERCURY ALLOWANCE TRADING
PROGRAMS.
``(a) Regulations.--
``(1) Promulgation.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations to establish for
affected units in the United States--
``(i) a nitrogen oxide allowance trading program; and
``(ii) a mercury allowance trading program.
``(B) Requirements.--Regulations promulgated under
subparagraph (A) shall establish requirements for the
allowance trading programs under this section, including
requirements concerning--
``(i)(I) the generation, allocation, issuance, recording,
tracking, transfer, and use of nitrogen oxide allowances and
mercury allowances; and
``(II) the public availability of all information
concerning the activities described in subclause (I) that is
not confidential;
``(ii) compliance with subsection (e)(1);
``(iii) the monitoring and reporting of emissions under
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e); and
``(iv) excess emission penalties under subsection (e)(4).
``(2) Mixed fuel, co-generation facilities and combined
heat and power facilities.--The Administrator shall
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to ensure the
equitable issuance of allowances to--
``(A) facilities that use more than 1 energy source to
produce electricity; and
``(B) facilities that produce electricity in addition to
another service or product.
``(3) Report to congress on use of captured or recovered
mercury.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report on the public health and environmental
impacts from mercury that is or may be--
``(i) captured or recovered by air pollution control
technology; and
``(ii) incorporated into products such as soil amendments
and cement.
``(B) Required elements.--The report shall--
``(i) review--
``(I) technologies, in use as of the date of the report,
for incorporating mercury into products; and
``(II) potential technologies that might further minimize
the release of mercury; and
``(ii)(I) address the adequacy of legal authorities and
regulatory programs in effect as of the date of the report to
protect public health and the environment from mercury in
products described in subparagraph (A)(ii); and
``(II) to the extent necessary, make recommendations to
improve those authorities and programs.
``(b) New Unit Reserves.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish by
regulation a reserve of nitrogen oxide allowances and a
reserve of mercury allowances to be set aside for use by new
units.
``(2) Determination of quantity.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall determine,
based on projections of electricity output for new units--
``(A) not later than June 30, 2005, the quantity of
nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances required to
be held in reserve for new units for each of calendar years
2009 through 2013; and
``(B) not later than June 30 of each fifth calendar year
thereafter, the quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances and
mercury allowances required to be held in reserve for new
units for the following 5-calendar year period.
``(c) Nitrogen Oxide and Mercury Allowance Allocations.--
``(1) Timing of allocations.--The Administrator shall
allocate nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances to
affected units--
``(A) not later than December 31, 2005, for calendar year
2009; and
``(B) not later than December 31 of calendar year 2006 and
each calendar year thereafter, for the fourth calendar year
that begins after that December 31.
[[Page S5079]]
``(2) Allocations to affected units that are not new
units.--
``(A) Quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances allocated.--The
Administrator shall allocate to each affected unit that is
not a new unit a quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances that
is equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
``(i) 1.5 pounds of nitrogen oxides per megawatt hour; and
``(ii) the quotient obtained by dividing--
``(I) the average annual net quantity of electricity
generated by the affected unit during the most recent 3-
calendar year period for which data are available, measured
in megawatt hours; by
``(II) 2,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides per ton.
``(B) Quantity of mercury allowances allocated.--The
Administrator shall allocate to each affected unit that is
not a new unit a quantity of mercury allowances that is equal
to the product obtained by multiplying--
``(i) 0.0000227 pounds of mercury per megawatt hour; and
``(ii) the average annual net quantity of electricity
generated by the affected unit during the most recent 3-
calendar year period for which data are available, measured
in megawatt hours.
``(C) Adjustment of allocations.--
``(i) In general.--If, for any calendar year, the total
quantity of allowances allocated under subparagraph (A) or
(B) is not equal to the applicable quantity determined under
clause (ii), the Administrator shall adjust the quantity of
allowances allocated to affected units that are not new units
on a pro-rata basis so that the quantity is equal to the
applicable quantity determined under clause (ii).
``(ii) Applicable quantity.--The applicable quantity
referred to in clause (i) is the difference between--
``(I) the applicable annual tonnage limitation for
emissions from affected units specified in subsection (b) or
(c) of section 702 for the calendar year; and
``(II) the quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury
allowances, respectively, placed in the applicable new unit
reserve established under subsection (b) for the calendar
year.
``(3) Allocation to new units.--
``(A) Methodology.--The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to establish a methodology for allocating
nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances to new
units.
``(B) Quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury
allowances allocated.--The Administrator shall determine the
quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances
to be allocated to each new unit based on the projected
emissions from the new unit.
``(4) Allowance not a property right.--A nitrogen oxide
allowance or mercury allowance--
``(A) is not a property right; and
``(B) may be terminated or limited by the Administrator.
``(5) No judicial review.--An allocation of nitrogen
allowances or mercury allowances by the Administrator under
this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(d) Nitrogen Oxide Allowance and Mercury Allowance
Transfer System.--
``(1) Use of allowances.--The regulations promulgated under
subsection (a)(1)(A) shall--
``(A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance
with paragraph (3)) of any nitrogen oxide allowance or
mercury allowance before the calendar year for which the
allowance is allocated;
``(B) provide that unused nitrogen oxide allowances and
mercury allowances may be carried forward and added to
nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances,
respectively, allocated for subsequent years; and
``(C) provide that unused nitrogen oxide allowances and
mercury allowances may be transferred by--
``(i) the person to which the allowances are allocated; or
``(ii) any person to which the allowances are transferred.
``(2) Use by persons to which allowances are transferred.--
Any person to which nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury
allowances are transferred under paragraph (1)(C)--
``(A) may use the nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury
allowances in the calendar year for which the nitrogen oxide
allowances or mercury allowances were allocated, or in a
subsequent calendar year, to demonstrate compliance with
subsection (e)(1); or
``(B) may transfer the nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury
allowances to any other person for the purpose of
demonstration of that compliance.
``(3) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a nitrogen
oxide allowance or mercury allowance shall not take effect
until a written certification of the transfer, authorized by
a responsible official of the person making the transfer, is
received and recorded by the Administrator.
``(4) Permit requirements.--An allocation or transfer of
nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury allowances to an
affected unit shall, after recording by the Administrator, be
considered to be part of the federally enforceable permit of
the affected unit under this Act, without a requirement for
any further review or revision of the permit.
``(e) Compliance and Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--For calendar year 2009 and each calendar
year thereafter, the operator of each affected unit shall
surrender to the Administrator--
``(A) a quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances that is equal
to the total tons of nitrogen oxides emitted by the affected
unit during the calendar year; and
``(B) a quantity of mercury allowances that is equal to the
total pounds of mercury emitted by the affected unit during
the calendar year.
``(2) Monitoring system.--The Administrator shall
promulgate regulations requiring the accurate monitoring of
the quantities of nitrogen oxides and mercury that are
emitted at each affected unit.
``(3) Reporting.--
``(A) In general.--Not less often than quarterly, the owner
or operator of an affected unit shall submit to the
Administrator a report on the monitoring of emissions of
nitrogen oxides and mercury carried out by the owner or
operator in accordance with the regulations promulgated under
paragraph (2).
``(B) Authorization.--Each report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall be authorized by a responsible
official of the affected unit, who shall certify the accuracy
of the report.
``(C) Public reporting.--The Administrator shall make
available to the public, through 1 or more published reports
and 1 or more forms of electronic media, data concerning the
emissions of nitrogen oxides and mercury from each affected
unit.
``(4) Excess emissions.--
``(A) In general.--The owner or operator of an affected
unit that emits nitrogen oxides or mercury in excess of the
nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury allowances that the
owner or operator holds for use for the affected unit for the
calendar year shall--
``(i) pay an excess emissions penalty determined under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) offset the excess emissions by an equal quantity in
the following calendar year or such other period as the
Administrator shall prescribe.
``(B) Determination of excess emissions penalty.--
``(i) Nitrogen oxides.--The excess emissions penalty for
nitrogen oxides shall be equal to the product obtained by
multiplying--
``(I) the number of tons of nitrogen oxides emitted in
excess of the total quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances
held; and
``(II) $5,000, adjusted (in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Administrator) for changes in the Consumer
Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the
Department of Labor.
``(ii) Mercury.--The excess emissions penalty for mercury
shall be equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
``(I) the number of pounds of mercury emitted in excess of
the total quantity of mercury allowances held; and
``(II) $10,000, adjusted (in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Administrator) for changes in the Consumer
Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the
Department of Labor.
``SEC. 704. CARBON DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE TRADING PROGRAM.
``(a) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations to establish a
carbon dioxide allowance trading program for covered units in
the United States.
``(2) Required elements.--Regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1) shall establish requirements for the carbon
dioxide allowance trading program under this section,
including requirements concerning--
``(A)(i) the generation, allocation, issuance, recording,
tracking, transfer, and use of carbon dioxide allowances; and
``(ii) the public availability of all information
concerning the activities described in clause (i) that is not
confidential;
``(B) compliance with subsection (f)(1);
``(C) the monitoring and reporting of emissions under
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (f);
``(D) excess emission penalties under subsection (f)(4);
and
``(E) standards, guidelines, and procedures concerning the
generation, certification, and use of additional carbon
dioxide allowances made available under subsection (d).
``(b) New Unit Reserve.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish by
regulation a reserve of carbon dioxide allowances to be set
aside for use by new units and new renewable energy units.
``(2) Determination of quantity.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall determine,
based on projections of electricity output for new units and
new renewable energy units--
``(A) not later than June 30, 2005, the quantity of carbon
dioxide allowances required to be held in reserve for new
units and new renewable energy units for each of calendar
years 2009 through 2013; and
``(B) not later than June 30 of each fifth calendar year
thereafter, the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances
required to be held in reserve for new units and renewable
energy units for the following 5-calendar year period.
``(c) Carbon Dioxide Allowance Allocation.--
``(1) Timing of allocations.--The Administrator shall
allocate carbon dioxide allowances to covered units--
[[Page S5080]]
``(A) not later than December 31, 2005, for calendar year
2009; and
``(B) not later than December 31 of calendar year 2006 and
each calendar year thereafter, for the fourth calendar year
that begins after that December 31.
``(2) Allocations to covered units that are not new
units.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall allocate to each
affected unit that is not a new unit, to each nuclear
generating unit with respect to incremental nuclear
generation, and to each renewable energy unit that is not a
new renewable energy unit, a quantity of carbon dioxide
allowances that is equal to the product obtained by
multiplying--
``(i) the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances available
for allocation under subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) the quotient obtained by dividing--
``(I) the average net quantity of electricity generated by
the unit in a calendar year during the most recent 3-calendar
year period for which data are available, measured in
megawatt hours; and
``(II) the total of the average net quantities described in
subclause (I) with respect to all such units.
``(B) Quantity to be allocated.--For each calendar year,
the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances allocated under
subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the difference between--
``(i) the annual tonnage limitation for emissions of carbon
dioxide from affected units specified in section 702(d) for
the calendar year; and
``(ii) the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances placed in
the new unit reserve established under subsection (b) for the
calendar year.
``(3) Allocation to new units and new renewable energy
units.--
``(A) Methodology.--The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to establish a methodology for allocating carbon
dioxide allowances to new units and new renewable energy
units.
``(B) Quantity of carbon dioxide allowances allocated.--The
Administrator shall determine the quantity of carbon dioxide
allowances to be allocated to each new unit and each new
renewable energy unit based on the unit's projected share of
the total electric power generation attributable to covered
units.
``(d) Issuance and Use of Additional Carbon Dioxide
Allowances.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Allowances for projects certified by independent
review board.--In addition to carbon dioxide allowances
allocated under subsection (c), the Administrator shall make
carbon dioxide allowances available to projects that are
certified, in accordance with paragraph (3), by the
independent review board established under paragraph (2) as
eligible to receive the carbon dioxide allowances.
``(B) Allowances obtained under other programs.--The
regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(1) shall--
``(i) allow covered units to comply with subsection (f)(1)
by purchasing and using carbon dioxide allowances that are
traded under any other United States or internationally
recognized carbon dioxide reduction program that is specified
under clause (ii);
``(ii) specify, for the purpose of clause (i), programs
that meet the goals of this section; and
``(iii) apply such conditions to the use of carbon dioxide
allowances traded under programs specified under clause (ii)
as are necessary to achieve the goals of this section.
``(2) Independent review board.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish an
independent review board to assist the Administrator in
certifying projects as eligible for carbon dioxide allowances
made available under paragraph (1)(A).
``(ii) Review and approval.--Each certification by the
independent review board of a project shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Administrator.
``(iii) Requirements.--Subject to this subsection,
requirements relating to the creation, composition, duties,
responsibilities, and other aspects of the independent review
board shall be included in the regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under subsection (a).
``(B) Membership.--The independent review board shall be
composed of 12 members, of whom--
``(i) 10 members shall be appointed by the Administrator,
of whom--
``(I) 1 member shall represent the Environmental Protection
Agency (who shall serve as chairperson of the independent
review board);
``(II) 3 members shall represent State governments;
``(III) 3 members shall represent the electric generating
sector; and
``(IV) 3 members shall represent environmental
organizations;
``(ii) 1 member shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Energy to represent the Department of Energy; and
``(iii) 1 member shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture to represent the Department of Agriculture.
``(C) Staff and other resources.--The Administrator shall
provide such staff and other resources to the independent
review board as the Administrator determines to be necessary.
``(D) Development of guidelines.--
``(i) In general.--The independent review board shall
develop guidelines for certifying projects in accordance with
paragraph (3), including--
``(I) criteria that address the validity of claims that
projects result in the generation of carbon dioxide
allowances;
``(II) guidelines for certifying incremental carbon
sequestration in accordance with clause (ii); and
``(III) guidelines for certifying geological sequestration
of carbon dioxide in accordance with clause (iii).
``(ii) Guidelines for certifying incremental carbon
sequestration.--The guidelines for certifying incremental
carbon sequestration in forests, agricultural soil,
rangeland, or grassland shall include development, reporting,
monitoring, and verification guidelines, to be used in
quantifying net carbon sequestration from land use projects,
that are based on--
``(I) measurement of increases in carbon storage in excess
of the carbon storage that would have occurred in the absence
of such a project;
``(II) comprehensive carbon accounting that--
``(aa) reflects net increases in carbon reservoirs; and
``(bb) takes into account any carbon emissions resulting
from disturbance of carbon reservoirs in existence as of the
date of commencement of the project;
``(III) adjustments to account for--
``(aa) emissions of carbon that may result at other
locations as a result of the impact of the project on timber
supplies; or
``(bb) potential displacement of carbon emissions to other
land owned by the entity that carries out the project; and
``(IV) adjustments to reflect the expected carbon storage
over various time periods, taking into account the likely
duration of the storage of the carbon stored in a carbon
reservoir.
``(iii) Guidelines for certifying geological sequestration
of carbon dioxide.--The guidelines for certifying geological
sequestration of carbon dioxide produced by a covered unit
shall--
``(I) provide that a project shall be certified only to the
extent that the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide
produced by a covered unit is in addition to any carbon
dioxide used by the covered unit in 2009 for enhanced oil
recovery; and
``(II) include requirements for development, reporting,
monitoring, and verification for quantifying net carbon
sequestration--
``(aa) to ensure the permanence of the sequestration; and
``(bb) to ensure that the sequestration will not cause or
contribute to significant adverse effects on the environment.
``(iv) Deadlines for development.--The guidelines under
clause (i) shall be developed--
``(I) with respect to projects described in paragraph
(3)(A), not later than January 1, 2005; and
``(II) with respect to projects described in paragraph
(3)(B), not later than January 1, 2006.
``(v) Updating of guidelines.--The independent review board
shall periodically update the guidelines as the independent
review board determines to be appropriate.
``(E) Certification of projects.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), subparagraph
(A)(ii), and paragraph (3), the independent review board
shall certify projects as eligible for additional carbon
dioxide allowances.
``(ii) Limitation.--The independent review board shall not
certify a project under this subsection if the carbon dioxide
emission reductions achieved by the project will be used to
satisfy any requirement imposed on any foreign country or any
industrial sector to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases
emitted by the foreign country or industrial sector.
``(3) Projects eligible for additional carbon dioxide
allowances.--
``(A) Projects carried out in calendar years 1990 through
2008.--
``(i) In general.--The independent review board may certify
as eligible for carbon dioxide allowances a project that--
``(I) is carried out on or after January 1, 1990, and
before January 1, 2009; and
``(II) consists of--
``(aa) a carbon sequestration project carried out in the
United States or a foreign country;
``(bb) a project reported under section 1605(b) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)); or
``(cc) any other project to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases that is carried out in the United States or a foreign
country.
``(ii) Maximum quantity of additional carbon dioxide
allowances.--The Administrator may make available to projects
certified under clause (i) a quantity of allowances that is
not greater than 10 percent of the tonnage limitation for
calendar year 2009 for emissions of carbon dioxide from
affected units specified in section 702(d)(1).
``(iii) Use of allowances.--Allowances made available under
clause (ii) may be used to comply with subsection (f)(1) in
calendar year 2009 or any calendar year thereafter.
``(B) Projects carried out in calendar year 2009 and
thereafter.--The independent review board may certify as
eligible for carbon dioxide allowances a project that--
``(i) is carried out on or after January 1, 2009; and
``(ii) consists of--
[[Page S5081]]
``(I) a carbon sequestration project carried out in the
United States or a foreign country; or
``(II) a project to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (on
a carbon dioxide equivalency basis determined by the
independent review board) of a source of greenhouse gases
that is not an affected unit.
``(e) Carbon Dioxide Allowance Transfer System.--
``(1) Use of allowances.--The regulations promulgated under
subsection (a)(1) shall--
``(A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance
with paragraph (3)) of any carbon dioxide allowance before
the calendar year for which the carbon dioxide allowance is
allocated;
``(B) provide that unused carbon dioxide allowances may be
carried forward and added to carbon dioxide allowances
allocated for subsequent years;
``(C) provide that unused carbon dioxide allowances may be
transferred by--
``(i) the person to which the carbon dioxide allowances are
allocated; or
``(ii) any person to which the carbon dioxide allowances
are transferred; and
``(D) provide that carbon dioxide allowances allocated and
transferred under this section may be transferred into any
other market-based carbon dioxide emission trading program
that is--
``(i) approved by the President; and
``(ii) implemented in accordance with regulations developed
by the Administrator or the head of any other Federal agency.
``(2) Use by persons to which carbon dioxide allowances are
transferred.--Any person to which carbon dioxide allowances
are transferred under paragraph (1)(C)--
``(A) may use the carbon dioxide allowances in the calendar
year for which the carbon dioxide allowances were allocated,
or in a subsequent calendar year, to demonstrate compliance
with subsection (f)(1); or
``(B) may transfer the carbon dioxide allowances to any
other person for the purpose of demonstration of that
compliance.
``(3) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a carbon
dioxide allowance shall not take effect until a written
certification of the transfer, authorized by a responsible
official of the person making the transfer, is received and
recorded by the Administrator.
``(4) Permit requirements.--An allocation or transfer of
carbon dioxide allowances to a covered unit, or for a project
carried out on behalf of a covered unit, under subsection (c)
or (d) shall, after recording by the Administrator, be
considered to be part of the federally enforceable permit of
the covered unit under this Act, without a requirement for
any further review or revision of the permit.
``(f) Compliance and Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--For calendar year 2009 and each calendar
year thereafter--
``(A) the operator of each affected unit and each renewable
energy unit shall surrender to the Administrator a quantity
of carbon dioxide allowances that is equal to the total tons
of carbon dioxide emitted by the affected unit or renewable
energy unit during the calendar year; and
``(B) the operator of each nuclear generating unit that has
incremental nuclear generation shall surrender to the
Administrator a quantity of carbon dioxide allowances that is
equal to the total tons of carbon dioxide emitted by the
nuclear generating unit during the calendar year from
incremental nuclear generation.
``(2) Monitoring system.--The Administrator shall
promulgate regulations requiring the accurate monitoring of
the quantity of carbon dioxide that is emitted at each
covered unit.
``(3) Reporting.--
``(A) In general.--Not less often than quarterly, the owner
or operator of a covered unit, or a person that carries out a
project certified under subsection (d) on behalf of a covered
unit, shall submit to the Administrator a report on the
monitoring of carbon dioxide emissions carried out at the
covered unit in accordance with the regulations promulgated
under paragraph (2).
``(B) Authorization.--Each report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall be authorized by a responsible
official of the covered unit, who shall certify the accuracy
of the report.
``(C) Public reporting.--The Administrator shall make
available to the public, through 1 or more published reports
and 1 or more forms of electronic media, data concerning the
emissions of carbon dioxide from each covered unit.
``(4) Excess emissions.--
``(A) In general.--The owner or operator of a covered unit
that emits carbon dioxide in excess of the carbon dioxide
allowances that the owner or operator holds for use for the
covered unit for the calendar year shall--
``(i) pay an excess emissions penalty determined under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) offset the excess emissions by an equal quantity in
the following calendar year or such other period as the
Administrator shall prescribe.
``(B) Determination of excess emissions penalty.--The
excess emissions penalty shall be equal to the product
obtained by multiplying--
``(i) the number of tons of carbon dioxide emitted in
excess of the total quantity of carbon dioxide allowances
held; and
``(ii) $100, adjusted (in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Administrator) for changes in the Consumer
Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the
Department of Labor.
``(g) Allowance Not a Property Right.--A carbon dioxide
allowance--
``(1) is not a property right; and
``(2) may be terminated or limited by the Administrator.
``(h) No Judicial Review.--An allocation of carbon dioxide
allowances by the Administrator under subsection (c) or (d)
shall not be subject to judicial review.''.
SEC. 4. NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM.
Section 165 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7475) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Revisions to New Source Review Program.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Covered unit.--The term `covered unit' has the
meaning given the term in section 701.
``(B) New source review program.--The term `new source
review program' means the program to carry out section 111
and this part.
``(2) Regulations.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations revising the new
source review program.
``(3) Applicability criteria.--Beginning January 1, 2009,
the new source review program shall apply only to--
``(A) construction of a new covered unit (which
construction shall include the replacement of an existing
boiler); and
``(B) an activity that results in any increase in the
maximum hourly rate of emissions from a covered unit of air
pollutants regulated under the new source review program
(measured in pounds per megawatt hour), after netting among
covered units at a source.
``(4) Performance standards.--Beginning in 2020, each
affected unit (as defined in section 701(1)(B)) on which
construction commenced before August 17, 1971, shall meet
performance standards of--
``(A) 4.5 lbs/MWh for sulfur dioxide; and
``(B) 2.5 lbs/MWh for nitrogen oxides.
``(5) Biennial identification of best available control
technologies and lowest achievable emission rates.--
Notwithstanding the definitions of `best available control
technology' under section 169 and `lowest achievable emission
rate' under section 171, the Administrator shall identify the
best available control technologies and lowest achievable
emission rates, on a biennial basis, as those rates and
technologies apply to covered units.
``(6) Revision of lowest achievable emission rate with
respect to considered costs.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the definition of
`lowest achievable emission rate' under section 171, with
respect to technology required to be installed by the
electric generating sector, costs may be considered in the
determination of the lowest achievable emission rate, so
that, beginning January 1, 2009, a covered unit (as defined
in section 701) shall not be required to install technology
required to meet a lowest achievable emission rate if the
cost of the technology exceeds the maximum amount determined
under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Maximum amount of cost.--The maximum amount referred
to in subparagraph (A) shall be an amount (in dollars per
ton) that--
``(i) is determined by the Administrator; but
``(ii) does not exceed an amount equal to twice the amount
of the applicable cost guideline for best available control
technology.
``(7) Emission offsets.--No source within the electric
generating sector that locates in a nonattainment area after
December 31, 2008, shall be required to obtain offsets for
emissions of air pollutants.
``(8) Adverse local air quality impacts.--The regulations
shall require each State--
``(A) to identify areas in the State that adversely affect
local air quality; and
``(B) to impose such facility-specific and other measures
as are necessary to remedy the adverse effects in accordance
with the national pollutant tonnage limitations under section
702.
``(9) No effect on other requirements.--Nothing in this
subsection affects the obligation of any State or local
government to comply with the requirements established under
this section concerning--
``(A) national ambient air quality standards;
``(B) maximum allowable air pollutant increases or maximum
allowable air pollutant concentrations; or
``(C) protection of visibility and other air quality-
related values in areas designated as class I areas under
part C of title I.''.
SEC. 5. REVISIONS TO SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Title IV of the Clean Air Act (relating to
acid deposition control) (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 417. REVISIONS TO SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `affected
unit' and `new unit' have the meanings given the terms in
section 701.
``(b) Regulations.--Not later than January 1, 2004, the
Administrator shall promulgate such revisions to the
regulations to implement this title as the Administrator
determines to be necessary to implement section 702(a).
``(c) New Unit Reserve.--
[[Page S5082]]
``(1) Establishment.--Subject to the annual tonnage
limitation for emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected
units specified in section 702(a), the Administrator shall
establish by regulation a reserve of allowances to be set
aside for use by new units.
``(2) Determination of quantity.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall determine,
based on projections of electricity output for new units--
``(A) not later than June 30, 2005, the quantity of
allowances required to be held in reserve for new units for
each of calendar years 2009 through 2013; and
``(B) not later than June 30 of each fifth calendar year
thereafter, the quantity of allowances required to be held in
reserve for new units for the following 5-calendar year
period.
``(3) Allocation.--
``(A) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to establish a methodology for allocating
allowances to new units.
``(B) No judicial review.--An allocation of allowances by
the Administrator under this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review.
``(d) Existing Units.--
``(1) Allocation.--
``(A) Regulations.--Subject to the annual tonnage
limitation for emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected
units specified in section 702(a), and subject to the reserve
of allowances for new units under subsection (c), the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations to govern the
allocation of allowances to affected units that are not new
units.
``(B) Required elements.--The regulations shall provide
for--
``(i) the allocation of allowances on a fair and equitable
basis between affected units that received allowances under
section 405 and affected units that are not new units and
that did not receive allowances under that section, using for
both categories of units the same or similar allocation
methodology as was used under section 405; and
``(ii) the pro-rata distribution of allowances to all units
described in clause (i), subject to the annual tonnage
limitation for emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected
units specified in section 702(a).
``(2) Timing of allocations.--The Administrator shall
allocate allowances to affected units--
``(A) not later than December 31, 2005, for calendar year
2009; and
``(B) not later than December 31 of calendar year 2006 and
each calendar year thereafter, for the fourth calendar year
that begins after that December 31.
``(3) No judicial review.--An allocation of allowances by
the Administrator under this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review.
``(e) Western Regional Air Partnership.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Covered state.--The term `covered State' means each
of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
``(B) Covered year.--The term `covered year' means--
``(i)(I)(aa) the third calendar year after the first
calendar year in which the Administrator determines by
regulation that the total of the annual emissions of sulfur
dioxide from all affected units in the covered States is
projected to exceed 271,000 tons in calendar year 2018 or any
calendar year thereafter; but
``(bb) not earlier than calendar year 2016; or
``(II) if the Administrator does not make the determination
described in subclause (I)(aa)--
``(aa) the third calendar year after the first calendar
year with respect to which the total of the annual emissions
of sulfur dioxide from all affected units in the covered
States first exceeds 271,000 tons; but
``(bb) not earlier than calendar year 2021; and
``(ii) each calendar year after the calendar year
determined under clause (i).
``(2) Maximum emissions of sulfur dioxide from each
affected unit.--In each covered year, the emissions of sulfur
dioxide from each affected unit in a covered State shall not
exceed the number of allowances that are allocated under
paragraph (3) and held by the affected unit for the covered
year.
``(3) Allocation of allowances.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2013, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations to establish--
``(i) a methodology for allocating allowances to affected
units in covered States under this subsection; and
``(ii) the timing of the allocations.
``(B) No judicial review.--An allocation of allowances by
the Administrator under this paragraph shall not be subject
to judicial review.''.
(b) Definition of Allowance.--Section 402 of the Clean Air
Act (relating to acid deposition control) (42 U.S.C. 7651a)
is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Allowance.--The term `allowance' means an
authorization, allocated by the Administrator to an affected
unit under this title, to emit, during or after a specified
calendar year, a quantity of sulfur dioxide determined by the
Administrator and specified in the regulations promulgated
under section 417(b).''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Title IV of the Clean Air Act (relating to noise
pollution) (42 U.S.C. 7641 et seq.)--
(A) is amended by redesignating sections 401 through 403 as
sections 801 through 803, respectively; and
(B) is redesignated as title VIII and moved to appear at
the end of that Act.
(2) The table of contents for title IV of the Clean Air Act
(relating to acid deposition control) (42 U.S.C. prec. 7651)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 417. Revisions to sulfur dioxide allowance program.''.
SEC. 6. AIR QUALITY FORECASTS AND WARNINGS.
(a) Requirement for Forecasts and Warnings.--The Secretary
of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in cooperation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
shall issue air quality forecasts and air quality warnings as
part of the mission of the Department of Commerce.
(b) Regional Warnings.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary of Commerce shall establish within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a program to provide
region-oriented forecasts and warnings regarding air quality
for each of the following regions of the United States:
(1) The Northeast, composed of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
(2) The Mid-Atlantic, composed of Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia.
(3) The Southeast, composed of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina.
(4) The South, composed of Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.
(5) The Midwest, composed of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
(6) The High Plains, composed of Kansas, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota.
(7) The Northwest, composed of Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
Washington, and Wyoming.
(8) The Southwest, composed of Arizona, California,
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah.
(9) Alaska.
(10) Hawaii.
(c) Priority Area.--In establishing the program described
in subsection (a), the Secretary of Commerce and the
Administrator shall identify and expand, to the maximum
extent practicable, Federal air quality forecast and warning
programs in effect as of the date of establishment of the
program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.
(a) Exemption From Hazardous Air Pollutant Requirements
Relating to Mercury.--Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7412) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Mercury emitted from certain affected units.--Not
later than 8 years after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Administrator shall carry out the duties of
the Administrator under this subsection with respect to
mercury emitted from affected units (as defined in section
701).''; and
(2) in subsection (n)(1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``(A) The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Study, report, and regulations.--
``(i) Study and report to congress.--The Administrator'';
(B) by striking ``The Administrator'' in the fourth
sentence and inserting the following:
``(ii) Regulations.--
``(I) In general.--The Administrator''; and
(C) in clause (ii) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(II) Exemption for certain affected units relating to
mercury.--An affected unit (as defined in section 701) that
would otherwise be subject to mercury emission standards
under subclause (I) shall not be subject to mercury emission
standards under subclause (I) or subsection (c).''.
(b) Temporary Exemption From Visibility Protection
Requirements.--Section 169A(c) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7491(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this subsection'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Temporary exemption for certain affected units.--An
affected unit (as defined in section 701) shall not be
subject to subsection (b)(2)(A) during the period--
``(A) beginning on the date of enactment of this paragraph;
and
``(B) ending on the date that is 20 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph.''.
(c) No Effect on Other Federal and State Requirements.--
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act,
nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act--
(1) affects any permitting, monitoring, or enforcement
obligation of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) or any remedy provided under that Act;
(2) affects any requirement applicable to, or liability of,
an electric generating facility under that Act;
[[Page S5083]]
(3) requires a change in, affects, or limits any State law
that regulates electric utility rates or charges, including
prudency review under State law; or
(4) precludes a State or political subdivision of a State
from adopting and enforcing any requirement for the control
or abatement of air pollution, except that a State or
political subdivision may not adopt or enforce any emission
standard or limitation that is less stringent than the
requirements imposed under that Act.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper
today to introduce the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003. Congress needs
to advance four-pollutant legislation that offers the best chance for
broad bipartisan support, and I believe this bill meets that test. The
testimony received through hearings in the Environment and Public Works
Committee over the past several years has clearly outlined the need for
controlling the major emissions from power plants--sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide--while at the same time
recognizing the added costs of these new controls. We know through
experience that we will only be successful at passing legislation if we
find middle ground.
The parameters of this debate have been established. Some will say
this bill doesn't go far enough in some respects. Others will say the
legislation goes too far, especially as it pertains to the mandatory
control of carbon dioxide emissions. However, the relationship of
fossil fuels to global warming is clear and scientifically validated.
The ``U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' released by the administration
last May tells us we need to take real actions to address the problem.
The longer we wait, the harder this problem will be to solve. The Rio
Convention is a perfect example of why waiting is not reasonable. In
1992, we agreed to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels.
It didn't happen. Now, in 2003 we are told that reductions to 1990
levels will stall the economy. If we wait much longer before taking any
action, imagine how much harder it will be to achieve real reductions
without harming the economy.
The legislation we are introducing today would achieve significant
reductions in a more cost effective way than other proposals. For
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, we will establish
emissions caps that are superior to reductions that will be achieved
under the existing Clean Air Act. In addition, for the first time, we
will ensure real reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are achieved.
By 2013, the utility sector will be required to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions to 2001 levels. This proposal will allow the United States to
address carbon pollution for the first time and, when compared to a
three-pollutant bill, at very small incremental costs.
I believe that the Carper-Chafee bill offers a real opportunity to
break the stalemate that exists today and begin an honest debate that
will eventually lead to enactment of strong legislation. I look forward
to working with all of my colleagues as we move forward to pass a bill
that enjoys the broadest support and adequately addresses the serious
health, environmental, and economic issues facing the Nation.
______
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Allard,
Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Craig):
S. 844. A bill to subject the United States to imposition of fees and
costs in proceedings relating to State water rights adjudications; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication
Fee Fairness Act. This bill would require the Federal Government to pay
the same filing fees and costs associated with state water rights
adjudications as is currently required of States and private parties.
To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of
many States, particularly in the West--States must conduct lengthy,
complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications.
In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring
Federal claims to be adjudicated in these State proceedings by adopting
the McCarran Amendment. The McCarran Amendment waives the sovereign
immunity of the United States and requires the Federal Government to
submit to State court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in
State general adjudication proceedings.
These Federal claims are typically among the most complicated and
largest of claims in State adjudications, and Federal agencies are
often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states
officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992,
the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S.
need not pay fees for processing Federal claims.
When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the
costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the
proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays
completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary
to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the
inability to protect private and public property interests or determine
how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important
environmental and economic development priorities.
Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like
other water users in the adjudication, Federal agencies can file
questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of
their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel
playing field favoring the Federal agencies and places a further
financial and resources burden on the system.
I recognize the Federal Government has a legitimate right to some
water rights; however, the Federal Government should play by the same
rules as the States and other private users. The Water Adjudication Fee
Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this situation by subjecting
the United States, when party to a general adjudication, to the same
fees and costs as State and private users in water rights
adjudications.
This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council
and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me
in supporting water users, taxpayers, the States, and welcome their co-
sponsorship.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Landrieu, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, and
Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 845. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to provide States with the option to cover certain legal immigrants
under the medicaid and State children's health insurance programs; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and a bipartisan group of co-
sponsors to introduce the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act
of 2003.
This legislation will give states the option to provide Medicaid and
State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, coverage to legal
immigrant children and pregnant women during their first five years in
this country.
Medicaid and CHIP are vital components of our nation's health care
safety net. They provide coverage to over 40 million non-elderly, low-
income Americans, most of them children. These programs have helped
dramatically reduce infant mortality, and they have provided health
care financing for millions of poor children whose families cannot
afford the high cost of private health insurance.
However, for many low-income families that are eligible for Medicaid
and CHIP, these safety net programs are little more than a mirage in a
desert--an illusion to those who need them most. The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,
commonly known as the welfare reform law, arbitrarily barred states
from using federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal
immigrants during their first five years in the United States. While
the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults,
the legislation unintentionally punished children.
Prior to 1996, Medicaid coverage was available to qualified children,
parents,
[[Page S5084]]
seniors, and people with disabilities in both citizen and legal
immigrant families alike. After passage of the 1996 welfare reform law,
many low-income and working legal immigrant families were left without
a viable option for health insurance coverage.
In fact, while the percentage of our nation's children with health
insurance has risen in recent years, the percentage of children in
immigrant families with health insurance has fallen. According to the
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, in 2000, half of low-
income children in such families were uninsured.
Florida is home to over half a million uninsured children, many of
whom are legal immigrants. Take the Sardinas family of Miami.
The Sardinas family immigrated to the United States from Cuba in
2001. Mr. Sardinas works in a factory assembling airplanes while Mrs.
Sardinas maintains a low-wage job. The family's four children--Swani,
17; Sinai, 13; Samuel, 8; and Sentia, 5--have been on a State waiting
list for health insurance for almost two years. Sentia has allergies
and Swani suffers from asthma. Mrs. Sardinas worries about not having
access to regular check-ups for her children, but she has no choice.
She does not know what the family will do if Sentia has a severe
allergic reaction or Swani is hospitalized after an asthma attack.
The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act eliminates the
arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as a cutoff date for allowing
children to get health care. More than 155,000 children like Swani,
Sinai, Samuel, and Sentia will have access to health coverage each
year, allowing them to receive preventive services, have their chronic
conditions properly diagnosed and treated, and receive timely care for
acute conditions.
States have asked for this option. In its 2003 Winter Policy Report,
the National Governors Association endorsed this common-sense policy
proposal. The National Council of State Legislators has also endorsed
this bill.
Twenty-two States are already providing health coverage for legal
immigrants through State-funded replacement programs. However, severe
budget shortfalls may prevent such states from being able to continue
these important programs in the future. Our bill provides immediate
fiscal relief for these States by allowing them to draw down federal
matching funds. It also gives states that are not currently providing
health coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women the
flexibility to do so.
Legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same
social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children
are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It
is important that all children, both citizen children and legal
immigrant children alike, start off on the right foot towards full
civil participation.
Our bill is supported by Senators McCain, Daschle, Jeffords,
Bingaman, Lincoln, Collins, Kennedy, Feinstein, Corzine, Levin,
Sarbanes, Dodd, Landrieu, Boxer, Kerry, and Bill Nelson.
Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Henry Waxman of
California have also introduced bipartisan companion legislation in the
House.
We call upon Congress and the President to act this year and pass
this important bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Graham
and Senator Chafee in introducing the Immigrant Children's Health
Insurance Act, which will benefit tens of thousands of immigrant
children and families across the Nation.
The 1996 welfare reform legislation disqualified legal, taxpaying
immigrants from major Federal assistance programs, including health
coverage through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program. As a result, many of these individuals and families go without
needed care or rely on hospital emergency rooms for their care.
This bill will enable States to provide health insurance coverage for
legal immigrant children and pregnant women under Medicaid and SCHIP.
This is an important step in alleviating the health disparities that
exist for immigrant children. Research shows that children of immigrant
are twice as likely to be uninsured as children of U.S. citizens. They
are more than three times as likely not to have regular care, and more
than twice as likely to be in fair or poor health. Enacting this
legislation will help to eliminate these inequalities.
This bill will also help to reduce the number of uninsured in our
country. Today, there are 42 million uninsured, and 10 million are
children. Most of the uninsured are earning incomes below or near the
poverty line, and can't afford the high cost of private insurance. The
1996 legislation barring legal immigrants from federally funded health
care has contributed to the increase in the number of uninsured. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cover an
additional 155,000 children and 06,000 pregnant women this year alone.
Throughout our history, immigrants have made important contributions
to our country. They work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules. In
fact, immigrants and their children make significant contributions to
our long-term economic well-being by adding an estimated $10 billion
annually to our economy. However, they are disproportionately employed
in low-wage, low-benefit jobs, and are more likely to be uninsured.
This bill will enable legal immigrant families to receive the services
they are paying for as taxpayers. It is a matter of basic fairness.
The bill makes good economic sense, as well. Twenty-six states and
the District of Columbia already use their own State funds to provide
medical coverage for legal immigrants, but continuing these programs is
becoming increasingly difficult as state budget constraints worsen. In
fact, Massachusetts, which currently provides health coverage at State
expense, is proposing to eliminate Medicaid for adult immigrants.
Allowing States to use Federal funds to support their health care
initiatives will provide needed fiscal relief, and ensure that these
children receive a health start.
Both good nutrition and adequate health care are fundamental for
health child development. Last year, with President Bush's support,
Congress restored food stamp benefits to legal immigrants in the farm
bill. It is long past time for Congress to guarantee that legal
immigrants also have access to health care.
America has a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants, and we must
live up to our history and heritage as a nation of immigrants.
Restoring these health benefits will ensure that children in immigrant
families have the same opportunities for good health as every other
child in the Nation. The Immigrant Children's Health Insurance Act is a
needed step to achieve this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support
this important legislation.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 846. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction for premiums on mortgage insurance, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my Finance Committee
colleague, Senator Lincoln, to introduce the The Mortgage Insurance
Fairness Act. This legislation will extend the mortgage interest tax
deduction to mortgage insurance payment premiums, both government and
private. It will make mortgage insurance payments tax-deductible and
will boost homeownership in Oregon and across the Nation, for those
lower-income, minority and veteran borrowers that typically need
mortgage insurance to purchase a home.
It is widely recognized that homeownership helps create stable and
safe communities. Thus, the Federal Government has long sought to
increase homeownership. The Bush Administration has announced a target
of 5.5 million new homeowners by the year 2010. To achieve that goal,
groups that have typically had difficulty purchasing homes--young
people, low-income families, members of minority groups--must be able
to participate in the housing market.
Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time,
low-income and veteran borrowers afford to purchase a home. The
Veterans Affairs, VA, Federal Housing Authority, FHA, Regional Housing
Authority, RHA, and Private Mortgage Insurance,
[[Page S5085]]
PMI, programs allow buyers to make a down payment of 3 percent or less
of the appraised value. Mortgage insurance is a critical factor in
allowing middle-income families and minorities to become homeowners. In
Oregon, more than 137,000 families held mortgages with either FHA or
private mortgage insurance at the end of 2002 and insured mortgages
covered 25 percent of home purchase loans originating in 2001. Sixty-
two percent of the insured home purchases in Oregon in 2001 were low-
income borrowers. The Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act will bring tax
relief to those who need it the most.
In 2001, nationwide, mortgage insurance covered 57 percent percent of
mortgage purchase loans made to African American and Hispanic borrowers
and 54 percent percent of the loans to borrowers with incomes below the
median income. The people who use mortgage insurance are regular
working families who live in every community throughout the country.
Currently, twelve million American families use mortgage insurance.
Presidently, these borrowers cannot deduct the cost of their mortgage
insurance payments for Federal tax purposes. If mortgage insurance
payments were made deductible, the cost of homeownership would be
further reduced for these borrowers, enabling new buyers to get into a
home that they might not have been able to afford. It is estimated that
the Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act would increase the number of
homeowners by 300,000 per year.
Extending the tax deduction for home mortgage interest payments to
mortgage insurance payments will significantly contribute to making the
American dream of owning a home come true for many more of our
citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this important bi-partisan
legislation and join us in working towards its enactment at the
earliest opportunity this year. I ask unanimous consent 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. 846
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 ``Mortgage Insurance Fairness
Act''.
SEC. 2. PREMIUMS FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 163(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified
residence interest) is amended by adding after subparagraph
(D) the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Mortgage insurance premiums treated as interest.--
``(i) In general.--Premiums paid or accrued for qualified
mortgage insurance by a taxpayer during the taxable year in
connection with acquisition indebtedness with respect to a
qualified residence of the taxpayer shall be treated for
purposes of this subsection as qualified residence interest.
``(ii) Phaseout.--The amount otherwise allowable as a
deduction under clause (i) shall be reduced (but not below
zero) by 10 percent of such amount for each $1,000 ($500 in
the case of a married individual filing a separate return)
(or fraction thereof) that the taxpayer's adjusted gross
income for the taxable year exceeds $100,000 ($50,000 in the
case of a married individual filing a separate return).''.
(b) Definition and Special Rules.--Paragraph (4) of section
163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
other definitions and special rules) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(E) Qualified mortgage insurance.--The term `qualified
mortgage insurance' means--
``(i) mortgage insurance provided by the Veterans
Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, or the
Rural Housing Administration, and
``(ii) private mortgage insurance (as defined by section 2
of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901), as
in effect on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph).
``(F) Special rules for prepaid qualified mortgage
insurance.--Any amount paid by the taxpayer for qualified
mortgage insurance that is properly allocable to any mortgage
the payment of which extends to periods that are after the
close of the taxable year in which such amount is paid shall
be chargeable to capital account and shall be treated as paid
in such periods to which so allocated. No deduction shall be
allowed for the unamortized balance of such account if such
mortgage is satisfied before the end of its term. The
preceding sentences shall not apply to amounts paid for
qualified mortgage insurance provided by the Veterans
Administration or the Rural Housing Administration.''.
SEC. 3. INFORMATION RETURNS RELATING TO MORTGAGE INSURANCE.
Section 6050H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to returns relating to mortgage interest received
in trade or business from individuals) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Returns Relating to Mortgage Insurance Premiums.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may prescribe, by
regulations, that any person who, in the course of a trade or
business, receives from any individual premiums for mortgage
insurance aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year,
shall make a return with respect to each such individual.
Such return shall be in such form, shall be made at such
time, and shall contain such information as the Secretary may
prescribe.
``(2) Statement to be furnished to individuals with respect
to whom information is required.--Every person required to
make a return under paragraph (1) shall furnish to each
individual with respect to whom a return is made a written
statement showing such information as the Secretary may
prescribe. Such written statement shall be furnished on or
before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for
which the return under paragraph (1) was required to be made.
``(3) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) rules similar to the rules of subsection (c) shall
apply, and
``(B) the term `mortgage insurance' means--
``(i) mortgage insurance provided by the Veterans
Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, or the
Rural Housing Administration, and
``(ii) private mortgage insurance (as defined by section 2
of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901), as
in effect on the date of the enactment of this
subparagraph).''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to amounts paid
or accrued after the date of enactment of this Act in taxable
years ending after such date.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Bingaman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms.
Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 847. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
permit States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for low income
individuals infected with HIV; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early
Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA, of 2003. Senator Clinton joins me in
introducing this bill, and I want to thank her for her steadfast
support for people living with HIV. HIV knows no party affiliation, and
I am pleased to say that ETHA cosponsors sit on both sides of the
aisle.
Simply stated, ETHA gives States the opportunity to extend Medicaid
coverage to low-income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop
full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that AIDS must
disable most patients before they can qualify for Medicaid coverage. We
can do better, and we should do everything possible to ensure that all
people living with HIV can get early, effective medical care.
Current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the
progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and
quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. That is
why it was so devastating for people in Oregon when, just a few weeks
ago, the state announced that its Medically Needy program ran out of
money, and that many patients, including those living with HIV, would
have to go elsewhere for their treatments. The fact of the matter is
that safety net programs all over the country are running out of money,
and are generally unable to cover all of the people who need paying for
their medical care. As other programs are failing, ETHA gives States
another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals.
Importantly, ETHA also offers states an enhanced Federal Medicaid
match, which means more money for States that invest in treatments for
HIV. This provision models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer
Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows states to provide
early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer.
Even in these difficult times, forty-five states are now offering early
Medicaid coverage to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can
build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early
intervention treatments to people with HIV.
HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of people living in every
State in
[[Page S5086]]
the Union. Some get the proper medications, and too many do not. This
is literally a life and death issue, and ETHA can help many more
Americans enjoy long, healthy lives.
I want to thank Senators Collins, Bingaman, Cantwell, Corzine,
Feinstein, Landrieu, Murray, and Wyden for joining us as cosponsors of
ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country
that have expressed support for this bill. I have received a stack of
support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent
that those letters be printed in the Congressional Record. In
particular, I want to thank the ADAP Working Group and the Treatment
Access Expansion Project, led by Robert Greenwald, for helping bring so
much attention to ETHA. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in
supporting this critical, life-saving legislation.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Foundation
for Aids Research,
Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you for your
sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003
(ETHA), which would allow states to extend Medicaid coverage
to low-income people living with HIV.
Currently, Medicaid coverage is limited to people who meet
very strict income requirements and meet other
qualifications, such as being disabled. The disability
requirements for Medicaid are such that many low-income
uninsured people living with HIV are unable to qualify for
Medicaid until their disease has progressed to the point
where they are fully disabled by AIDS. Since individuals who
are HIV-positive generally do not qualify for Medicaid, many
do not have access to the early intervention and treatment
that can help slow the progression of HIV and prevent the
onset of opportunistic infections.
There are many benefits to providing access to early
intervention and treatment to low-income HIV-positive people.
By delaying the progression from HIV to AIDS, savings in
treatment costs are realized. Most important, however, the
health and quality of life of individuals living with HIV is
greatly improved.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with
the option of extending Medicaid coverage to low-income, non-
disabled people living with HIV. As a result, ETHA could help
provide early access to care for thousands of individuals
around the country.
We thank you for your leadership and sponsorship of this
very important legislation.
Sincerely,
Jerome J. Radwin,
Chief Executive Officer.
____
Human Rights Campaign,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you, on behalf of
the more than 500,000 members of the Human Rights Campaign,
for your sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of
2003.
Currently, childless adults living with HIV generally only
qualify for Medicaid coverage once they become eligible for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because an individual is
not eligible for SSI until they become disabled, a person
with asymptomatic HIV infection is not eligible for Medicaid
until he or she has progressed to full-blown AIDS. Since HIV-
positive individuals do not qualify for Medicaid, many lack
the ability to receive medical care and medicine to help slow
the progression of the HIV and to prevent the onset of
opportunistic infections.
Treating those who are HIV-positive early in the
progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By
making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will
diminish, new HIV infections will decrease because of the
lower viral loads, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program will be
able to provide care to more individuals with HIV because of
savings, and most importantly, the quality of life for
countless HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply
put, providing coverage earlier rather than later is the
right thing to do.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with
the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as
`categorically needy'. In this way, this legislation is very
similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide states
with the option of providing Medicaid coverage to women
diagnosed, through a federally funded program, with breast or
cervical cancer.
On behalf of the countless people whose lives will be
improved by enactment of this legislation, we thank you for
your leadership and your sponsoring this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Winnie Stachelberg,
Political Director.
____
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center,
Los Angeles, CA, April 4, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian
Center, I am writing to thank you for agreeing to be the lead
sponsors of the Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). We
wholeheartedly support your efforts to ensure that low-income
people with HIV have access to health care by allowing States
the option to expand Medicaid programs to cover non-disabling
HIV disease.
ETHA represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to
care for thousands of low-income people living with HIV.
Current HIV treatments are successfully delaying the
progression from HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health
and quality of life for many people living with the disease.
However, without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
disabled, low-income people with HIV.
Research has shown that providing highly active
antiretroviral therapy produces significant cost-savings in
reduced hospital costs. By preserving the health of people
living with HIV, preventing opportunistic infections
associated with the disease, and slowing the progression to
AIDS, the Early Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save
taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, should ETHA become law,
the United States will take an important step towards
ensuring that all people living with HIV can get the medical
care they need to stay healthy for as long as possible,
enabling individuals to lead productive lives.
Increasing need as people with HIV live longer and the rise
in new infections demand additional resources to provide care
and treatment. It is unconscionable that low-income people
with HIV should not have access to care and treatment. The
demographics of the HIV epidemic have shifted into more
impoverished and marginalized communities. Rates of HIV
infection are staggeringly high in some communities, with one
in ten gay men infected and one in three African American gay
men living with HIV.
In an era of constrained federal resources for health care
spending, we must aggressively fight for effective means to
finance care for people with HIV. This bill will begin to
address these challenges through a permanent funding
solution, allowing states to expand the safety net to cover
eligible persons with early-stage HIV disease.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Isaacs,
Interim Executive Director.
____
San Francisco AIDS Foundation,
San Francisco, CA, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: The San Francisco AIDS
Foundation would like to thank you for your sponsorship of
the Early Treatment for HIV Act 2003.
The Act would provide states with the option of covering
low-income people living with HIV as `categorically needy'
provide them with medical care and treatment, reduce long
term health care costs to states, and address a serious gap
in public health care access. Recent breakthroughs in medical
science and clinical practice have transformed the
possibilities in HIV/AIDS care in the United States. Today,
we know that early intervention with medical care and
treatment for HIV disease slows the progression of HIV and
prevents the onset of opportunistic infections. Application
of this knowledge lengthens the life expectancy and
dramatically improves the quality of life for many. These
changes in science and medical practice demand revisions in
the treatment of HIV disease under Medicaid.
Currently Medicaid eligibility for childless adults is tied
to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility. The
result of this determination is that people living with HIV
must wait for Medicaid access until their disease has
progressed to a disabling AIDS diagnosis. The cruel irony of
this practice is that individuals are forced to incur often-
irreparable damage to their immune systems before receiving
treatments that could have delayed or avoided the damage.
This is counter to sound public health practices and all but
guarantees higher cost of care for thousands of affected
individuals. This serious anomaly in public health care
coverage must be rectified by the enactment of this
legislation.
[[Page S5087]]
The AIDS Foundation thanks you both for your leadership and
sponsorship of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Ernest Hopkins,
Director of Federal Affairs.
____
Treatment Access
Expansion Project,
Boston, MA, April 7, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The Treatment Access Expansion Project (TAEP)
would like to thank you on behalf of our broad-based
coalition of members. Your leadership and support of the
Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA) and your commitment to
AIDS and to the HIV community are greatly appreciated.
As you are well aware, ETHA would allow states to extend
Medicaid coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV.
This breakthrough in assuring early access to care for
thousands of low-income people living with HIV is imperative.
Under current law, AIDS must disable most patients before
they can qualify for Medicaid coverage. Enacting ETHA into
law would represent an important step toward ensuring that
all people living with HIV could get the medical care
necessary to remain healthy for as long as possible.
Current HIV treatments are successful in delaying the
progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and thus help improve
the health and quality of life for many people living with
the disease. By preserving the health of people living with
HIV, preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the ETHA would
ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
The members of TAEP fully endorse the Early Treatment for
HIV Act and thank you again for your dedication to the
passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert Greenwald,
Project Director.
Endorsers of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, as of February 6, 2003
background
The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) is currently pending
in Congress. ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV.
Currently, most individuals with HIV must become disabled by
AIDS in orders to receive Medicaid coverage.
HIV/AIDS treatments are successfully delaying the
progression from HIV infection to full-blown AIDS. These
advancements have improved both the health and quality of
life for many people living with this disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for thousands
of non-disabled, low-income people living with HIV.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections, and slowing the
progression to AIDS, ETHA could ultimately save taxpayer
dollars. Most importantly, if ETHA can garner the bipartisan
support needed to become law, the United States will take an
important step towards ensuring that all people living with
HIV can get the medical care they need to stay healthy for as
long as possible.
endorsements
The following organizations support passage of the Early
Treatment for HIV Act:
ACT UP Atlanta, Atlanta, GA
ACT UP Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
ADAP Working Group, Washington, D.C.
AIDS Atlanta, Atlanta, GA
AIDS Action, Washington, D.C.
AIDS Action Baltimore, Baltimore, MD
AIDS Alabama, Birmingham, AL
AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth, and Families, Washington,
D.C.
AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Chicago, IL
AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Los Angeles, CA
AIDS Project Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
AIDS Project Rhode Island, Providence, RI
AIDS Services Foundation Orange County, Irvine, CA
AIDS Survival Project, Atlanta, GA
AIDS Taskforce of Greater Cleveland, Cleveland, OH
AIDS Treatment Data Network, New York, NY
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, New York, NY
AIDS Volunteers of Northern Kentucky, Covington, KY
Africa Eridge, Inc., West Linn, OR
American Foundation for AIDS Research, Washington, D.C.
American Society of Addiction Medicine, Chevy Chase, MD
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs,
Washington, D.C.
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Washington,
D.C.
AsUR Volunteer Services, Oakland, CA
Beaver County AIDS Service Organization, Aliquippa, PA
Center for AIDS: Hope & Remembrance Project, Houston, TX
Center for Women Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.
Community Advisory Board of the Miriam ACTG, Providence, RI
Community Care Management, Johnstown, PA
Council on AIDS In Rockland, Rockland, NY
Critical Path AIDS Project, Philadelphia, PA
District of Columbia Primary Care Association, Washington,
D.C.
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Florida AIDS Action, Tampa, FL
Florida Keys HIV Community Planning Partnership, Key West, FL
Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research, Brooklyn, NY
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, San Francisco, CA
Gay Men's Health Crisis, New York, NY
Georgia AIDS Coalition, Inc., Snellville, GA
HIV/AIDS Alliance for Region Two, Inc. (HAART), Baton Rouge,
LA
HIV/AIDS Dietetic Practice Group, American Dietetic
Association, Chicago, IL/Washington, D.C.
HIV/AIDS Women's Caucus of Long Beach and South Bay, Long
Beach, CA
HIV/Hepatitis C in Prison Committee/California Prison Focus,
San Francisco, CA
HIV Medicine Association, Alexandria, VA
HUG-M3 Program at Orlando Regional Healthcare, Orlando, FL
Human Rights Campaign, Washington, D.C.
International AIDS Empowerment, El Paso, TX
Kitsap Human Rights Network, Silverdale, WA
Lifelong AIDS Alliance, Seattle, WA
Louisiana Lesbian and Gay Political Action Caucus, New
Orleans, LA
Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, Los Angeles, CA
Matthew 25 AIDS Services, Inc., Henderson, KY
Michigan Advocates Exchange, Ypsilanti, MI
Michigan Persons Living With AIDS Task Force, Okemos, MI
Montrose Clinic, Houston, TX
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors,
Washington, D.C.
National Association of People With AIDS, Washington, D.C.
National Association for Victims of Transfusion-Acquired
AIDS, Bethesda, MD
National Coalition for LGBT Health, Washington, D.C.
National Center on Poverty Law, Chicago, IL
National Health Law Program, Los Angeles, CA
National Minority AIDS Council, Washington, D.C.
New York City AIDS Housing Network, New York, NY
NO/AIDS Task Force, New Orleans, LA
North Carolina Council for Positive Living, Raleigh, NC
Northern Manhattan Women & Children HIV Project, Mailman
School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York,
NY
Northland Cares, Flagstaff, AZ
Okaloosa AIDS Support and Informational Services (OASIS),
Fort Walton Beach, FL
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG),
Washington, D.C.
Philadelphia FIGHT, Philadelphia, PA
Pierce County AIDS Foundation, Tacoma, WA
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office, Washington,
D.C.
Primary Health Care, Inc., Des Moines, IA
Program for Wellness Restoration, Houston, TX
Project Inform, San Francisco, CA
Provincetown AIDS Support Group, Provincetown, MA
Power of Love Foundation, San Diego, CA
San Antonio AIDS Foundation, San Antonio, TX
San Francisco AIDS Foundation, San Francisco, CA
San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium, San Francisco, CA
Shelter Resources, Inc. d.b.a. Belle Reve New Orleans, New
Orleans, LA
STOP AIDS Project, San Francisco, CA
Test Positive Aware Network, Chicago, IL
Title II Community AIDS Action Network, Washington, D.C.
Treatment Action Group, New York, NY
United Communities AIDS Network, Olympia, WA
University of IOWA HIV Program, Iowa City, IA
Vermont People With AIDS Coalition, Montpelier, VT
Visionary Health Concepts, New York, NY
Whitmar Walker Clinic, Washington, D.C.
Williamsburg/Greenpoint/Bushwick HIV CARE Network, Brooklyn,
NY
Women Accepting Responsibility, Baltimore, MD
Women's HIV Collaborative of New York, New York, NY.
____
ADAP,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2003.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: ETHA--The Early Treatment for HIV Act
Dear Senator Clinton and Senator Smith: I write on behalf
of our membership to express our support and appreciation for
your bipartisan efforts in introducing the Early Treatment
for HIV Act.
Passage of this act into law is a priority for this
coalition and we believe ETHA can eventually be a major step
towards providing the medically desirable early access to
treatment, medical care, support services and prevention
education for Americans with HIV disease.
[[Page S5088]]
While we recognize that budgetary resources are constrained
we also recognize the cost effectiveness potential ETHA would
present to state government resources. Naturally we also
realize the extreme health importance of insuring proper
medical attention and access to care at the earliest possible
moment for HIV + patients.
Thank you for your leadership in this very important effort
to deliver health care to HIV + positive Americans who
otherwise are likely to have to wait until diagnosed with
full blown AIDS before receiving access to Medicare which
would then be able to provide them with the care and
treatment which could prevent them from progressing to full
blown AIDS--in the first place.
Our membership intends to devote time and every towards
passing ETHA into law as this session of Congress proceeds.
We are aware of hundreds of other organizations that are
equally committed to the passage of ETHA. We look forward to
actively supporting your efforts and to a final passage of
ETHA during the 108th Congress.
Sincerely,
William E. Arnold,
Director.
____
Whitman-Walker Clinic,
April 8, 2003.
The Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The Hon. Hilary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: On behalf of the thousands
of men and women with HIV served by Whitman-Walker Clinic,
the board of directors, staff and volunteers thank you for
introducing the Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). We
strongly support the goals of this legislation and are
grateful for your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, as well as improving the health and
quality of life for many people living with the disease.
However, without access to early intervention, health care
and treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many
non-disabled, low-income people with HIV.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early
Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States
will take an important step towards ensuring that all people
living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay
healthy for as long as possible.
Whitman-Walker Clinic provides a broad range of services
including HIV testing and counseling, medical and dental
care, substance abuse and mental health services and housing.
Yet maintaining access to these services for those in need is
increasingly difficult.
Despite nearly two decades of success in HIV prevention and
care which has kept tens of thousands alive and healthy in
our community, Washington, DC has a rate of AIDS ten times
the national average. And, our region, including Northern
Virginia and Suburban Maryland, ranks 5th in reported number
of cases.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. We look forward to working with you to
secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Levin,
Board Chair.
A. Cornelius Baker,
Executive Director.
____
National Coalition
for LGBT Health,
Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you, on behalf of
the more than 75 organizations of the National Coalition for
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health, for your
sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003.
Currently, childless adults living with HIV generally only
qualify for Medicaid coverage once they become eligible for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because an individual is
not eligible for SSI until they become disabled, a person
with a symptomatic HIV infection is not eligible for Medicaid
until he or she has progressed to AIDS. Since HIV-positive
individuals do not qualify for Medicaid, many lack the
ability to receive medical care and medicine to help slow the
progression of the HIV and to prevent the onset of
opportunistic infections.
Treating those who are HIV-positive early in the
progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By
making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will
diminish, due to cost savings the AIDS Drug Assistance
Program will be able to provide care to more individuals with
HIV, and most importantly, the quality of life for countless
HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply put,
providing coverage earlier rather than later improved lives
and reduces cost for all.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with
the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as
``categorically needy.'' In this way, this legislation is
very similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide
states with the option of providing Medicaid coverage to
women diagnosed, through a federally funded program, with
breast or cervical cancer.
On behalf of the countless people whose lives will be
improved by enactment of this legislation, we thank you for
your leadership and your sponsoring this important
legislation.
Very truly yours,
A. Cornelius Baker,
Co-Chair, Executive Committee.
Eugenia Handler,
Co-Chair, Executive Committee.
____
Gay & Lesbian Medical Association,
San Francisco, CA, April 7, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you, on behalf of
the more than 1,500 members of the Gay & Lesbian Medical
Association, for your sponsorship of the Early Treatment for
HIV Act of 2003.
Currently, childless adults living with HIV generally only
qualified for Medicaid coverage once they become eligible for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because an individual is
not eligible for SSI until they become disabled, a person
with asymptomatic HIV infection is not eligible for Medicaid
until he or she has progressed to full-blown AIDS. Since HIV-
positive individuals do not quality for Medicaid, many lack
the ability to receive medical care and medicine to help slow
the progression of the HIV and to prevent the onset of
opportunistic infections.
Treating those who are HIV-positive early in the
progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By
making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will
diminish, new HIV infections will decrease because of the
lower viral loads, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program will be
able to provide care to more individuals with HIV because of
savings, and most importantly, the quality of life for
countless HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply
put, providing coverage earlier rather than later is the
right thing to do.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with
the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as
`categorically needy'. In this way, this legislation is very
similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide states
with the option of providing Medicaid coverage, through a
federally funded program, to women diagnosed with breast or
cervical cancer.
On behalf of the countless people whose lives will be
improved by enactment of this legislation, we thank you for
your leadership and your sponsoring this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Haller Jr.,
President.
____
Vermont PWA Coalition,
Montpelier, VT, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Vermont People with
AIDS Coalition, I am writing to thank you for agreeing to be
the lead sponsor of the Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA).
We strongly support this legislation and are greatful for
your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of
life for many people living with the disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
disabled, low-income people with HIV.
Access to health care is an important issue for all
Vermonters. Any program that will give people who are HIV+
early access to medical care gets our enthusiastic support.
In the long run, early treatment will save money and, more
importantly, keep people healthy and productive.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early
Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States
will take an important step towards ensuring that all people
living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay
healthy for as long as possible.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Kathy Kilcourse,
Program Administrator.
[[Page S5089]]
____
Beaver County AIDS
Service Organization,
Aliquippa, PA, April 7, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Beaver County AIDS
Service Organization (BCASO), I am writing to thank you for
agreeing to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment for
HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are
grateful for your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of
life for many people living with the disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
disabled, low-income people with HIV.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early
Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States
will take an important step towards ensuring that all people
living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay
healthy for as long as possible.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
David Adkins,
Program Coordinator.
____
AIDS Council
of Northeastern New York,
Albany, NY, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gordon: On behalf of the AIDS Council of
Northeastern New York, I am writing to thank you for agreeing
to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment for HIV Act
(ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are grateful
for your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of
life for many people living with the disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
disabled, low-income people with HIV.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early
Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States
will take an important step towards ensuring that all people
living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay
healthy for as long as possible.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Julie M. Harris,
Deputy Executive Director.
____
Morrison Center,
Portland, OR, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the thousands of parents
and children served by Parents Anonymous' of
Oregon, I wish to thank you for the support you have provided
to the Parents Anonymous' Programs in your State.
These vital federal funds and support from Parents
Anonymous' Inc. allow us to meet the ever
increasing demand and ensure that the proven effective, child
abuse prevention programs of Parents Anonymous'
are available to strengthen families here at home.
For over twenty-five years, Parents Anonymous'
of Oregon (PAO) has been dedicated to the prevention of child
abuse and neglect by strengthening families in our community.
Currently we provide 14 free weekly Parent Support Groups and
Children's Programs to parents experiencing challenges and
stress in their family and who have the courage to seek help.
PAO is committed to providing services to anyone in parenting
role, but particularly to at risk populations, including low
income Latino families, women transitioning from federal
prison and women in residential treatment for substance
abuse.
I respectfully request your support and advocacy for two
funding initiatives for Parents Anonymous' Inc.
for fiscal year 2004.
$4 million in the current level of appropriations under the
Commerce-Justice-State (``CJS'') appropriations bill, for
strengthening and expanding nationwide services to families
in local communities to prevent child abuse, neglect, and
juvenile delinquency.
$3 million under the Labor-Health and Human Services
(``LHHS'') appropriations bill for establishing, operating,
and maintaining a national parent helpline.
Research demonstrates that child abuse and neglect is often
a precursor to delinquent and adult criminal behavior and
that children who are abused or neglected are 40% more likely
to engage in delinquency or adult criminal behavior. In fact,
being abused or neglected as a child increases the likelihood
of an arrest as a juvenile by 59%, as an adult by 28%, and
for a violent crime by 30%. The requested CJS funding will
enable us to continue Parents Anonymous' Programs
and address the needs of at-risk populations. In addition,
this funding will help, in the long run, to reduce
expenditures in other Department of Justice programs.
The requested LHHS funding for a national parent helpline
run by Parents Anonymous' Inc. will enable parents
throughout the country, in all states, on reservations, in
urban and rural areas, to obtain immediate support and help,
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Currently, thee is no national
toll-free telephone system aimed at providing immediate
support to parents seeking help with their child-raising
crises and connecting them with effective community-based
programs for assistance--the first cry for help needs to be
answered in order to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Given your strong commitment and leadership to addressing
the needs of families in your State, we wish to thank you in
advance for championing these two FY 04 funding initiatives.
Very truly yours,
Ruth Taylor,
Program Director,
Parents Anonymous' of Oregon.
____
Metropolitan Community Church
of Portland
Portlands, OR, April 9, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton, I want to take this
opportunity to thank you for your sponsorship of the Early
Treatment for HIV Act of 2003. Esther's Pantry has been a
food bank for individuals living with AIDS since 1985. As
funding for AIDS programs such as ours continue to decline
and disappear, it very important that individuals diagnosed
with HIV receive medical benefits as soon as possible so they
may maintain some level of health and be able to provide for
themselves long term. We have learned so much about HIV/AIDS
over the past several years and the most important lesson has
been early detection and treatment. Your bill will address
that further piece of the solution by providing some
resources to enable those infected to follow through.
At Esther's Pantry, we regularly provide individually
shopped food boxes to approximately 150 clients every month
for a total annual population of clients numbering 250. We
recently lost Ryan White Title 1 funding and now provide our
service through local donation and grant funding from a
variety of sources. All clients must have AIDS and be at less
than twice the federal poverty level. We are a provider for
these clients who are struggling to cope with increased
medical costs. Earlier treatment of all these clients would
have helped to maintain their health, and enable them to
expend their resources for other life necessities. Failure to
do this has only created a dire situation.
This is certainly a bill that takes the necessary steps to
improve the situation for so many men, women and children
suffering from this disease. Thank you for your continuing
efforts.
In Gratitude,
David R. Beckley,
Executive Director.
____
Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: I am the executive
director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays (PFLAG), the nation's foremost family organization
dedicated to fair treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender (GLBT) persons. Founded in 1973 by heterosexual
parents who were brought together by their deep desire to
understand and accept their GLBT loved ones, PFLAG consists
of almost 500 chapters and represents over 250,000 members
and supporters--Republicans and Democrats--throughout the
country. On behalf of our national membership, I write to
thank you for your sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV
Act of 2003.
As a national organization whose mission focuses on the
health and well-being of GLBT persons, PFLAG strongly
believes that treating those who are HIV-positive early in
the progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By
making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will
diminish, new HIV infections will decrease because of the
lower viral loads, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program will be
able to provide care to more individuals with HIV because of
savings, and most importantly,
[[Page S5090]]
the quality of life for countless HIV-positive individuals
will be improved. Simply put, providing coverage earlier
rather than later is the right thing to do.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with
the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as
``categorically needy''. In this way, this legislation is
very similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide
states with the option of providing Medicaid coverage to
women diagnosed, through a federally funded program, with
breast or cervical cancer.
PFLAG is proud to support you in calling for these critical
steps to be taken in our national fight against AIDS/HIV, and
we applaud you for your leadership in this important battle
we must all win.
Sincerely,
David Tseng,
Executive Director.
____
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric
Aids Foundation,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: On behalf of the Elizabeth
Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, I would like to express my
strong support for the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003.
We applaud your efforts to give states the option to extend
critical Medicaid benefits to low-income HIV-infested
individuals.
For children and adults infected with HIV the recent
dramatic advances in treatment offer great hope for living
long and healthy lives. Unfortunately, for too many low-
income and uninsured individuals the cost of these live-
saving medications is out of reach. A ``catch-22'' in the
current Medicaid rules requires that they must be disabled by
AIDS before Medicaid will begin to cover the drugs that would
have prevented or delayed their becoming disabled in the
first place.
Improving the access of HIV-positive individuals to
treatment early in the progression of the disease is not only
humane, but also cost-effective. Early treatment lowers the
need for expensive medical interventions and, by decreasing
viral loads, reduces the likelihood of new infections. Just
as importantly, by preserving the ability of HIV-infected
individuals to be productive and healthy workers, parents and
citizens, early treatment also reduces the attendant social
costs of AIDS.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to this issue.
We look forward to working with you toward passage of the
Early Treatment for HIV Act.
Sincerely,
Mark Isaac,
Vice President for Governmental
and Public Affairs.
____
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS
Directors,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the National Alliance of
State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), I am writing
to offer our support for the ``Early Treatment for HIV Act.''
NASTAD represents the nation's chief state and territorial
health agency staff who are responsible for HIV/AIDS
prevention, care and treatment programs funded by state and
federal governments. This legislation would give states an
important option in providing care and treatment services to
low-income Americans living with HIV.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) would allow states
to expand their Medicaid programs to cover HIV positive
individuals, before they become disabled, without having to
receive a waiver. NASTAD believes this legislation would
allow HIV positive individuals to access the medical care
that is widely recommended, can postpone or avoid the onset
of AIDS, and can enormously increase the quality of life for
people living with HIV.
State AIDS directors continue to develop innovative and
cost-effective HIV/AIDS programs in the face of devastating
state budget cuts and federal contributions that fail to keep
up with need. ETHA provides a solution to states by
increasing health care access for those living with HIV/AIDS.
ETHA will also save states money in the long-run by treating
HIV positive individuals earlier in the disease's progression
and providing states with a federal match for the millions of
dollars they are presently spending on HIV/AIDS care.
Thank you very much for your continued commitment to
persons living with HIV/AIDS. I look forward to working with
you to gain support for this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Julie M. Scofield,
Executive Director.
____
Southern California
HIV Advocacy Coalition,
April 7, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: on behalf of the Southern California
HIV Advocacy Coalition, I am writing to thank you for
agreeing to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment For
HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are
grateful for your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of
life for many people living with the disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
disabled, low-income people with HIV. The delay in getting
individuals into a system of care is having a huge
detrimental impact on the HIV delivery system and the entire
health safety net in the Southern California area.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early
Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States
will take an important step towards ensuring that all people
living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay
healthy for as long as possible.
In an era of constrained federal resources for health care
spending, we must aggressively fight for effective means to
finance care for people with HIV. This bill will begin to
address these challenges through a permanent funding
solution, allowing states to expand the safety net to cover
eligible persons with early-stage HIV disease.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Tom Peterson,
Co-Chair, Southern California HIV Advocacy Coalition.
____
The Center for Aids,
Houston, Tx, April 4, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: on behalf of The Center for AIDS: Hope
& Remembrance Project (CFA), I am writing to thank you for
agreeing to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment For
HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are
grateful for your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of
life for many people living with the disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
disabled, low-income people with HIV. Moreover, without these
treatments to stave off disease progression, hospitalizations
and associated costs would unnecessarily add millions of
dollars in burdens to the U.S. health care system.
The CFA has the largest collection HIV/AIDS-specific
treatment information in the southwestern U.S. The CFA
specializes in research/treatment information and advocacy.
The proposed ETHA legislation will help The CFA's clients--
those affected by HIV/AIDS both locally in Houston and
nationally--stay healthier and lead productive lives in
society.
By preserving the health of people living with HIV,
preventing opportunistic infections associated with the
disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, ETHA could
ultimately save taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, should
ETHA become law, the United States will take an important
step towards ensuring that all people living with HIV can get
the medical care they need to stay healthy for as long as
possible.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people
living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Thomas Gegeny,
MS, ELS, Editor & Interim Director.
____
Association of Maternal
Child Health Programs,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: on behalf of the Association of
Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to
thank you for agreeing to be a lead sponsor of the Early
Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this
legislation and are grateful for your leadership.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid
coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It
represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care
for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current
HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of
life for many people living with the disease. However,
without access to early intervention health care and
treatment, these advances remain out of reach for
[[Page S5091]]
many non-disabled, low-income people with HIV.
AMCHP represents the directors and staff of state public
health programs for maternal and child health (funded by the
Federal Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant),
including children with special health care needs. These
programs provided services to over 27 million Americans in FY
1999, including 18 million children between the ages of 1 and
22, 16% of whom had no known source of health insurance.
With this legislation, the United States will take an
important step towards ensuring that all people living with
HIV can get the medical care they need to stay healthy for as
long as possible.
Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. Please
let me know how I can help support your efforts to secure
passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dietrich,
Acting Executive Director.
____
San Francisco
AIDS Foundation,
San Francisco, CA, April 8, 2003.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: the San Francisco AIDS
Foundation would like to thank you for your sponsorship of
the Early Treatment for HIV Act 2003.
The Act would provide states with the option of covering
low-income people living with HIV as `categorically needy'
provide them with medical care and treatment, reduce long
term health care costs to states, and address a serious gap
in public health care access. Recent breakthroughs in medical
science and clinical practice have transformed the
possibilities in HIV/AIDS care in the United States. Today,
we know that early intervention with medical care and
treatment for HIV disease slows the progression of HIV and
prevents the onset of opportunistic infections. Application
of this knowledge lengthens the life expectancy and
dramatically improves the quality of life for many. These
changes in science and medical practice demand revisions in
the treatment of HIV disease under Medicaid.
Currently Medicaid eligibility for childless adults is tied
to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility. The result
of this determination is that people living with HIV must
wait for Medicaid access until their disease has progressed
to a disabling AIDS diagnosis. The cruel irony of this
practice is that individuals are forced to incur often-
irreparable damage to their immune systems before receiving
treatments that could have delayed or avoided the damage.
This is counter to sound public health practices and all but
guarantees higher cost of care for thousands of affected
individuals. This serious anomaly in public health care
coverage must be rectified by the enactment of this
legislation.
The AIDS Foundation thanks you both for your leadership and
sponsorship of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Ernest Hopkins,
Director of Federal Affairs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Early
Treatment for HIV Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 847
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 ``Early Treatment for HIV Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. OPTIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE OF LOW-INCOME HIV-INFECTED
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1902 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVII);
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVIII); and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(XIX) who are described in subsection (cc) (relating to
HIV-infected individuals);''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(cc) HIV-infected individuals described in this
subsection are individuals not described in subsection
(a)(10)(A)(i)--
``(1) who have HIV infection;
``(2) whose income (as determined under the State plan
under this title with respect to disabled individuals) does
not exceed the maximum amount of income a disabled individual
described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain
medical assistance under the plan; and
``(3) whose resources (as determined under the State plan
under this title with respect to disabled individuals) do not
exceed the maximum amount of resources a disabled individual
described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain
medical assistance under the plan.''.
(b) Enhanced Match.--The first sentence of section 1905(b)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by
striking ``section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)'' and inserting
``subclause (XVIII) or (XIX) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1)--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (xii);
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (xiii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (xiii) the following:
``(xiv) individuals described in section 1902(cc);''.
(d) Exemption From Funding Limitation for Territories.--
Section 1108(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1308(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Disregarding medical assistance for optional low-
income hiv-infected individuals.--The limitations under
subsection (f) and the previous provisions of this subsection
shall not apply to amounts expended for medical assistance
for individuals described in section 1902(cc) who are only
eligible for such assistance on the basis of section
1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX).''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether
or not final regulations to carry out such amendments have
been promulgated by such date.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 849. A bill to provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona
between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kyl
today to introduce the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange
Act of 2003. This bill facilitates an exchange of over 50,000 acres of
Federal and private land in Arizona for the primary purpose of
consolidating National Forest lands currently in checkerboard ownership
in the northwestern portion of the State. Included in the exchange are
a number of other Federal land parcels located in the communities of
Flagstaff, Williams, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde and other
lands currently leased by six different camps.
This is a complex land exchange because of its size, the diverse
nature of the lands involved, and the range of potential benefits and
impacts that would result. The Forest Service has stated that the
consolidation of the checkerboard in the Prescott National Forest will
yield significant benefits and cost-savings to the public. In putting
forth this exchange with the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, the
Forest Service has identified opportunities to achieve better and more
cost-effective management of Federal lands and resources, to acquire
lands that will meet the important public objectives of protection of
wildlife habitat, cultural resources, watershed, wilderness and
aesthetic values, and also meet the needs of State and local residents
and their economies.
The communities of Flagstaff and Williams and the camps are strongly
in favor of this bill as it will allow them to acquire federal lands
that will be exchanged to Yavapai Ranch, providing them beneficial
economic and land use management opportunities. The communities of
Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are also an important part of
this exchange. Inclusion of these parcels, totaling more than 300
acres, has focused discussion on essential issues of available water
supply, the limits of sustainable growth, and quality of life concerns.
The issue of potential adverse impacts of new development on limited
water resources has been addressed in this bill through the
establishment of conservation easements which limit water use on the
Verde Valley parcels after private acquisition. This foresighted
provision is intended to conserve precious surface and ground water
resources and protect the water users and State water right holders
dependent upon them. Given the uncertainty about available water
supplies and future uses, I believe this is a responsible measure which
is in the interest of both Arizona citizens and the American public.
Of primary importance to me are the procedural terms and conditions
by which the land exchange will be conducted. The Forest Service has
stated that the procedures set forth in this bill represent standard
practice and will allow for the desired outcome of a fair and equal
value exchange of public property. I have also made an effort to
[[Page S5092]]
solicit public input on the exchange in order to appreciate the
potential benefits and costs involved. I held several public meetings
in Arizona on the exchange and have heard and read the differing views
of hundreds of interested Arizonans.
After careful consideration, I believe it is appropriate that the
bill be introduced at this time. While the proposed exchange has the
support of the Forest Service, the elected representatives of the
affected communities, and the camps, introduction of this bill advances
us to the next phase of public consideration of key aspects and
procedural issues associated with the legislation.
I expect that public hearings will be held here and in Arizona on the
bill in the near future. The Forest Service will have an opportunity to
provide public statements concerning the specific provisions of the
bill, as will other parties affected by the exchange. I anticipate that
in the next phase of the legislative process, our state delegation will
receive the information needed to address any remaining issues and
ensure that this exchange will be conducted in a manner that benefits
the citizens of Arizona and Federal taxpayers alike.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator
McCain to introduce the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange
Act of 2003. This bill, which facilitates a large and very complex land
exchange in Arizona, is the product of months of discussions between
the Forest Service, community groups, local officials, and other
stakeholders. It will allow communities to accommodate growth and
improve the management of our forests; it will also yield many
environmental benefits to the public.
This bill will protect some of Arizona's most beautiful ponderosa
pine forests from future development by placing approximately 35,000
acres of private land into public use. It consolidates a 110-square
mile area in the Prescott National Forest near the existing Juniper
Mesa Wilderness under Forest Service ownership, to preserve the area in
its natural state and prevent its subdivision. This land has old growth
ponderosa pine that is at least 250 years old and juniper that is 500
years old or older. Consolidation will preserve the area for watershed
management, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation. Without
consolidation, these tracts would be open to future development. I am
pleased that this bill will preserve them for future generations.
This bill significantly improves management of the Prescott National
Forest. The existing checkerboard ownership pattern in the Prescott
makes management and access difficult. The exchange improves management
of the forest by consolidating this land, and allowing the Forest
Service to effectively apply forest-restoration treatments designed to
improve forest health and reduce hazardous fuels. In turn, better
management will help decrease the fire risk in Arizona's forests. The
importance of improved management and efficient restoration treatments
cannot be overstated given last year's devastating Rodeo-Chediski fire.
In addition to protecting Arizona's natural resources, this bill
allows several Northern Arizona communities to accommodate future
growth and economic development, and to meet other municipal needs. The
exchange will allow the Cities of Williams and Flagstaff to expand
their airports and water-treatment facilities, and develop town parks
and recreation areas. The town of Camp Verde will have the opportunity
to acquire lands for view shed protection. Several youth organizations
throughout northern Arizona will be able to acquire land for their
camps.
Even as it addresses environmental and community needs, this bill
saves significant taxpayer dollars. It obviates the administrative
route for land exchange--doing an exchange of this size
administratively would require considerable financial and personnel
resources within the Forest Service. The agency estimates that the
legislative approach will cost half as much as the administrative
alternative--resulting in potential savings to the taxpayers in excess
of $500,000.
This land exchange is supported and endorsed by many municipalities,
religious institutions, environmental groups, and other nongovernmental
organizations in Arizona. Experts from the Arizona Game and Fish
Department have reviewed the lands to be exchanged and strongly support
the proposal. I have received hundreds of letters and petitions from
residents expressing support for it. This exchange is extremely
important to the residents of Arizona.
This land exchange is a unique opportunity to protect Arizona's
natural resources while accommodating the tremendous growth that my
State is experiencing. This bill is good for the state of Arizona and I
plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that we pass this important
legislation this year.
____________________