[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10847-S10864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2944. A bill to provide that no funds may be expended by the
United States Trade Representative to negotiate data exclusivity
provisions for certain pharmaceutical products; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
regarding the way the trade policies of the United States affect the
ability of developing countries to access to generic drugs.
The bill addresses concerns that this Administration, through the
United States Trade Representative, is pursuing policies that will make
it even more difficult for developing countries to gain access to the
drugs they need, particularly generics, to treat their public health
problems like TB, HIV/AIDS and malaria. This is just wrong.
The policies the Administration seeks to put in place are data
exclusivity provisions. Such provisions tend to benefit drug
manufacturers. As reported in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere,
when these provisions are included trade agreements they essentially
bar countries from being able to get more affordable generic drugs for
a period of time, usually five years.
Trade agreements should be about promoting trade. People in
developing
[[Page S10848]]
nations who are suffering from such epidemic diseases should not be
denied access to affordable medicines because of trade agreements.
The purpose of what is known as the Doha Declaration was to clarify
that trade rules on intellectual property would not interfere with the
ability of developing countries to take measures to protect public
health. The legislation I am introducing today would prohibit USTR from
spending any funds in order to impose data exclusivity for drugs used
to treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or other epidemics, or needed in
circumstances of extreme urgency, or national emergency.
I am not one to trample on the need to protect trade secrets, but I
cannot condone policies that inhibit developing countries from being
able to address their own public health needs. In today's world, it is
shortsighted to think that infectious diseases cannot cross borders. By
allowing developing countries access to generic drugs, we not only help
improve health in those nations, we also help ourselves control these
debilitating and often deadly diseases.
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. 2944
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, funds appropriated or otherwise obligated to the United
States Trade Representative may not be expended to negotiate
data exclusivity provisions with any country with respect to
public health pharmaceutical products or to require actions
of another country which interfere with a country's access to
public health pharmaceutical products.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Data exclusivity provision.--The term ``data
exclusivity provision'' means a provision that restricts for
a set period of time a country from approving for sale
generic public health pharmaceutical products based on
original clinical data of public health pharmaceutical
products previously approved for sale.
(2) Public health pharmaceutical products.--The term
``public health pharmaceutical products'' means any patented
pharmaceutical product, or pharmaceutical product
manufactured through a patented process, needed to treat HIV/
AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, or other epidemics, or needed in
circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency in
accordance with the Decision of the General Council of 30
August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph Six of the
DOHA Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and
the WTO General Council Chairman's statement accompanying the
Decision (JOB(03)/177, WT/GC/M/82) (collectively known as the
``TRIPS/health solution'').
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2945. A bill to permanently eliminate a procedure under which the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives can waive
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by convicted felons, drug
offenders, and other disqualified individuals; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator
Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted
felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill
would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can
apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a
waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives.
Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are
prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to
grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual
is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety.
Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common
criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester,
which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin
Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony
involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally
prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision
was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business.
Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver
provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be
granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress
expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses,
and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for
a waiver.
Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications.
These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their
law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive
investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the
cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each
waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers.
The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a
convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41
percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of
violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence
included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies.
Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases,
those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit
serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child
molestation.
This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must
foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who
have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not
fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons
are allowed to carry guns.
Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the
program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated
funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the
prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are
stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It
is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and 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. 2945
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Guns for Felons Act''.
SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM CERTAIN FIREARMS
PROHIBITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 925(c) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by inserting ``(other than a
natural person)'' before ``who is prohibited'';
(2) in the fourth sentence--
(A) by inserting ``person (other than a natural person) who
is a'' before ``licensed importer''; and
(B) by striking ``his'' and inserting ``the person's''; and
(3) in the fifth sentence, by inserting ``(1) the name of
the person, (2) the disability with respect to which the
relief is granted, (3) if the disability was imposed by
reason of a criminal conviction of the person, the crime for
which and the court in which the person was convicted, and
(4)'' before ``the reasons therefor''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to--
(1) applications for administrative relief and actions for
judicial review that are pending on the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(2) applications for administrative relief filed, and
actions for judicial review brought, after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2947. A bill to provide additional protections for recipients of
the earned income tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse
Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit (EITC) benefits intended for
working families are increasingly being reduced by the growing use of
refund anticipation loans, which typically carry triple digit interest
rates. According to the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.9
billion intended to assist low-income families was received by
commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks to pay for tax
assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans in
2002. The interest rates and fees charged on refund anticipation loans
(RALs) are not justified
[[Page S10849]]
for the short length of time that these loans cover and the minimal
risk they present. These loans carry little risk because of the Debt
Indicator program. The Debt Indicator (DI) is a service provided by the
Internal Revenue Service that informs the lender whether or not an
applicant owes Federal or State taxes, child support, student loans, or
other government obligations, which assists the tax preparer in
ascertaining the applicant's ability to obtain their full refund so
that the RAL is repaid. The Department of the Treasury should not be
facilitating these predatory loans that allow tax preparers to reap
outrageous profits by exploiting working families.
Unfortunately too many working families are susceptible to predatory
lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between
25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured
financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial
service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send
remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the
unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to
have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by their reliance on these
high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the
unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job,
a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education
expenses.
My bill will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the
involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the
exploitation of taxpayers, and expand access to opportunities for
saving and lending at mainstream financial services.
My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC
benefits. Other Federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar
restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended
benefit.
My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL
providers. My legislation will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds
to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition,
mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize federal tax refunds
would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take
future legal action if necessary in the future.
I am deeply troubled that the Department of the Treasury plays such a
prominent role in the facilitation and subsequent promotion of refund
anticipation loans. In 1995, the use of the DI was suspended because of
massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. After the program was
discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the DI was
reinstated in 1999, according to H&R Block, to ``assist with screening
for electronic filing fraud and is also expected to substantially
reduce refund anticipation loan pricing.'' Although RAL prices were
expected go down as a result of the reinstatement of the DI, this has
not occurred. The Debt Indicator should once again be stopped. The DI
is helping tax preparers make excessive profits of low- and moderate-
income taxpayers who utilize the service. If the Debt Indicator is
removed, then the loans become riskier and the tax preparers may not
aggressively market them among EITC filers. The IRS should not be
aiding efforts that take the earned benefit away from low-income
families and allow unscrupulous preparers to take advantage of low-
income taxpayers. My bill terminates the DI program. In addition, my
bill removes the incentive to meet Congressionally mandated electronic
filing goals by facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers. My bill
would prevent any electronically filed tax returns that resulted in tax
refunds that were distributed by refund anticipation loans from being
counted towards the goal established by the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998 that the IRS have at least 80 percent of all returns
filed electronically by 2007.
My bill also expands access to mainstream financial services.
Electronic Transfer Accounts (ETA) are low-cost accounts at banks and
credit unions that are intended for recipients of certain Federal
benefit payments. Currently, ETAs are provided for recipients of other
federal benefits such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the
eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will
allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account
without the need for a RAL.
Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income
taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at
federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms.
Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union
account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs
and provides immediate access to the opportunities found at banks and
credit unions.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Durbin
for cosponsoring the legislation. I also thank Representative Jan
Schakowsky for introducing the companion legislation in the other body.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention
Act be printed following my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that
the text of a support letter from the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now, the Children's Defense Fund, the Consumer
Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the National Consumer Law
Center, be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2947
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 ``Taxpayer Abuse Prevention
Act''.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF DIVERSION OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to earned income tax credit) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Prevention of Diversion of Credit Benefits.--The
right of any individual to any future payment of the credit
under this section shall not be transferable or assignable,
at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable
or right shall be subject to any execution, levy, attachment,
garnishment, offset, or other legal process except for any
outstanding Federal obligation. Any waiver of the protections
of this subsection shall be deemed null, void, and of no
effect.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DEBT COLLECTION OFFSET.
(a) In General.--No person shall, directly or indirectly,
individually or in conjunction or in cooperation with another
person, engage in the collection of an outstanding or
delinquent debt for any creditor or assignee by means of
soliciting the execution of, processing, receiving, or
accepting an application or agreement for a refund
anticipation loan or refund anticipation check that contains
a provision permitting the creditor to repay, by offset or
other means, an outstanding or delinquent debt for that
creditor from the proceeds of the debtor's Federal tax
refund.
(b) Refund Anticipation Loan.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the term ``refund anticipation loan'' means a loan of
money or of any other thing of value to a taxpayer because of
the taxpayer's anticipated receipt of a Federal tax refund.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION.
(a) In General.--Any person that provides a loan to a
taxpayer that is linked to or in anticipation of a Federal
tax refund for the taxpayer may not include mandatory
arbitration of disputes as a condition for providing such a
loan.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to loans made
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF DEBT INDICATOR PROGRAM.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall terminate the Debt
Indicator program announced in Internal Revenue Service
Notice 99-58.
SEC. 6. DETERMINATION OF ELECTRONIC FILING GOALS.
(a) In General.--Any electronically filed Federal tax
returns, that result in Federal tax refunds that are
distributed by refund anticipation loans, shall not be taken
into account in determining if the goals required under
section 2001(a)(2) of the Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998 that the Internal Revenue Service have at least 80
percent of all such returns filed electronically by 2007 are
achieved.
(b) Refund Anticipation Loan.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the term ``refund anticipation loan'' means a loan of
money or of any other thing of value to a taxpayer because of
the taxpayer's anticipated receipt of a Federal tax refund.
[[Page S10850]]
SEC. 7. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER
ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of section 3332(j) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``other
than any payment under section 32 of such Code'' after
``1986''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 8. PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE ADVANCE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall, after consultation with such private, nonprofit, and
governmental entities as the Secretary determines
appropriate, develop and implement a program to encourage the
greater utilization of the advance earned income tax credit.
(b) Reports.--Not later than the date of the implementation
of the program described in subsection (a), and annually
thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives on the elements of
such program and progress achieved under such program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
the program described in this section. Any sums so
appropriated shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 9. PROGRAM TO LINK TAXPAYERS WITH DIRECT DEPOSIT
ACCOUNTS AT FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY
INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall enter into cooperative agreements with
federally insured depository institutions to provide low- and
moderate-income taxpayers with the option of establishing
low-cost direct deposit accounts through the use of
appropriate tax forms.
(b) Federally Insured Depository Institution.--For purposes
of this section, the term ``federally insured depository
institution'' means any insured depository institution (as
defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1813)) and any insured credit union (as defined in
section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1752)).
(c) Operation of Program.--In providing for the operation
of the program described in subsection (a), the Secretary of
the Treasury is authorized--
(1) to consult with such private and nonprofit
organizations and Federal, State, and local agencies as
determined appropriate by the Secretary, and
(2) to promulgate such regulations as necessary to
administer such program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
the program described in this section. Any sums so
appropriated shall remain available until expended.
____
National Consumer Law Center Inc,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2004.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: The Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Children's Defense
Fund, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income
clients), write to support your bill, the ``Taxpayer Abuse
Prevention Act.'' By prohibiting lenders from making loans
against the Earned Income Tax Credit, this bill would greatly
reduce the scope of abuses caused by refund anticipation
loans (RALs), which carry effective annualized interest rates
of about 70% to over 700%.
As you know, over 55% of consumers who receive RALs are
beneficiaries of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 2002, EITC
recipients paid about $749 million in loan and
``administrative'' fees for RALs. These fees divert hundreds
of millions of EITC dollars, paid out of the U.S. Treasury,
into the coffers of multimillion dollar commercial
preparation chains and big banks. It's time to stop lenders
from making high cost, abusive loans using the precious
dollars intended to support working poor families.
Furthermore, we support the ``Taxpayer Abuse Prevention
Act'' for its provisions that halt several of the most
egregious practices of RAL lenders, such as seizing
taxpayers' tax refunds as a form of debt collection and
slipping in mandatory arbitration clauses, which leave RAL
consumers without their day in court. Moreover, we appreciate
the termination of the IRS Debt Indicator program, which
would stop the IRS's practice of sharing taxpayer's personal
financial information in order to make RALs more profitable
for lenders. Finally, we applaud the provisions of the bill
that support linking unbanked taxpayers with bank accounts,
such as the provision to permit them to open Electronic
Transaction Accounts to receive federal tax refunds.
Thank you again for all your efforts to combat taxpayer
abuse by the RAL industry.
Sincerely,
Maude Hurd,
National President, Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now.
Jean Ann Fox,
Director of Consumer Protection, Consumer Federation of
America.
Chi Chi Wu,
Staff Attorney, National Consumer Law Center.
Deborah Cutler-Ortiz,
Director of Family Income, Children's Defense Fund.
Shelley Curran,
Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2950. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
prohibit payments to States under the medicaid program for redispensing
prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to
double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs.
As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health
care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid
patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These
drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the
prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs.
Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense
rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while
some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that
require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the
State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has
resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale
and resale--of the restocked drugs.
We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all
50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of
skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal
Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending.
The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting
this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this
practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of
Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare,
had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged
Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because
there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges,
however, the court could not assess penalties against the company.
Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a
lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey
legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were
corrected.''
My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal
reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked.
Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs
in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the
pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide
reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs.
In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the
Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I
hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This
practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the
Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such
fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort
to do just that.
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. 2950
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S10851]]
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT FOR REDISPENSING
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
(a) In General.--Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (20), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(21) with respect to any amount expended for redispensing
a prescribed drug, other than in accordance with guidance of
the Secretary that--
``(A) specifies the circumstances under which redispensing
of a prescribed drug shall be permissible; and
``(B) allows for a reasonable restocking fee that takes
into account the costs of inspection and inventory processes
for redispensing.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year quarter
that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land
Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels
totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing
of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the
city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion
measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the
desk in the Senate.
There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe
merit some clarification and may even require future technical
amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor
changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get
those clarifications on record.
I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with
Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee
and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of
this Congress.
The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe
of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the
city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the
Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to
purchase land that has economic development potential.
The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this
parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the
Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to
the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private
nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel
of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the
passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land
was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more
than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for
nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The
tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's
offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the
request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land.
However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance.
The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land
parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and
Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first
parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the
United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh
Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either
owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more
than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band
Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size,
would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land
has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally
intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981
under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through
an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for
the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has
formally requested correction of this error.
The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be
transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band.
The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held
in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the
Shivwits Band Community Center.
Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current
official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name
which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern
Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map,
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to
the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a
reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''
I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with
regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city
of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment
directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the
Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has
a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February
17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify
that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the
reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land
purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation
without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing
reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this
legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land
conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to
such a conveyance.
This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the
dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its
airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally
important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use
the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic
development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the
tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments
and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe,
its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is
why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer
these four small Paiute trust land parcels.
Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute
Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over
the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of
their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the
tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe
Restoration Act, which I sponsored.
I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today,
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the
108th Congress.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Reid):
S. 2953. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
Coordinated Environmental Health Network, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today a bill to
authorize the development of the Coordinated Environmental Health
Network. I am pleased to have Senators Chafee and Reid as cosponsors.
Environmental public health tracking of chronic diseases began in FY
2002 when the CDC awarded $17 million to 17 states and 3 local health
departments to develop the Program and establish 3 Centers of
Excellence. These funds were for capacity building and demonstration
projects over 3 years. Efforts included correlation of asthma in young
adults to air pollution from traffic exhaust or indoor air quality in
schools, correlation of adverse pregnancy outcomes and air pollution
measurements, PCBs in water supplies, etc and biomonitoring for blood
lead and hair mercury with exposure databases. In FY 2003, CDC awarded
$18.5 million to continue this program and expand to three additional
states as in Florida to link statewide surveillance systems for asthma,
autism, mental retardation, cancers, and birth defects
[[Page S10852]]
with EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, statewide air monitoring data, and
data from the statewide well water surveillance program. 24 states now
have efforts to track asthma. FY 2004 funding reached $27 million, and
an additional $28 million pending in the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor-Health
and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
Our bill would build on these efforts, and would eventually cover all
priority chronic conditions including birth defects, developmental
disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, autism, and mental retardation),
asthma and chronic respiratory diseases, neurological diseases, such as
Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease, and
autoimmune diseases such as Lupus. It would also eventually reach as
many of the States as possible; already the EPA and DHHS (CDC) have
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate exposure databases
with the CDC's nationwide chronic disease tracking network and the
State grantees.
Our current public health surveillance systems were developed when
the major threats to health were infectious agents. Currently, 50
infectious diseases are tracked on a national basis. However, chronic
diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease are now the
nation's number one killers, and there is evidence that rates of some
chronic diseases and conditions are rising. More than 1.3 million new
cancer cases were diagnosed in 2003. One in 33 U.S. babies born has a
birth defect, and about 17 percent of children under 18 years of age
have a developmental disability. In 2001, an estimated 31.3 million
Americans reported having been diagnosed with asthma during their
lifetime, and 14 million adults reported physician-diagnosed chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic diseases cost Americans
$750,000,000,000 in health care expenses and lost productivity and
affect 100 million Americans. Yet our systems for tracking chronic
diseases are woefully underdeveloped.
All across our nation are communities where disease clusters such as
birth defects, cancers and asthma raise questions about the role of
environmental factors in chronic diseases. In order to improve the
health of our nation and lower health care costs, we need to develop
the infrastructure to study the relationship between environment and
chronic disease.
The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act would create the
infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report data on the
rate of disease and the presence of relevant environmental factors and
exposures. The Network would also coordinate national, State, and local
efforts to bolster our public health system's capacity to investigate
and respond aggressively to environmental exposures that threaten
health. In addition, the Coordinated Environmental Health Network will
alert health officials when there is a sudden increase in any disease
or condition, including those associated with a biological or chemical
attack.
Once fully operational, the network will coordinate national, state,
and local efforts to inform communities, public health officials,
researchers, and policymakers of potential environmental health risks,
and to integrate this information with other parts of the public health
system.
The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act is supported by the
Trust for America's Health, American Public Health Association,
Citizens for a Cleaner Environment, March of Dimes, American Lung
Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The Breast Cancer
Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and many others.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2953
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 ``Coordinated Environmental
Health Network Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) approximately 7 out of every 10 deaths in the United
States are attributable to chronic diseases;
(2) with 100,000,000 people suffering from chronic diseases
each year, and $750,000,000,000 lost in health care costs as
a result, the national cost of chronic disease is extremely
high and must be appropriately addressed;
(3) the rates of many chronic diseases, including asthma,
some birth defects, cancers, and autism, appear to be
increasing;
(4) there is a growing amount of evidence that
environmental factors are strongly linked with specific
chronic disease;
(5) a major gap in critical knowledge exists regarding the
prevalence and incidence of chronic diseases;
(6) States, local communities, territories, and Indian
tribes need assistance with public health efforts that would
lead to prevention of chronic disease, including the
establishment and maintenance of necessary infrastructure for
disease and environmental hazard exposure surveillance; and
(7) a Coordinated Environmental Health Network will help
target resources to areas of chronic disease prevention most
in need.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) develop, operate, and maintain a Coordinated
Environmental Health Network, State Environmental Health
Networks, and rapid response capabilities so that the Federal
Government, States, local governments, territories, and
Indian tribes can more effectively monitor, investigate,
respond to, research, and prevent increases in the incidence
and prevalence of certain chronic diseases and relevant
environmental and other risk factors;
(2) provide information collected through the Coordinated
and State Environmental Health Networks to government
agencies, public health practitioners and researchers, policy
makers, and the public;
(3) expand and coordinate among existing surveillance and
data collection systems and other infrastructure for chronic
diseases and relevant environmental, and other risk factors,
including those relevant to bioterrorism;
(4) improve coordination between the areas of public
health, environmental protection, and chemical, radiological
and biological terrorism; and
(5) provide necessary support to ensure the availability of
a sufficient number of well-trained environmental health and
public health personnel to participate and provide leadership
in the development and maintenance of the Coordinated and
State Environmental Health Networks.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE XXIX--COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK
``SEC. 2900. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Administrators.--The term `Administrators' means the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Coordinating Center for Environmental Health, Injury
Prevention, and Occupational Health, and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(2) Committee.--The term `Committee' means the Advisory
Committee established under section 2901(d).
``(3) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
``(4) Medical privacy regulations.--The term `medical
privacy regulations' means the regulations promulgated under
section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
``(5) Coordinated network.--The term `Coordinated Network'
means the Coordinated Environmental Health Network
established under section 2901(a).
``(6) Priority chronic condition.--The term `priority
chronic condition' means a condition to be tracked in the
Coordinated Network and the State Networks, including birth
defects, developmental disabilities (such as cerebral palsy,
autism, and mental retardation), asthma and chronic
respiratory diseases, neurological diseases (such as
Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease,
and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), autoimmune diseases (such
as lupus), cancer, juvenile diabetes, and such other priority
chronic conditions as the Secretary may specify.
``(7) State network.--The term `State Network' means a
State Environmental Health Network established under section
2901(b).
``(8) State.--The term `State' means a State, territory, or
Indian tribe that is eligible to receive a health tracking
grant under section 2901(b).
``SEC. 2901. ESTABLISHMENT OF COORDINATED AND STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORKS.
``(a) Coordinated Environmental Health Network.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 36 months after the
date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary, acting
through the Director and in consultation with the
Administrators, State and local health departments, and the
Committee, shall establish and operate a Coordinated
Environmental Health Network. In establishing and operating
the Coordinated Network, the Secretary shall--
``(A) identify, build upon, expand, and coordinate among
existing data and surveillance systems, surveys, registries,
and other
[[Page S10853]]
Federal public health and environmental infrastructure
wherever possible, including--
``(i) the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System;
``(ii) State birth defects surveillance systems as
supported under section 317C;
``(iii) State cancer registries as supported under part M
of title III;
``(iv) State asthma surveillance systems as supported under
section 317I;
``(v) the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey;
``(vi) the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System;
``(vii) the Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects
Database;
``(viii) the Hazardous Substances Emergency Events
Surveillance System;
``(ix) the National Exposure Registry;
``(x) the Health Alert Network; and
``(xi) the State vital statistics systems as supported
under section 306;
``(B) provide for public access to an electronic national
database that accepts data from the State Networks on the
incidence and prevalence of priority chronic conditions and
relevant environmental and other factors, in a manner which
protects personal privacy consistent with the medical privacy
regulations;
``(C) not later than 36 months after the date of the
enactment of this title, and annually thereafter, prepare and
publish, in accordance with paragraph (2), a Coordinated
Environmental Health Network Report to provide the public
with the findings of the Coordinated Network;
``(D) operate and maintain a National Environmental Health
Rapid Response Service within the Epidemic Intelligence
Service to carry out the activities described in paragraph
(3);
``(E) provide for the establishment of State Networks, and
coordinate the State Networks as provided for under
subsection (b);
``(F) provide technical assistance to support the State
Networks, including providing--
``(i) training for environmental health investigators
appointed or hired under subsection (b)(3)(D);
``(ii) technical assistance as needed to States to build
necessary capacity and infrastructure for the establishment
of a State Network, including a computerized data collection,
reporting, and processing system, and additional assistance
identified by the States under subsection (b)(5)(C) as
necessary for infrastructure development; and
``(iii) such other technical assistance as the Secretary,
in consultation with the Administrators, determines to be
necessary;
``(G) not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this title, acting through the Director and
consulting with the Administrators, the Surgeon General, the
Director of the National Institutes of Health, and States,
develop minimum standards and procedures in accordance with
paragraph (4) for data collection and reporting for the State
Networks, to be updated not less than annually thereafter;
and
``(H) in developing the minimum standards and procedures
under subparagraph (G), include mechanisms for allowing the
States to set priorities, and allocate resources accordingly,
among the factors described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C) of paragraph (4).
``(2) Coordinated environmental health network report.--
Each Coordinated Environmental Health Network Report prepared
under paragraph (1)(C) shall include--
``(A) a statement of the activities carried out under this
title;
``(B) an analysis of the incidence, prevalence, and trends
of priority chronic conditions and potentially relevant
environmental and other factors by State and census tract (or
other political or administrative subdivision determined
appropriate by the Secretary in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency) for the
calendar year preceding the year for which the report is
prepared;
``(C) the identification of gaps in the data of the
Coordinated Network, including diseases of concern and
environmental exposures not tracked; and
``(D) recommendations regarding high risk populations,
public health concerns, response and prevention strategies,
and additional tracking needs;
``(3) National environmental health rapid response
service.--The National Environmental Health Rapid Response
Service operated under paragraph (1)(D) shall--
``(A) work with environmental health investigators
appointed or hired under subsection (b)(3)(D) to develop and
implement strategies, protocols, and guidelines for the
coordinated, rapid responses to actual and perceived higher
than expected incidence and prevalence rates of priority
chronic conditions and to acute and potential environmental
hazards and exposures;
``(B) conduct investigations into higher than expected
incidence and prevalence rates of priority chronic conditions
or environmental exposures after an individual requests,
through a process established by the Secretary, the
intervention of the Service;
``(C) coordinate activities carried out under this title
with activities carried out under sections 319 through 319G;
and
``(D) coordinate activities carried out under this title
with the Administrators, the Surgeon General, and the
Director of the National Institutes of Health.
``(4) Data collection and reporting by state networks.--The
minimum standards and procedures referred to in paragraph
(1)(G) shall include--
``(A) a list and definitions of the priority chronic
conditions to be tracked through the State Networks;
``(B) a list and definitions of relevant environmental
exposures of concern to be tracked, to the extent
practicable, through the State Networks, including--
``(i) hazardous air pollutants (as defined in section
302(g) of the Clean Air Act);
``(ii) air pollutants for which national primary ambient
air quality standards have been promulgated under section 109
of the Clean Air Act;
``(iii) pollutants or contaminants (as defined in section
101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980);
``(iv) toxic chemicals (as described in section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986);
``(v) substances reported under the Toxic Substances
Control Act Inventory Update Rule as provided for in part 710
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or successor
regulations;
``(vi) pesticides (as defined in section 2(u) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act); and
``(vii) such other potentially relevant environmental
factors as the Secretary may specify;
``(C) a list and definitions of potentially relevant
behavioral, socioeconomic, demographic, and other risk
factors, including race, ethnic status, gender, age,
occupation, and primary language, to be tracked through the
State Networks;
``(D) procedures for the complete and timely collection and
reporting of data to the Coordinated Network by census tract,
or other political subdivision determined appropriate by the
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, regarding the factors
described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C);
``(E) procedures for making data available to the public
and researchers, and for reporting to the Coordinated
Network, while protecting the confidentiality of all personal
data reported, in accordance with medical privacy
regulations;
``(F) standards and procedures for the establishment and
maintenance of at least 7 regional biomonitoring
laboratories, including providing for an equitable geographic
distribution, by entering into cooperative agreements with
States, groups of States, and academic institutions or
consortia of academic institutions, in order to expand the
scope and amount of biomonitoring data collected by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
``(G) criteria for the environmental health investigators
as required under subsection (b)(3)(D); and
``(H) procedures for record and data maintenance and
verification.
``(b) State Environmental Health Networks.--
``(1) Grants.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
the enactment of this title, the Secretary, acting through
the Director, in consultation with the Administrators, and
taking into consideration the findings of the Committee,
shall award grants to States, local governments, territories,
and Indian tribes for the establishment, maintenance, and
operation of State Environmental Health Networks in
accordance with the minimum standards and procedures
established by the Secretary under subsection (a)(4).
``(2) Specialized assistance.--The Coordinated Network
shall provide specialized assistance to grantees in the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of State Networks.
``(3) Requirements.--A State, local government, territory,
or Indian tribe receiving a grant under this subsection shall
use the grant--
``(A) to establish an environmental health network that
will provide--
``(i) for the complete tracking of the incidence,
prevalence, and trends of priority chronic conditions and
potentially relevant environmental and other factors as set
forth in subsection (a), as well as any additional priority
chronic conditions and potentially related environmental
exposures of concern to that State, local government,
territory, or Indian tribe;
``(ii) for identification of priority chronic conditions
and potentially relevant environmental and other factors that
disproportionately impact low income and minority
communities;
``(iii) for the protection of the confidentiality of all
personal data reported, in accordance with the medical
privacy regulations;
``(iv) a means by which confidential data may, in
accordance with Federal and State law, be disclosed to
researchers for the purposes of public health research;
``(v) the fullest possible public access to data collected
by the State Network or through the Coordinated Network,
while ensuring that individual privacy is protected in
accordance with subsection (a)(1)(B); and
``(vi) for the collection of exposure data through
biomonitoring and other methods, including the entering into
of cooperative agreements with the Coordinated Network in the
establishment of the regional biomonitoring laboratories;
``(B) to develop a publicly available plan for establishing
the State Network in order to meet minimum standards and
procedures as developed by the Coordinated Network under
subsection (a)(4), including the State's
[[Page S10854]]
priorities within the minimum standards, a timeline by which
all the standards will be met, and a plan for coordinating
and expanding existing data and surveillance systems within
the State including any pilot projects established through
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prior to the
date of the enactment of this title;
``(C) to appoint a lead environmental health department or
agency that will be responsible for the development,
operation, and maintenance of the State Network, and ensure
the appropriate coordination among State and local agencies
regarding the development, operation, and maintenance of the
State Network;
``(D) to appoint or hire an environmental health
investigator who meets criteria established by the Secretary
under subsection (a)(4)(G) and who will coordinate the
development and maintenance of the rapid response protocol
established under subparagraph (E);
``(E) to establish a rapid response protocol, coordinated
by the grantee's environmental health investigator, in order
to respond in a timely manner to actual and perceived
incidence and prevalence rates of priority chronic diseases
that are higher than expected, acute and potential
environmental hazards and exposures, and other environmental
health concerns, including warning the public when emergent
public health concerns are detected through the State
Network, and concerns regarding vulnerable subpopulations and
disproportionately impacted subpopulations;
``(F) to establish an advisory committee to ensure local
community input to the State Network; and
``(G) to recruit and train public health officials to
continue to expand the State Network.
``(4) Limitation.--A State, local government, territory, or
Indian tribe that receives a grant under this section may not
use more than 10 percent of the funds made available through
the grant for administrative costs.
``(5) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, a
State, local government, territory, or Indian tribe shall
submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such
form and manner, and accompanied by such information as the
Secretary may specify. The Secretary may not approve an
application for a grant under this subsection unless the
application--
``(A) contains assurances that the State, local government,
territory, or tribe will--
``(i) use the grant only in compliance with the
requirements of this title; and
``(ii) establish such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to ensure the proper
disbursement and accounting of Federal funds paid to the
State, local government, territory, or tribe under the grant;
``(B) contains the assurance that the State, local
government, territory, or tribe will establish a State
Network as required by this subsection; and
``(C) contains assurances that if the State, local
government, territory, or tribe is unable to meet all of the
requirements described in this subsection within the
prescribed time period, the State, local government,
territory, or tribe will use grant funds to increase the
public health infrastructure of the State, local government,
territory, or tribe, acting in cooperation with the
Coordinated Network, in order to implement and maintain a
State Network within 24 months of the receipt of such grant.
``(c) Pilot Projects.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005, a State,
local government, territory, or Indian tribe may apply for a
grant under this subsection to implement a pilot project that
is approved by the Secretary, acting through the Director and
in consultation with the Administrators and the Committee.
``(2) Activities.--A State, local government, territory, or
Indian tribe shall use amounts received under a grant under
this subsection to carry out a pilot project designed to
develop State Network enhancements and to develop programs to
address specific local and regional concerns, including--
``(A) the expansion of the State Network to include
additional chronic diseases or environmental exposures;
``(B) the conduct of investigations of local concerns of
increased incidence or prevalence of priority chronic
conditions and environmental exposures; and
``(C) the carrying out of other activities as determined to
be a priority by the State or consortium of regional States,
local government, territory, or tribe and the Secretary.
``(3) Results.--The Secretary may consider the results of
the pilot projects under this subsection for inclusion into
the Coordinated Network.
``(d) Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 3 months after the
date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary acting
jointly with the Administrators, shall establish an Advisory
Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
``(2) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be
composed of 16 members to be appointed by the Secretary. Each
member of the Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term,
except that the Secretary may appoint the initial members of
the Advisory Committee for lesser terms in order to comply
with the following sentence. In appointing the members of the
Advisory Committee, the Secretary shall ensure that the terms
of 5 or 6 members expire each year. The Advisory Committee
shall include at least 9 members that have experience in the
areas of--
``(A) public health;
``(B) the environment, especially toxic chemicals and human
exposure;
``(C) epidemiology; and
``(D) biomonitoring and other relevant exposure
technologies.
``(3) Reporting.--The Advisory Committee shall not later
than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this title,
and at least once every 12 months thereafter, report to
Congress on the progress of the Coordinated Network.
``(4) Hearings.--The Advisory Committee shall hold such
hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such
testimony, and receive such evidence as the Committee
considers appropriate to carry out the objectives of the
Coordinated Network.
``(5) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
``(A) review and provide input for the Coordinated
Environmental Health Network Report prior to publication, and
make recommendations as to the progress of the Coordinated
Network, including identifying information gaps in the
network;
``(B) assist in developing the minimum standards and
procedures for the State Networks under subsection (a)(4);
and
``(C) provide ongoing public input to the Coordinated
Network.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
``SEC. 2902. INCREASING PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL CAPACITY.
``(a) Schools or Programs of Public Health Centers of
Excellence.--
``(1) Grants.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Secretary
may award grants to at least 5 accredited schools or programs
of public health for the establishment, maintenance, and
operation of Centers of Excellence for research and
demonstration with respect to chronic conditions and relevant
environmental factors.
``(2) Activities.--A Center of Excellence established or
operated under paragraph (1) shall undertake research and
development projects in at least 1 of the following areas:
``(A) Investigating causal connections between chronic
conditions and environmental factors.
``(B) Increasing the understanding of the causes of higher
than expected incidence and prevalence rates of priority
chronic conditions and developing more effective intervention
methods for when such elevated rates occur.
``(C) Identifying additional chronic conditions and
environmental factors that could be tracked by the
Coordinated Network.
``(D) Improving translation of Coordinated Network tracking
results into effective prevention activities.
``(E) Improving the training of public health workforce in
environmental epidemiology.
``(F) Establishing links to the Coordinated Network and the
State Networks to identify associations that warrant further
study.
``(3) Requirements for centers of excellence.--To be
eligible to receive a grant under paragraph (1), a school or
program of public health shall provide assurances that the
school or program--
``(A) meets the minimum requirements as established by the
Secretary in consultation with the Director;
``(B) maintains privacy for public health information if
appropriate to the project; and
``(C) makes public information regarding the findings and
results of the programs.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``(b) John H. Chafee Public Health Scholar Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award scholarships,
to be known as John H. Chafee Public Health Scholarships, to
eligible students who are enrolled in an accredited school of
public health or medicine. The Secretary shall determine both
the criteria and eligibility requirements for such
scholarships, after consultation with the Committee.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,500,000
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``(c) Applied Epidemiology Fellowship Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the
Secretary, acting through the Director, shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists to train and place, in State and
local health departments, applied epidemiology fellows to
enhance State and local epidemiology capacity in the areas of
environmental health, chronic disease, and birth defects and
development disabilities.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,500,000
for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary in
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
``SEC. 2903. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
``(a) Internal Monitoring and Coordination Regarding CDC.--
The Secretary, acting
[[Page S10855]]
through the Director, shall place primary responsibility for
the coordination of the programs established under this title
in the Office of the Director. The officers or employees of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who are
assigned responsibility for monitoring and coordinating the
activities carried out under this title by the Director shall
include officers or employees within the Office of the
Director.
``(b) Funding Through Appropriations Account for Public
Health Improvement.--All authorizations of appropriations
established in this title are authorizations exclusively for
appropriations to the account that, among appropriations
accounts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
is designated `Public Health Improvement'.
``(c) Date Certain for Obligation of Appropriations.--With
respect to the process of receiving applications for and
making awards of grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts under this title, the Secretary, acting through the
Director, shall to the extent practicable design the process
to ensure that amounts appropriated under this title for such
awards for a fiscal year are obligated not later than the
beginning of the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, subject
to compliance with section 1512 of title 31, United States
Code (relating to deficiency or supplemental appropriations),
and other applicable law regarding appropriations accounting.
``(d) Coordination With Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry.--In carrying out this title, the Secretary,
acting through the Director, shall coordinate activities and
responses with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
``(e) Coordination With Existing Pilot Projects Through
CDC.--The Secretary shall integrate the enactment of this
title with all environmental health tracking pilot projects
funded prior to the date of enactment of this title.''.
______
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2954. A bill to authorize the exchange of certain land in Grand
and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. Bennett. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Utah
Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2004, together with my colleague
Senator Hatch. This legislation will ensure the protection of critical
lands along the Colorado River corridor in southeastern Utah and will
help provide important funding for Utah's school children. In Utah we
treasure the education of our children. A key component of our
education system is the 3.5 million acres of school trust lands
scattered throughout the State. These lands are dedicated to the
support of public education. Revenue from Utah school trust lands,
whether from grazing, forestry, surface leasing or mineral development,
is placed in the State School Fund. This fund is a permanent income
producing endowment created by Congress upon statehood to fund public
education. Unfortunately, the majority of these lands are trapped
within federal ownership patterns that make it impossible for
responsible development. It is critical to both the state of Utah and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that we consolidate their
respective lands to ensure that both public agencies are permitted to
fulfill their mandates.
The legislation we are introducing today is yet another chapter in
our State's long history of consolidating these State lands for the
financial well being of our education system. These efforts serve a
dual purpose as they help the Federal land management agencies to
consolidate federal lands in environmentally sensitive areas that can
then be reasonably managed. We see this exchange as a win-win solution
for the State of Utah and its school children, as well as the
Department of the Interior as the caretaker of our public lands.
Beginning in 1998 Congress passed the first major Utah school trust
land exchange which consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres. Again
in 2000, Congress enacted an exchange consolidating another 100,000
acres. I was proud to be instrumental in those efforts, and the bill we
are introducing today is yet another step in the long journey toward
giving the school children the deal they were promised in 1896 when
Utah was admitted to the Union.
The School Trust of Utah currently owns some of the most spectacular
lands in America, located along the Colorado River in southeastern
Utah. This legislation will ensure that places like Westwater Canyon of
the Colorado River, the world famous Kokopelli and Slickrock biking
trails, some of the largest natural rock arches in the United States,
wilderness study areas, and viewsheds for Arches National Park will be
traded into Federal ownership and for the benefit of future
generations. At the same time, the school children of Utah will receive
mineral and development lands that are not environmentally sensitive,
in locations where responsible development makes sense. This will be an
equal value exchange, with approximately 40,000 acres exchanged on
either side, with both taxpayers and the school children of Utah
receiving a fair deal. Moreover, the legislation establishes a
valuation process that is transparent to the public, yet will ensure
the exchange process occurs in a timely manner.
This legislation represents a truly collaborative process. We have
convened all of the players to give us input into this legislation:
local government, the State, the recreation community, the
environmental community and other interested parties. At the same time
we are working closely with the Department of Interior. We introduce
this bill at this late date in this Congress to begin the legislative
portion of our efforts. The state has been working with all of these
groups over the past year at a grass-roots level to address concerns.
As with all legislation this will be a perfecting process and
introduction today marks the beginning of our efforts to work with the
appropriate committees and the Department of Interior to craft a
product over the next few months that will be ready to move at the
beginning of the next Congress.
I urge all of my colleagues to support our efforts to fund the
education of our children in Utah and to protect some of this Nation's
truly great lands. I urge support of the Utah Recreational Land
Exchange Act of 2004.
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 2956. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to provide a support system
for members of the Armed Forces who incur severe disabilities; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of great
importance to our most severely injured troops who are carrying the
battle to the terrorists. This legislation will assist the Department
of Defense by granting reprogramming authority to the Army to transfer
funds to the Army's Disabled Soldier Support System (DS3) and by
expanding the program to cover all the Armed Services.
The Disabled Soldier Support System this legislation will support was
established just this year by the former Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army, General George W. Casey, who realized after visiting severely
wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital that more support was
needed to help these soldiers make the transition from military to
civilian life.
The program the Army currently has in place is budgeted for $ one
million and has a staff of less than 10 people. It is reported to have
helped over 200 soldiers but we have a much larger group of seriously
wounded troops that need our help. Of the nearly 7,000 troops who have
been wounded approximately 57 percent were so severely injured that
they will not be able to return to active duty.
The Administration is doing all it can but we know that the
bureaucracy is sometimes slow to respond and react rapidly to changing
conditions. The Army is not the only Service Component with a growing
patient load. That is why this legislation will expand this worthy
program to all branches of the Armed Services.
The patriots who are wounded while serving in support of our defense
deserve the best care and assistance this Nation can deliver. That is
why I am honored to submit this legislation today. It is my hope that
my colleagues will put their full support behind this legislation and
find a way to get it passed when we return later this year.
I thank my co-sponsors Senator's Kennedy, Burns and Nelson of Florida
along with Congressman ``Dutch'' Ruppersberger who introduced this
legislation in the House in early September and Steve Robinson,
National Gulf War Resource Center, who referred Congressman
Ruppersberger to my office.
[[Page S10856]]
While the current debate continues regarding U.S. foreign policy
there is no debate about doing all that is necessary to help our troops
prevail on the battlefield--or to help those who are severely wounded
on the field of battle to recover and make the transition from military
to civilian life.
As the Chairman of VA-HUD I continue to work with my distinguished
colleague Senator Mikulski to make the transition from the military
support system to the VA support system as seamless as possible. This
legislation will help improve the support system in the Department of
Defense and make the work we are doing with the VA that much easier.
This legislation is vital for the welfare of our troops, their loved
ones and families, and for the Department of Defense and the Department
of Veterans Affairs. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this
bill and work to get it passed before years end.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 2957. A bill to encourage the promotion of democracy, free, fair,
and transparent elections, and respect for human rights and the rule of
law in Ukraine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the
Ukraine Democracy and Fair Elections Act of 2004, designed to promote
free, fair and transparent elections in Ukraine. Like the United
States, Ukraine is currently in the midst of a presidential election
campaign. There is, however, one glaring contrast--all indications are
that the campaign in Ukraine is not fair, not free and not transparent.
The U.S. government has sent a number of high level officials to
Ukraine to tell retiring President Kuchma and Ukraine's Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovych--who is Kuchma's endorsed presidential candidate--
that free and fair elections are essential to Ukraine's standing with
the United States. Similarly, European governments have called upon
Ukraine to hold free and fair elections. But, unfortunately, it appears
that abuses of Ukraine's campaign laws are rapidly escalating.
Ukrainian government officials have continued, without pause, an
aggressive offensive against their opposition. Together with oligarch
beneficiaries of the Kuchma-Yanukovych government they have denied the
opposition access to national media, they have intimidated campaign
workers and opposition supporters at work and at home, they have tried
to prohibit opposition assemblies, and have stopped buses on the way to
opposition rallies. They make a mockery of Ukrainian laws by using
government resources to promote the Yanukovych candidacy, and they are
aggressively manipulating Ukrainian election laws to ensure that they
control the election commission at each of the 40,000 polling place in
the country.
What is at stake here is the future of democracy and perhaps
independence in Ukraine as well as significant United States national
interests in a region that we helped liberate from Communist tyranny
just 15 years ago.
The legislation that I am introducing would prevent senior government
officials, who are personally involved in suppressing free and fair
elections in Ukraine, from obtaining visas to the United States, and
would seize the assets of these corrupt officials, unless the U.S.
President certifies the elections as free and fair. The objective is to
target directly those individuals responsible for the corruption, not
the Ukrainian people as a whole. I would note that similar legislation
has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative
Dana Rohrabacher of California.
I hope this will send a clear message that we stand with the free and
democratic people of Ukraine, but not with those who would pervert
democracy.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
S. 2960. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a
traffic incident management program; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation that calls for a small Federal commitment that would make a
huge impact on the daily lives of all Americans. This legislation, the
Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act, authorizes $1 billion per year over
the next 6 years, which can make a major dent in the amount of time we
sit in traffic everyday.
In February, the Senate approved a six-year highway reauthorization
bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2004, SAFETEA, which authorized $318 billion through 2009
for the Federal highway and transit program. I voted against the bill
for many reasons, but the main reason I could not support the
legislation is that the bill did not meet the funding levels identified
by the U.S. Department of Transportation's needs assessment. The USDOT
identified a $375 billion Federal commitment as necessary to maintain
the current condition and level of congestion on our highways. Just
maintain, not improve.
Additionally, SAFETEA did not contain any specific programs to target
congestion relief. SAFETEA targets funding to construction to add
highway capacity. Although adding capacity to our highway and transit
system is very important, we will never build our way out of
congestion. We must also look at ways to operate and manage the current
system and use resources more efficiently. We must focus on managing
the demand on our road network, especially in larger urban areas,
through innovative approaches and use of new technology. A combination
of operational improvements, including freeway ramp metering, traffic
signal coordination, traveler information and incident management can
accomplish major improvements in daily travel with a small price tag.
Now it looks as though a 6-year highway bill reauthorization will not
be completed this year and the 109th Congress will have to start the
process from scratch. This is a golden opportunity for the Senate to
review the SAFETEA bill and support positive changes to target more
funds to congestion relief.
Mr. President, according to the Texas Transportation Institute, TTI,
at Texas A&M University, which conducts an annual Urban Mobility Report
to study the state of America's urban transportation networks, gridlock
cost Americans $63 billion in 2002 in wasted fuel and lost time. This
is a significant loss that burdens families, individuals, and
businesses. More than 2 in 5 adults report that congestion is a problem
in their community. This number is even higher in major cities.
Such concern is not surprising, considering that the average resident
of many cities in my state experience some of the worst congestion.
Every year a typical resident of Miami and Orlando will lose over 51
hours stuck in traffic. Lost time and wasted fuel will cost each of
these Floridians over $900. In 1982, only 11 hours were lost. This is
not only a Florida problem. Nor is it only a problem here in Washington
DC, or in New York City or Chicago. Even in small urban areas, delay
during peak traveling hours grew 200 percent in the past 20 years.
Across the country, residents of smaller cities like Pensacola,
Charleston, and Colorado Springs could save hundreds of dollars by
making our current road system more efficient.
The Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 would establish a Federal
incident management program to provide funding to states for regional
projects to mitigate the effects of traffic congestion on our roads.
Incident management programs would save taxpayers money by allowing
our roadways to operate at a more optimal level. When a stalled vehicle
or traffic accident blocks a lane of traffic, our roads are not
operating efficiently. The Federal Highway Administration estimates
that every blocked lane creates an average of four minutes of traffic
delay. Furthermore, up to one-third of traffic accidents are secondary
to earlier incidents. What this means is that incidents that are not
cleared quickly run a higher risk of causing more accidents and
increasing delay even further. Results find that 55 percent of
congestion in urban areas and 100 percent of congestion in rural areas
are caused by incidents such as traffic accidents and stalled vehicles.
Incident management programs vary across the country, but include the
cooperative effort of multiple agencies, such as city and county
governments, regional planning councils, local police and firefighters,
HAZMAT teams and
[[Page S10857]]
emergency medical services to detect and verify incidents, manage the
scene, and clear the obstruction in a safe manner. In many cases the
incident management patrols are the first to arrive on the scene of an
accident, and they coordinate Emergency Medical Services, tow trucks,
law enforcement and other service providers. Additionally, they are
able to funnel information to a central traffic command, which can
provide important real-time information to the traveling public.
Some incident management programs offer needed assistance to
travelers by providing services such as a free gallon of gas, changing
a flat tire, a cell phone call, water for an overheated radiator, and
charging a dead battery. In Florida, one way that we have addressed
incident management is through a program called Road Rangers. Road
Ranger trucks continuously rove the expressways looking for stranded
motorists, debris, traffic accidents or other incidents. In 2002, this
program utilized 83 vehicles and performed 279,525 service assists.
This bill would authorize $1 billion per year through 2010, from the
Highway Trust Fund to create and improve programs like Road Rangers.
The funds would be distributed to the states based on their amount of
urbanized areas with greater than 300,000 people. The state would then
be required to allocate the funds to those targeted urban areas. There
are roughly 100 urbanized areas with a population of 300,000 or higher
in 42 states. Urban areas would be required to develop an incident
management plan before receiving direct funding for their program. This
way, all of the stakeholders in a region will have an opportunity to
participate in the design and operation of the incident management
program. The only way it can work is with regional cooperation. The
Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 would fund initiatives like the
current pilot program in Orlando to provide radio and
telecommunications equipment to enhance coordination between Florida
Highway Patrol and Road Rangers. It will also provide needed funding
for incident management training. In 2001, 59 percent of all police
casualties occurred during a response to a traffic incident. Funding
under this bill would give first responders the tools and training
necessary to reduce that risk.
I am proud to introduce this bill today because incident management
works. According to the TTI, incident management has already reduced
delay on our roads by 170 million hours. Had we employed these programs
to all of our congested highways, American would have spent 239 million
less hours on the road. To put this into perspective, it would take the
construction of over 200 miles of a six-lane highway to achieve the
same level of time savings.
Not only are these programs effective, they save far more than they
cost. In States like Minnesota, annual savings from incident management
was estimated at $1.4 million, while program operations amounted to
only $600,000. In Denver, their Courtesy Patrol program has been
estimated to save 10.5 to 16.9 times more than it cost. Although adding
capacity to our highway and transit network is important, it is very
expensive and takes many years to complete. This approach provides a
real solution, which will make a huge impact on congestion in a short
amount of time.
Finally, the Rush Hour congestion Relief Act is supported by our
nation's local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and
transit providers, who are on the front lines of the daily congestion
battle. The act has been endorsed by the National Association of
Counties, National League of Cities, National Association of Regional
Councils, Association for Commuter Transportation, and the Surface
Transportation Policy Project.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to ensure safe and
open roads.
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. 2960
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 ``Rush Hour Congestion Relief
Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 138
the following:
``Sec. 139. Traffic incident management program
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a traffic incident management program in accordance
with this section to assist States and localities in--
``(1) regional traffic incident management program
planning; and
``(2) carrying out projects to mitigate the effects of
traffic delays resulting from accidents, breakdowns, and
other non-recurring incidents on highways.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Funds apportioned to a State under
this section may be used for--
``(1) regional collaboration and coordination activities
that lead to regional traffic incident management policies,
programs, plans, procedures, and agreements;
``(2) purchase or lease of telecommunications equipment for
first responders as part of the development of a regional
traffic incident management program;
``(3) purchase or lease of equipment to support the
clearance of traffic incidents;
``(4) payments to contractors for towing and recovery
services as part of a regional traffic incident management
program;
``(5) rental of vehicle storage or staging areas
immediately adjacent to roadways as part of a regional
traffic incident management program;
``(6) traffic service patrols as part of a regional traffic
incident management program;
``(7) enhanced hazardous materials incident response;
``(8) traffic management systems in support of traffic
incident management;
``(9) traffic incident management training;
``(10) crash investigation equipment;
``(11) other activities under a regional traffic incident
management plan; and
``(12) statewide incident reporting systems.
``(c) Regional Traffic Incident Management Plan.--
``(1) Plan.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
funds apportioned under this section may not be obligated for
an urbanized area with a population greater than 300,000
until such time as a regional traffic incident management
plan is developed for the urbanized area.
``(B) Funds for plan.--An urbanized area described in
subparagraph (A) may use funds apportioned under this section
to develop the regional traffic incident management plan in
accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Plan development.--
``(A) Collaboration.--Any urbanized area described in
paragraph (1) that receives funds apportioned under this
section shall engage in regional collaboration and
coordination activities to develop the regional traffic
incident management plan required for the urbanized area
under that paragraph.
``(B) Plan elements.--The regional traffic incident
management plan for an urbanized area under paragraph (1)
shall include--
``(i) a strategy, adopted by transportation, public safety,
and appropriate private sector participants, for funding,
implementing, managing, operating, and evaluating the traffic
incident management program initiatives and activities for
the urbanized area in a manner that ensures regional
coordination of those initiatives and activities;
``(ii) an estimate of the impact of the plan on traffic
delays; and
``(iii) a description of the means by which traffic
incident management information will be shared among
operators, service providers, public safety officials, and
the general public.
``(d) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section
$1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010.
``(2) Apportionment among states.--Funds made available
under paragraph (1) shall be apportioned among the States in
the proportion that--
``(A) the aggregate population of the State, or part of the
State, in urbanized areas with a population greater than
300,000; bears to
``(B) the total population of all States, or parts of all
States, in those urbanized areas.
``(3) Distribution within states.--Funds apportioned to a
State under paragraph (2) shall be made available to carry
out projects and activities under regional traffic incident
management plans in each urbanized area in the State with a
population greater than 300,000 in the proportion that--
``(A) the population of the urbanized area, or part of the
urbanized area, in the State; bears to
``(B) the total population of all urbanized areas in the
State.
``(e) Determination of Populations.--For the purpose of
determining populations of areas under this section, the
Secretary shall use information from the most current
decennial census, as supplied by the Secretary of
Commerce.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 138 the
following:
``139. Traffic incident management program.''.
[[Page S10858]]
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2963. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify
and reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of broadcast transmission facilities,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Dodd):
2964. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify and
reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless services
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as in years past, I am offering today two
pieces of legislation that would close a loophole in the 1996
Telecommunications Act, and as in years past I am pleased that I am
joined by Senators Jeffords and Dodd.
The catalog of complaints about the 1996 act continues to grow, and
as it becomes more apparent that this flawed statute is in need of
repair, I grow ever more proud that I was one of five Senators to have
voted against that law.
In the coming Congress, we will be revisiting the 1996 Act. While we
should rightly examine the various provisions related to telephone
competition, broadband, and subscriber television rates, there are
other important issues that we need to address.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act contained a provision that allowed
the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the decisions of local
authorities as to the placement of cell phone towers. In 1997, the
Federal Communications Commission seized on the legislative loophole,
proposing an expansive new rule that prevented State and local zoning
laws from regulating the placement of cellular and broadcast towers
based on environmental considerations, aviation safety, or other
locally determined matters. Local and State governments were no longer
empowered to shape the appearance of their communities.
I fought this proposed rule and was joined by many Vermonters,
including former-Governor Dean, the Vermont Environmental Board,
mayors, zoning officials, and numerous others. We took our case to the
Supreme Court and filed an amicus brief, arguing that the preemption of
that local power to regulate land use was a clear violation of the U.S.
Constitution. It is unfortunate that the Court would not hear that
case. It is time to give that control back to the local governments by
enacting my legislation.
The two bills that we are reintroducing today will not tip the
scales, but they will even them out a bit. They will allow local
officials to use State and local regulations to work with the Federal
Government in order to develop the best solutions for the placement of
cell phone and broadcast towers.
Communities across the country understand the growing demand for
cellular services will result in new towers, and they welcome the
improvement in service that this increased infrastructure will bring.
However, they also want to make sure that their towns do not become
little more than pincushions for new cellular towers. These goals are
not mutually exclusive.
I thank again Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd, and I urge my
colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2963
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 ``Local Control of Broadcast
Towers Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The placement, construction, and modification of
broadcast transmission facilities near residential
communities and facilities such as schools can greatly reduce
the value of residential properties, destroy the views from
properties, produce radio frequency interference, raise
concerns about potential long-term health effects of such
facilities, and reduce substantially the desire to live in
the areas of such facilities.
(2) States and local governments have traditionally
regulated development and should be able to exercise control
over the placement, construction, and modification of
broadcast transmission facilities through the use of zoning
and other land use regulations relating to the protection of
the environment, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes
policies to govern interstate and international
communications by television, radio, wire, satellite, and
cable. The Commission ensures compliance of such activities
with applicable Federal laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic
Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such activities.
(4) The Commission defers to State and local authorities
which regulate the placement, construction, and modification
of broadcast transmission facilities through the use of
zoning, construction and building, and environmental and
safety regulations in order to protect the environment and
the health, safety, and general welfare of communities and
the public.
(5) On August 19, 1997, the Commission issued a proposed
rule, MM Docket No. 97-182, which would preempt the
application of most State and local zoning, environmental,
construction and building, and other regulations affecting
the placement, construction, and modification of broadcast
transmission facilities.
(6) The telecommunications industry and its experts should
be expected to have access to the best and most recent
technical information and should therefore be held to the
highest standards in terms of their representations,
assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to confirm that
State and local governments are the appropriate entities--
(1) to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of broadcast transmission facilities consistent
with State and local zoning, construction and building,
environmental, and land use regulations;
(2) to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of broadcast transmission facilities so that
their placement, construction, or modification will not
interfere with the safe and efficient use of public airspace
or otherwise compromise or endanger the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public; and
(3) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the
placement, construction, or modification of broadcast
transmission facilities, and providers of services using such
facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of
representations and statements placed in the record of
hearings for such permits, licenses, or approvals.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARDING PREEMPTION
OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER BROADCAST
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal
Communications Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or
otherwise directly or indirectly implement any portion of the
proposed rule set forth in ``Preemption of State and Local
Zoning and Land Use Restrictions on Siting, Placement and
Construction of Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities'',
MM Docket No. 97-182, released August 19, 1997.
SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND
MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST TRANSMISSION
FACILITIES.
Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 340. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.
``(a) Authority To Require Least Intrusive Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--A State or local government may deny an
application to place, construct, or modify broadcast
transmission facilities on the basis that alternative
technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of
delivering broadcast signals comparable to that proposed to
be delivered by such facilities in a manner that is less
intrusive to the community concerned than such facilities.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining under paragraph (1)
the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or
structures for the transmission of broadcast signals, a State
or local government may consider the aesthetics of such
technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental
impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and
the radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by
such technologies, systems, or structures.
``(3) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of the
exercise of the authority in paragraph (1), the burden shall
be on the applicant.
``(b) Radio Interference.--A State or local government may
regulate the location, height, or modification of broadcast
transmission facilities in order to address the effects of
radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on
local communities and the public.
``(c) Authority To Require Studies and Documentation.--No
provision of this Act
[[Page S10859]]
may be interpreted to prohibit a State or local government
from--
``(1) requiring a person seeking authority to place,
construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities to
produce--
``(A) environmental, biological, and health studies,
engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance
of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits,
radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects
of such facilities on the environment, public health and
safety, and the general welfare of the community and the
public; and
``(B) documentation of the compliance of such facilities
with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety
standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects
effecting navigable airspace; or
``(2) refusing to grant authority to such person to place,
construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction
of such government if such person fails to produce studies,
reports, or documentation required under paragraph (1).
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a
State or local government to ensure compliance with or
otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or
representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an
applicant with the State or local government for authority to
place, construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities
within the jurisdiction of the State or local government.
``(e) Broadcast Transmission Facility Defined.--In this
section, the term `broadcast transmission facility' means the
equipment, or any portion thereof, with which a broadcaster
transmits and receives the radiofrequency waves that carry
the services of the broadcaster, regardless of whether the
equipment is sited on one or more towers or other structures
owned by a person or entity other than the broadcaster, and
includes the location of such equipment.''.
S. 2964
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 ``Local Control of Cellular
Towers Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The placement, construction, and modification of
personal wireless services facilities (also known as wireless
facilities) near residential communities and facilities such
as schools can greatly reduce the value of residential
properties, destroy the views from properties, produce radio
frequency interference, raise concerns about potential long-
term health effects of such facilities, and reduce
substantially the desire to live in the areas of such
facilities.
(2) States and local governments have traditionally
regulated development and should be able to exercise control
over the placement, construction, and modification of
wireless facilities through the use of zoning and other land
use regulations relating to the protection of the
environment, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes
policies to govern interstate and international
communications by television, radio, wire, satellite, and
cable. The Commission ensures the compliance of such
activities with a variety of Federal laws, including the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National
Historic Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such
activities.
(4) Under section 332(c)(7)(A) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A)), the Commission defers to State
and local authorities that regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless facilities through
the use of zoning and other land use regulations.
(5) Alternative technologies for the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless facilities may
meet the needs of a wireless services provider in a less
intrusive manner than the technologies proposed by the
wireless services provider, including the use of small towers
that do not require blinking aircraft safety lights, break
skylines, or protrude above tree canopies.
(6) It is in the interest of the Nation that the
requirements of the Commission with respect to the
application of State and local ordinances to the placement,
construction and modification of wireless facilities (for
example WT Docket No. 97-192, ET Docket No. 93-62, RM-8577,
and FCC 97-303, 62 FR 47960) be modified so as--
(A) to permit State and local governments to exercise their
zoning and other land use authorities to regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of such facilities;
and
(B) to place the burden of proof in civil actions, and in
actions before the Commission and State and local authorities
relating to the placement, construction, and modification of
such facilities, on the person that seeks to place,
construct, or modify such facilities.
(7) PCS-Over-Cable, PCS-Over-Fiber Optic, and satellite
telecommunications systems, including Low-Earth Orbit
satellites, offer a significant opportunity to provide so-
called ``911'' emergency telephone service throughout much of
the United States without unduly intruding into or effecting
the environment, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(8) The Federal Aviation Administration must rely upon
State and local governments to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of telecommunications
facilities near airports or high-volume air traffic areas
such as corridors of airspace or commonly used flyways. The
proposed rules of the Commission to preempt State and local
zoning and other land-use regulations for the siting of such
facilities will have a serious negative impact on aviation
safety, airport capacity and investment, the efficient use of
navigable airspace, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(9) The telecommunications industry and its experts should
be expected to have access to the best and most recent
technical information and should therefore be held to the
highest standards in terms of their representations,
assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To repeal certain limitations on State and local
authority regarding the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless services facilities under
section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 332(c)(7)).
(2) To permit State and local governments--
(A) to regulate the placement, construction, or
modification of personal wireless services facilities with
respect to their impacts on land use, including radio
frequency interference and radio frequency radiation, in
order to protect the environment, public health and safety,
and the general welfare of the community and the public;
(B) to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless services facilities so that
they will not interfere with the safe and efficient use of
public airspace or otherwise compromise or endanger the
public health and safety and the general welfare of the
community and the public; and
(C) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the
placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless
services facilities, and providers of services using such
facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of
representations and statements placed in the record of
hearings for permits, licenses, or approvals for such
facilities.
SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES.
(a) Limitations on State and Local Regulation of
Facilities.--Subparagraph (B) of section 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (iv);
(2) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv); and
(3) in clause (iv), as so redesignated--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``may, within 30
days'' and all that follows through the end of the sentence
and inserting ``may commence an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction. Such action shall be commenced within
30 days after such action or failure to act unless the State
concerned has established a different period for the
commencement of such action.''; and
(B) by striking the third sentence and inserting the
following: ``In any such action in which a person seeking to
place, construct, or modify a personal wireless services
facility is a party, such person shall bear the burden of
proof, regardless of who commences such action.''.
(b) Prohibition on Adoption of Rule Regarding Relief From
State and Local Regulation of Facilities.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Federal Communications
Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or otherwise
directly or indirectly implement any portion of the proposed
rule set forth in ``Procedures for Reviewing Requests for
Relief From State and Local Regulation Pursuant to Section
332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934'', WT
Docket No. 97-192, released August 25, 1997.
(c) Authority Over Placement, Construction, and
Modification of Facilities.--Such section 332(c)(7) is
further amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph (C):
``(C) Additional limitations.--
``(i) Authority to require least intrusive facilities.--
``(I) In general.--A State or local government may deny an
application to place, construct, or modify personal wireless
services facilities on the basis that alternative
technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of
delivering a personal wireless services signal comparable to
that proposed to be delivered by such facilities in a manner
that is less intrusive to the community concerned than such
facilities.
``(II) Considerations.--In determining under subclause (I)
the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or
structures for personal wireless services facilities, a State
or local government may consider the aesthetics of such
technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental
impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the
radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such
technologies, systems, or structures.
``(III) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of
the exercise of the authority
[[Page S10860]]
in subclause (I), the burden shall be on the applicant.
``(ii) Radio interference.--A State or local government may
regulate the location, height, or modification of personal
wireless services facilities in order to address the effects
of radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on
local communities and the public.
``(iii) Authority to require studies and documentation.--No
provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State
or local government from--
``(I) requiring a person seeking authority to place,
construct, or modify personal wireless services facilities to
produce--
``(aa) environmental, biological, and health studies,
engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance
of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits,
radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects
of such facilities on the environment, public health and
safety, and the general welfare of the community and the
public; and
``(bb) documentation of the compliance of such facilities
with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety
standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects
effecting navigable airspace; or
``(II) refusing to grant authority to such person to place,
construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction
of such government if such person fails to produce studies,
reports, or documentation required under subclause (I).
``(iv) Construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph may be
construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a
State or local government to ensure compliance with or
otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or
representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an
applicant with the State or local government for authority to
place, construct, or modify personal wireless services
facilities within the jurisdiction of the State or local
government.''.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 2966. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a nonrefundable tax credit against income tax for individuals who
purchase a residential safe storage device for the safe storage of
firearms; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Safety and
Home Protection Act of 2004, to provide a limited tax credit for
individuals who purchase a gun safe to store firearms in their homes.
Under this legislation, taxpayers would receive a 25 percent credit up
to $250 for the cost of purchasing, shipping, and installing a gun
safe.
We have seen passionate debates in the Senate on political issues
involving guns, but there is no dispute about the importance of
preventing firearms accidents and theft. We all want to make sure guns
do not fall into the hands of people who would mishandle them and cause
accidental harm, or who intend to abuse them for criminal purposes.
Responsible gun owners share those concerns and take safety issues
seriously.
The firearms industry has responded by offering a variety of devices
designed to enhance secure storage and safe use of firearms. Gun safes
have demonstrated their effectiveness in stopping unauthorized access
to their contents, not only protecting valuable guns but also
preventing their accidental or criminal misuse.
With more than 200 million privately-owned firearms in the United
States, this Nation clearly has an interest in encouraging safe gun
storage. The Child Safety and Home Protection Act of 2004 serves that
goal by allowing individuals to keep a little bit of their own hard-
earned dollars to make a key investment in gun safety through the
purchase and installation of a gun safe.
I say to all my colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that the right
to keep and bear arms carries with it a responsibility to use firearms
safely and lawfully, I hope you will join me in supporting this
important measure to promote secure gun storage.
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. 2966
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 ``Child Protection and Home
Safety Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL GUN SAFE PURCHASES.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25B the following new section:
``SEC. 25C. PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL GUN SAFES.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 25
percent of the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer during
such taxable year for the purchase of a qualified residential
gun safe.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) with respect to any qualified residential gun safe shall
not exceed $250.
``(2) Carryforward of unused credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds
the limitation imposed by section 26(a) for such taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under this
subpart (other than this section and section 23), such excess
shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to
the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable
year. No credit may be carried forward under this subsection
to any taxable year following the third taxable year after
the taxable year in which the purchase or purchases are made.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, credits shall be
treated as used on a first-in first-out basis.
``(c) Qualified Residential Gun Safe.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified residential gun safe' means any
container not intended for the display of firearms which is
specifically designed to store or safeguard firearms from
unauthorized access and which meets a performance standard
for an adequate security level. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, compliance with such performance standard must be
established by objective testing.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter with respect to any expense which
is taken into account in determining the credit under this
section.
``(2) Married couples must file joint return.--If the
taxpayer is married at the close of the taxable year, the
credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) only if the
taxpayer and taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for the
taxable year.
``(3) Marital status.--Marital status shall be determined
in accordance with section 7703.
``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to ensure that residential
gun safes qualifying for the credit meet design and
performance standards sufficient to ensure the provisions of
this section are carried out.
``(g) Statutory Construction; Evidence; Use of
Information.--
``(1) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed--
``(A) as creating a cause of action against any firearms
dealer or any other person for any civil liability, or
``(B) as establishing any standard of care.
``(2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, evidence regarding the use or nonuse by a taxpayer of
the tax credit under this section shall not be admissible as
evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or
other entity for the purposes of establishing liability based
on a civil action brought on any theory for harm caused by a
product or by negligence, or for purposes of drawing an
inference that the taxpayer owns a firearm.
``(3) Use of Information.--No database identifying gun
owners may be created using information from tax returns on
which the credit under this section is claimed.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6501(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``25C(e),''
before ``30(d)(4),''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter I of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 25B the following new item:
``25C. Purchase of residential gun safes.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2967. A bill to provide for the implementation of a Green
Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan
legislation, ``The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act,'' with
Senator Rockefeller. Green chemistry is a science-based approach to
pollution prevention, seeking to reduce the chemical impact on the
environment by developing non-toxic technology. The American chemical,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as the American
Chemical Society, support this legislation, which
[[Page S10861]]
promises to speed the development of environmentally benign chemical
technology. I would like to request that a letter in support of this
legislation from Dr. Michael J. Eckardt, Vice President for Research at
the University of Maine, be printed in the Record
Green chemistry research and development improves technology used in
industrial procedures and promotes the design of safer chemicals, the
use of sustainable resources, the use of biotechnology alternatives to
chemistry-based solutions, and an understanding of the chemical aspects
of renewable energy. Clearly, there is a need to promote this emerging
field, still relatively unknown, which furnishes both economic and
environmental rewards--proving that the two are not, in fact, mutually
exclusive.
The legislation establishes a Green Chemistry Research and
Development Program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry
research, development, demonstration, education, and technology
transfer activities, through an interagency working group consisting of
the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. The program would provide sustained support through
merit-based competitive research grants, research and development
partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofit
organizations, and research and development conducted at federal
laboratories.
Green chemistry R & D benefits all regions of our country, but let me
share with you an example of how one company, Correct Deck, located in
Biddeford, Maine, has successfully used green chemistry technology to
grow its business. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency
has issued a stricter arsenic regulation due to concerns about the
public health effects posed by the chemical, which is commonly found in
wood that has been treated to repel insects before being used for
constructing outdoor decks and playground equipment. These EPA
regulations will take effect in 2006. Correct Deck, taking advantage of
a technology brought about through green chemistry research and
development, manufactures a wood composite--a blend of sawdust and
plastic--that closely resembles the boarding used on wood decks. Yet
this composite does not splinter, requires less maintenance than wood,
is not susceptible to termites, and most importantly, contains no
harmful chemicals. By staying ahead of the curve, Correct Deck has seen
sales of its wood composite skyrocket, and has since been striving to
meet the ballooning demand for non-arsenic treated products for decks.
Thus an environmental benefit also proves profitable.
The breadth of green chemistry's positive impact on our lives extends
far beyond decks. Also in the process of development are next-
generation pesticides that target specific insects while avoiding harm
to other species, and, through steadfast commitment to avoiding
environmental harm, are designed to degrade into harmless materials
after serving their purpose, rather than dangerously persisting in the
environment. Green chemistry R & D is also discovering methods for
using carbon dioxide as a feedstock for industrial processes, rather
than as a harmful byproduct, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I could continue, but the windfalls are just too many to enumerate
here. From removing public health threats, to enhancing worker safety,
to contributing to the battle against human-induced global warming, the
multiple benefits of green chemistry research and development are truly
exciting, which is why this legislation has strong support from both
environmentalists and the chemical industry. One of many chemical
company executives singing the praises of green chemistry R & D, David
Buzzelli of Dow Chemical Company aptly stated, ``Green chemistry
technology is testament that when we merge our environmental commitment
with innovative chemistry, we can create results that benefit our
customers and society.''
My colleagues, by passing this bipartisan legislation and thereby
coordinating and supporting ongoing green chemistry research and
development, we speed these benefits along to all Americans by acting
both as stalwart environmental stewards and innovative supporters of
environmentally friendly industrial processes. I strongly urge you to
support this legislation--and to consider the business opportunities
and environmental benefits that the promising field of green chemistry
could bring to your respective states.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The University of Maine,
Orono, ME, September 13, 2004.
Hon. Olympia Snowe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: We request your support for legislation
pending in the Senate to provide for the implementation of a
green chemistry research and development program. The
University of Maine is a member of the New England Green
Chemistry Consortium and we are working with several
businesses in Maine to introduce green chemistry
manufacturing techniques and processes to improve
manufacturing productivity and help the environment. Federal
investments in green chemistry research and development would
support the University's efforts to advance green chemistry
practices in Maine and the New England states.
As you may know, on April 21, 2004 the House of
Representatives passed HR 3970, the Great Chemistry Research
and Development Act. The bill was referred to the Senate
Commerce Committee on April 22. We request your support for
this legislation in the Senate.
Federally funded research at the University of Maine on
green chemistry technologies would enhance our work in the
area of natural resource processing. Specifically, UM would
expand work on interfacial aspects of polymeric based
composite materials, including primarily paper, and wood
composites. The paper industry would benefit from development
of solvent free release coatings, coatings for solvent free
inks, and water based gravure printing. UM would also expand
its work to help Maine's emerging extruded wood/thermoplastic
composites industry develop new water based coatings and
adhesive systems to replace current solvent based methods and
chemistries that involve formaldehyde.
Thank you for considering this request and for your
continued support for research at the University of Maine.
Sincerely yours,
Michael J. Eckardt, Ph.D.,
Vice President for Research.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Warner, Mr. Daschle,
Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2968. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to address the
shortage of influenza vaccine, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. 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. 2968
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 ``Emergency Flu Response Act
of 2004''.
SEC. 2. EMERGENCY FLU RESPONSE.
Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Subtitle 3--Influenza Vaccine
``SEC. 2141. DEFINITION.
``In this subtitle, the term `priority group' means a group
described as a priority group for vaccination with influenza
vaccine in recommendations entitled `Interim Influenza
Vaccination Recommendations - 2004-2005 Influenza Season',
dated October 5, 2004, or any successor to such
recommendations issued by the Secretary.
``SEC. 2142. EMERGENCY ACCESS TO INFLUENZA VACCINE.
``(a) Declaration of Emergency.--
``(1) In general.--Under section 564(b)(1)(C) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-
3(b)(1)(C)), the Secretary shall immediately declare the
shortage of influenza vaccine in the United States for the
2004-2005 influenza season to be an emergency justifying an
authorization for a product under section 564 of such Act (21
U.S.C. 360bbb).
``(2) Determination.--For the purpose of making
determinations under section 564(b)(1)(C) of such Act to
carry out paragraph (1), the Secretary--
``(A) shall deem the shortage to be a public health
emergency described in such section; and
``(B) shall deem influenza virus to be a biological agent.
``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
considered to invoke the authorities described in section
319, or to limit the ability of the Secretary to invoke such
authorities.
[[Page S10862]]
``(b) Seeking Influenza Vaccine.--The Secretary shall
promptly consult with the health ministries of Canada,
countries that are members of the European Union as of
January 1, 2003, Japan, and Switzerland to assess the
availability of influenza vaccine for the 2004-2005 influenza
season that--
``(1) has been approved, licensed, or otherwise cleared for
marketing by the relevant regulatory agency in such a
country; and
``(2) is in excess of the needs in such country for the
vaccination of persons at high risk for complications from
influenza.
``(c) Issuance of Authorization.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promptly evaluate
available influenza vaccine (as identified under subsection
(b)) to determine whether the vaccine meets the criteria for
issuance of an authorization under section 564(c) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(c)).
``(2) Criteria.--For the purpose of making determinations
under section 564(c) of such Act to carry out paragraph (1),
the Secretary--
``(A) shall deem influenza virus to be an agent that can
cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and
``(B) shall deem the shortage described in subsection
(a)(1) to be sufficient evidence that there is no alternative
described in section 564(c)(3).
``(d) Vaccine Purchase.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004,
the Secretary shall purchase, at a reasonable price,
available influenza vaccine identified under subsection (b)
for which the Secretary has issued an authorization under
section 564(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(c)).
``(e) Vaccine Distribution.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall promptly import and
distribute any influenza vaccine purchased under subsection
(d), giving first priority to persons in priority groups.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.
``SEC. 2143. EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO VACCINE SHORTAGES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award a grant to
each State to allow such State to develop and implement a
plan to respond to the shortage of influenza vaccine in the
United States for the 2004-2005 influenza season.
``(b) Use of Funds.--A State that receives a grant under
this section shall use the funds made available through a
grant under subsection (a) to develop--
``(1) a voluntary plan to ensure that the influenza vaccine
is, to the maximum extent possible, administered to priority
groups;
``(2) a system to notify health care providers about
revisions in guidelines for administering influenza vaccine;
``(3) an awareness campaign to inform the public about
recommendations concerning groups that are priority groups
for vaccination with influenza vaccine; and
``(4) procedures to allow for the voluntary donation of
vaccine as described in section 2145.
``(c) Amount.--The amount of a grant under subsection (a)
shall be proportional to the population of the State and the
severity of the shortage of influenza vaccine in such State,
as determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.
``SEC. 2144. EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF THE NATION'S INFLUENZA
VACCINE SUPPLY.
``(a) Manufacturers.--Not later than 15 days after the date
of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004 and
every 30 days thereafter, any person who manufactures
influenza vaccine for introduction into interstate commerce
shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a summary report
that lists--
``(1) each client, both public and private, who purchased
influenza vaccine from the manufacturer during the period
covered by the report; and
``(2) the number of doses of influenza vaccine sold to each
client during the period.
``(b) State Public Health Agencies.--To be eligible to
receive a grant under section 2143(a), a State through its
public health agency shall, not later than 15 days after the
date of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004
and every 30 days thereafter, prepare and submit to the
Secretary a summary report describing--
``(1) the number of doses of influenza vaccine available in
the State during the period covered by the report;
``(2) the number of such doses that were given to each
priority group during that period; and
``(3) to the extent that such information is readily
obtainable by the State, the manner in which such doses were
distributed to consumers during such period, such as by
distribution through public health agencies or private health
care providers.
``SEC. 2145. CLEARINGHOUSES FOR VOLUNTARY DONATION OF
INFLUENZA VACCINE.
``The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and each
State public health agency described in section 2144(b),
shall establish a clearinghouse to--
``(1) enable persons to voluntarily donate influenza
vaccine doses; and
``(2) distribute the doses for administration to
individuals in priority groups.
``SEC. 2146. PURCHASES OF INFLUENZA VACCINE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program
through which the Secretary may--
``(1) purchase from private employers, vaccine wholesalers,
and other appropriate individuals and entities, doses of
influenza vaccine that are not needed for the vaccination of
priority groups; and
``(2) distribute the doses purchased under paragraph (1)
for administration to individuals in priority areas.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.
``SEC. 2147. USE OF INFLUENZA VACCINE.
``(a) Executive Branch.--The head of each Executive agency
(as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code)
shall ensure that any influenza vaccine in the possession of
the head of the agency shall--
``(1) be administered only to employees of the agency who
are in priority groups; and
``(2) provide to the Secretary any doses of the vaccine
that are not needed for the vaccination of individuals in
priority groups, so that the Secretary can distribute the
doses for administration to individuals in the priority
groups.
``(b) Legislative Branch.--The Attending Physician of the
Capitol shall ensure that any influenza vaccine in the
possession of the Attending Physician shall--
``(1) be administered only to employees of the legislative
branch of the Federal Government who are in priority groups;
and
``(2) provide to the Secretary any doses of the vaccine
that are not needed for the vaccination of individuals in
priority groups, so that the Secretary can distribute the
doses for administration to individuals in the priority
groups.
``SEC. 2148. ENHANCING EXISTING COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST
INFLUENZA.
``(a) Authorization to Purchase.--The Secretary may,
subject to amounts appropriated under subsection (d),
purchase at a reasonable negotiated price, such additional
amounts of any drug approved by the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs to treat influenza as are determined necessary by the
Secretary.
``(b) Addition to Stockpile.--The Secretary shall include
any drug purchased under subsection (a) in the stockpile
established under section 121 of the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
``(c) Increasing the Effectiveness of Existing Vaccine
Supplies.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of the
National Institutes of Health, shall conduct a clinical trial
or trials to determine whether influenza vaccine can be
diluted and continue to retain its effectiveness in
preventing influenza in individuals in priority groups.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.
``SEC. 2149. NATIONAL QUARANTINE COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--There is established the National
Quarantine Compensation Program to be administered by the
Secretary under which compensation shall be paid to
individuals who are subjected to an order of quarantine
issued by a Federal or State health agency.
``(b) Amount.--An individual's compensation under the
National Quarantine Compensation Program shall be equal to
wages lost as a result of such individual being subjected to
the quarantine.
``(c) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated and there are hereby appropriated to carry out
subsections (a) and (b) such sums as may be necessary.
``SEC. 2150. EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS RELATING TO
FEDERALLY MANDATED HEALTH-RELATED QUARANTINE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Employer.--The term `employer'--
``(A) means any person engaged in commerce or in any
industry or activity affecting commerce; and
``(B) includes--
``(i)(I) any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in
the interest of a person described in subparagraph (A) to any
of the employees of such person; or
``(II) any successor in interest of a person described in
subparagraph (A);
``(ii) any public agency, as defined in section 3(x) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(x));
``(iii) the Government Accountability Office, the
Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress; and
``(iv) all other legislative branch entities identified as
employing offices in the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).
``(2) Employment benefits.--The term `employment benefits'
means all benefits provided or made available to employees by
an employer, including group life insurance, health
insurance, disability insurance, sick leave, annual leave,
educational benefits, and pensions, regardless of whether
such benefits are provided by a practice or written policy of
an employer or through an employee benefit plan, as defined
in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002).
``(3) Secretary.--
[[Page S10863]]
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B), the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of
Labor.
``(B) Exceptions.--In the case of actions brought regarding
employees--
``(i) of the Government Accountability Office, the term
`Secretary' means the Comptroller General of the United
States;
``(ii) of the Government Printing Office, the term
`Secretary' means the Public Printer;
``(iii) of the Library of Congress, the term `Secretary'
means the Librarian of Congress; and
``(iv) of any other legislative branch employer, the term
`Secretary' means the Office of Compliance.
``(b) Employment Rights, Benefits, and Protection from
Discrimination.--
``(1) Restoration to position.--Any individual subjected to
an order of quarantine issued by a Federal or State health
agency shall be entitled, on return from such quarantine--
``(A) to be restored by the employer of such individual to
the position of employment held by the individual when the
quarantine of such individual commenced; or
``(B) to be restored to an equivalent position with
equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
``(2) Benefits.--An individual restored to such
individual's position, or equivalent position, pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be entitled to the seniority and other
rights and benefits that the individual had on the date when
the quarantine of such individual commenced, plus the
additional seniority and rights and benefits that the
individual would have attained had the individual not been
subjected to a federally mandated health-related quarantine.
``(3) Protection from discrimination.--It shall be unlawful
for an employer to discharge or in any other manner
discriminate against any individual on the basis of such
individual's being, or having been, subjected to a federally
mandated health-related quarantine.
``(c) Investigative Authority; Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure compliance
with the provisions of subsection (b) and enforce violations
of subsection (b).
``(2) Same authorities.--In order to carry out paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall have the same authorities as
provided to the Secretary under sections 106 and 107 of the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 209 and 210)
to ensure compliance with and enforce violations of the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
``(d) State and Local Laws.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to supersede any provision of any State or local
law that provides greater rights than the rights established
under this section.''.
``SEC. 2151. ASSURING THAT INDIVIDUALS IN PRIORITY GROUPS
RECEIVE VACCINES.
``(a) Determinations.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004,
and every 30 days thereafter, the Secretary shall review the
effectiveness of measures taken under sections 2142 through
2147 and determine whether the measures have ensured the
distribution of influenza vaccine for administration to
individuals in priority groups. If the Secretary determines
that the measures have not ensured that distribution, the
Secretary--
``(1) may take the actions described in subsection (b) if
the Secretary determines that such actions are needed to
protect the public health; and
``(2) shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress
of such determination.
``(b) Assuring the Individuals in Priority Groups Receive
Vaccines.--On making the determination described in
subsection (a), the Secretary may require that a person, not
including a person that is a manufacturer of influenza
vaccine, who possesses influenza vaccine sell such person's
supply of the influenza vaccine to the Federal Government, as
an exercise of the Federal Government's power to take private
property for public use, for just compensation.
``(c) Prioritization.--The Secretary shall distribute the
doses of influenza vaccine obtained under subsection (b) in a
manner determined appropriate by the Secretary to ensure that
such vaccine is administered to individual in priority
groups.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Jack
Reed in introducing the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' I
commend him for his leadership on this important issue. I also commend
our colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, for their thoughtful
proposal.
The Emergency Flu Response Act gives the nation's health agencies the
tools they need to respond to the current shortage of flu vaccine, to
protect the public health from the danger of influenza and to maximize
the value of our reduced vaccine stocks.
During last year's flu season, we experienced unprecedented public
demand for the flu vaccine. Fears that last year's flu strain was more
virulent than those of previous years fueled the public's demand and
resulted in the administration of all 87 million doses produced.
Anticipating a similar demand for this upcoming flu season, the two
companies that manufacture the flu vaccine planned to produce 100
million doses for the United States.
On Tuesday, one of those companies lost its license due to
manufacturing concerns and is unable to ship approximately 48 million
doses. In one day, America lost about half the country's supply of the
flu vaccine--and fifteen States have lost their entire supply of
influenza vaccine for adults.
Clearly, Congress should take action to strengthen the Nation's
supply of flu vaccine. My colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig,
have offered thoughtful proposals on strengthening the flu vaccine
supply in future years, and these proposals merit careful consideration
by Congress. Many members of our Health committee have also shown great
leadership on vaccine issues.
Due to the long period of time necessary to produce more vaccine,
however, measures to increase the supply of new vaccine will have
little effect on the current shortage.
We must make every effort to see whether additional flu vaccine can
be found. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to seek to purchase additional vaccines available in Europe, Canada or
Japan, and directs the FDA to review those vaccines using the flexible
and expedited review process provided under the Project BioShield
legislation. We should also provide NIH with the resources and the
clear direction to determine whether existing flu vaccine stocks can be
diluted and still retain their effectiveness. NIH provided a valuable
service to the nation by conducting similar studies with smallpox
vaccine.
These measures may increase the effective supply of vaccine available
to the nation, but even these measures may not be sufficient to meet
the nation's needs. With flu season imminent, Congress must take steps
immediately to give our health agencies the resources and authority
they need to make best use of the supply currently available.
Our health professionals should make sure that those most at risk for
complications from flu get vaccinated first. We must learn from the
lessons from last year's flu season and use that knowledge to ensure
that at Americans at highest risk have priority access to the flu shot.
We must act quickly. We know that there are 54 million doses
available and we need to ensure that every one of them reaches those at
highest risk of complications from flu. The bill provides funding for
states to develop plans to effectively distribute vaccines to high
priority groups. It also requires the tracking of available vaccines,
so that doses can be directed to those who need it most.
Many employers contract directly with vaccine manufacturers to
provide a supply of vaccines for their workforce. Our bill establishes
a vaccine clearinghouse to facilitate the voluntary donation of vaccine
from individuals or companies with employees at low risk of infection
to individuals at high risk. Further, this bill gives HHS the ability
to purchase vaccine back from employers and wholesalers for
redistribution.
The Federal government should set an example of good vaccination
practices. Our bill requires Federal Departments and the Attending
Physician of the Capitol to abide by CDC recommendations on who should
receive vaccine. If Members of Congress and their staffs cannot reserve
flu vaccine for those most in need, how can we ask the American public
to do so?
We must also learn from Canada's experience with the SARS outbreak in
Toronto last year. During that outbreak, many people were forced to
remain home from work to prevent the spread of SARS. Some lost their
wages during that time, and some even lost their jobs. Even more
worrisome is that some people ignored the quarantine orders out of fear
of repercussions at work. Our bill will assure that those who lose
wages in complying with a Federal or State quarantine order will be
fully compensated, and will be protected from losing their employment
or related benefits.
Finally, we must recognize that voluntary measures may not be enough
to
[[Page S10864]]
avert a crisis. For this reason, the legislation gives HHS emergency
authority to require that vaccine supplies be administered to those in
highest need if it determines that voluntary measures have failed, and
that to do otherwise would pose a significant danger to the public
health.
Let's not let history repeat itself. We need to be prepared for flu
vaccine shortages and influenza pandemics in the future, and we need to
respond effectively to the current shortage. I urge my colleagues to
support the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' We face a crisis,
and Congress should not delay in enacting this needed legislation.
____________________